ML20094K165

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Handwritten Document Summarizing Util Response to NRC Questions 24,45 & 47 on Permanent Dewatering Re Geotechnical Engineering Issues.Meeting Summaries Encl
ML20094K165
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 10/12/1981
From:
CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX16-064, CON-BX16-64, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408140562
Download: ML20094K165 (32)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.M M'"% f' O e 4,' #%.N ga 4 =E-.9'r-

h. e e 9y g
  • ,4

.W gr'-

  • W E

"ONh48'Nw. -M e-elm ' eMhA6 Whmwe a 4w p.. +=Wg,w h. - y w,p, 1' Oc.b. tz,) mi k h M D - N I M M Y D A h M,l N b lo k J. be. 9/a/ L e summay 4 oco % pnseb ac goeams 24,45 4 4.7 on yennaned dewd6<tg cdabe b ' geobMenco.\\ evignee.nn3 issues. 4 M o ?. b da.o 4 Mt.r q, den 4 3c. rotk. f.0adala's Ackon pdenh,1%o \\. al iguchc;Tow coverec, ' i aMoykJ %wMe L eos ue. k yeac ground ac.c.ekva,c,go.ig. q Acalcolded % <mn,mu, wr %Ix. fquired b have a F.S.= 1.5dynd pe. f ldre.,assuw,m 4 GWT @ El(o)o ord usiny No h othtow ( L}ed-Idre.s by%ed anal sts ogroach (.w/M%).h pi y dcakd a R$uwed M= 14.Qwr @.El Gio \\ k)=19 GGu e.Ei, 59 5. S_.bw,.) 250 svrwins on ceLesionie:s soil (bo% mbi t.Il sous and plantSli-inded.J sands o.,d A '< d.ypod ) minirnom 9T wts(4,ck M{ aile 27 svryake wrep4, 41 bet w ti.un h 3 %)nd.4 cdela F,S.=L5 O.23 4.he ch woe on ykJ ?,1) mana\\ and hers on nalww soils,(bil3 36 +esk -%kJ h w>u.bnin,<.so svrvrkna bh n 4.he se hb ee. sw nabal soils M Lad ytant 41i eveabll fu.ed overy W p rrkom\\ sosh.%kla Mcun be ubcods ,incuoted y r ej 2.'b ko com%nia,h J r Mncaa5 pcbVt p a a ! c4ubden port.m+ % hijo s r<ack s9Te a det. cba wookt wohccued 3 B h oep% 23 ser w %),3 w a vit +. m %,,,,, _ seren k 6.c4 - !d 9 ara.lowd Arc avnedd masunu ME >er iuwe L $E$ 74 k9 vneas0(efwdl Hs AnA fMct t Y)%f de D6th. Stwce. feme 9 an. cx concern, %dact canclodes M Moce 9 Leccrnons - -- L

~... D e ~. . - - - - -. = - j f Y, - Oc} iz,08 i 24h j J bt. i i mdicdt bo -conhocos,. a ers E itVa a <e, oc,o i P 2 A,peft of. core. toLes,tonless sods)g.am M LloVeFAcT, io1J M n l SonLS BELoto Pt c=VATiM (olO is hjoT A. PLAJT. SAFETY. l PP30blEvi m TE G,WT \\s MAawTA4 UFh A.T' oR BElow E.LE\\)ATtow) ( \\o G,s does, ' ok address le, soils above. Ei.6\\0 w dick ct(e, considend icgechable.) SUMMpdN OF CPCo havevoc h Od"

2..n fe,syome.+o bdala's ctveshons (A. n,1 eol, CPCo responc3 -

aQ47. i 4 9 &I-hCl.Donn3 oRvm ovERNTiotj 4p,rmanedclederiq sysb,A6%1l N 7 b _%idas-e2 Ar oSL DEt.oV EL. 595. (hnkpklow eb/. G Fas 'n order h vnainbEi.595 )

h. Abuk.A cm b i{. swr were.4 ftse a6 a.sss. in a per,numf cEsew hcn weji,pewer cr w,anitoring wat ? As operdowm Ted, sac mi) %r0 (M)T$curv3.sas (3 ven ed,A pm,3 rJe e

(2 s me.nmeo sunk mueash mis, qalQ opron3 wells et fo$n twa.serva hc%vy inbre$ re eh d d creci wds kR 4'1 lMdt u sI L%p r wous an /or sa 3 S realkR S y)6 carmn66 4 we$b,se,,r-% so6, hoe,ms%liin f k w.m. -bdeM anpablon(,m$il ;% tpa. reap,pp (c I 6,'evd swin of bedi v<e.,2rc. ra es will & checsed. l ~4)ektb. sf perv.re.ro6i I @we 6. s6md Llx.1,.kec,,a BA l

aAs, A

f rey 6,em prts os sne uli x nyirei @rryb

aps, k

~ -=

1 od,) 981 r .a. m Lc C =4-3 $4 hh, (.6.h.ci-i wL.L w adib, k ske~m3 .c=6 4en.ak obsendon Js locad i i l 9% ckse<4on Js aho 6.s puma,emb pesomehrs k mcnib3 ds) l bs {o< rekchng bhon op pmaned obserabn J k pewdr l

t. LIAoe i c<,hcal sbche
2. bad loc 40, b cLc.t. tgu.hness c'. demby syb i

3.bbe wb bac.4il oc narat cards ~

1. Lek repce k c6 s in c. colin 3 H levet f

5.hi, owe Smao duin3 oar pmpiv,3 %h

6. kpnstto %ws6cbn c6bn3 pe.mmewT muTeanv uwu (

.Tnue. are. su welis -ge< p<m%ent,no h<in3 Gd.47-id.Two ave. l 3 rw %L, L are.er sw shb\\chbah,il> u be ce,An 04 %,ae W % 6 d k e g @ m. O,Wm p near L ibr3 i 3 3 n ckwckvmpell. il m4 me.<e.b a<ue. 3 bc.h TERMMJEWT inoNITo1DNG WELs will ca.ibn OLTPAuc. l.EdELhninEF i M wu. ceuoun.1 (ecortl C4JT \\eveh.9 GWT Ei,MS u ye_adtdG,awg k k e4 p.frnaned monikfsm,a 9ED uST uu. n.hsn-on conkoi pd e{. b.N hm. Men.r6ang Wdl oIso cadaias dE4 CasapanJ80pn femiler. " I Of-c4.on obosonic, kevd hensynbr'. ) g .._._._..,..-----._.-._w-4 @u .-p. -m v. e*. w%- -.,..e___ g

/- ca.a, w a(g- ? l Reco%endchons b P. Adab Rs.t d TP_.sT ow vegmAweur 1EW ATE?.iM6 GDTEM 1.\\hn pd @.a.to27 cide %a r-oceAca osssumw uutt a yloM eNAevdye< sus % 4b$ a sW4 A N. devinhn

2. 6Anue/sLh@gqder

.dovni wdev reacks EMio in encl wel erz. A som f 44 nm snkvok of o%d @c fcpr i and kb dvwA m&do %g uk bdown (.skodd re. pie mnsocc.ersbl S. eu.eecd -whicheve occ.un $rd. C.% resyonse. b Nic Lt (.See p.47-(o( Al-U b kno% 4 mve.en Lowubo e! C.D wh condock 9\\ sc4 Sek J chwsleon3 s3em 4hv G WT k d k cochwS powcl is d 3,627, %I Gun vs.Mme c.ones will 6 ple? rec a han14uedagewe d %K owd Airce b. (.Eieu. evolo 2 est wil de.mowskok. %F be.u more. 6 90 c gs i reckov3e_ be. kj ce swT veo6es a. un e hAog.14-t eg.f p e i. ,~ \\

...~~ -.. - ~.. ....;c, ...a ,7..._-._. _ _.. 1 e, 4121 & 4 ld I Abc f SOMMP4L OF-RESPoMSE %QC. b Q2.h fi Y bt v.a< <3 e k [ <

)

. b oh h 3 ReS2& wi y,J, ?n w.(ete,w h C o h n 1%c p4 Mllowi$ m 3rmc,hn er me. ik.a I ci-- dcwders, s3sh.-, ~ l ~ Only M wtus cri. (oprul b _twrlAtt.1 lowv b.GwI (2oin hvc3 +.eQs psmp3 k he twr o toy <J -o.,g 21wdts a,hc.gkt b 6 ne&y b Ehg, each ow< cd3 pM h 2.4.$eYl2 fvmp o, e, f q d AHmm 22 y bcup(nar c( N. &Lwds he hctc-Vf [Ls an ctdhsml ZowellJ a d p.,,r k h te ) w n t-4 % a a s s E c.c.k s A m e o,ble 6 cogd y e 6 to GM vo,; %edLke:,% % Lwelb kea %I weQu h,., deak,p.m y l l CAntrv M ~ bV4 cakCd{n D d W ld to I bi ElfolO th b NIlRE &anfspmweaA+ %*3 ?Rc@sen mcowG 4=Mch sph,4, lux. o. Mooihr,$ 4 grcAb levels l

b. VenccLc hiky @ yce J w br p l}9 c.. % h -9 oc L o e % k e to & b,,,,, p n FJ W s e L y re,.. d Sc _. vet /

d 1 f I

d. imkil G cbsuvcb sits Q%%sw mien i wn,y ck<,ce3 Lw9 esc essu>e,2 ew-ceov wav,es A4.wweem i

z I b.Bo hwycshan wells alrw.l3 inshlle t will he s&ckJ fee E. h nun,bv 9 c c i w - r m.,,Wim q.M'M k.IO kg dec(%se i i Wek! ksciency OAG A WE.LL, will bvc c4 I cbservahon pp. d/glh< pce dea. Gvr c,o /4 mweed emPci/nue % od .,yul Q accchi pmpy raks 9. Me n. tar n-e,ll w necred coet a C-A w au,,, N. Wlub UCV LS k N6LL cc 6MP fw2LLS Y,e tNcfGudLE - cleum,9 aj f we -- nec a r<yl-scen - inhat new As.pell E h U he Apkamegh yods S j u

i

>.$. +,se; s ~, _. e

6 ve9=****%

  • e,

~s w -s 4 y .,,y-,e r* ~

        • +e-

=_ SOMMM.1 of REJPW3Epk k di ~ pn ii e % %g g g h+'7 &N cMew 4 s, ss 41 ua za 4ur ss p % 42-1 ' ig?g* 7 c.ssLbr bbfsh~ (kson d 4.GrelA leab L. g.42-n %u%.~ A Yg"* P-c_9co bcdua L.- Tesh b b,mes b ) Po A t c\\ u w h l\\s g.42-1 be k siahn[q chwahnh schykm y Acw wett ts

t. %khtes61i Merm.ee cwohAn 4.marmt

! % $ (h W w g A coarse 6, o.cs Lw sa sa A s a A.,2 s d f4g 2 4 4g, wee wrrs he,+mL ea escee9s %

h.Q$

t -ft J <s miscTe2 i Docueceo qs%. 2. a c w N w s w m a p a s m %amow / d.D4hy 541L1PLES Scm ha. C0m6 web 315IEM CVtejnw' [ o<e.Ttsrea hcia._ c weec @ ees,h. LL.Cckulad(qq. %ce fa.ko,\\ \\ u k tv w k 'E. L n d m kble, 4 \\ 4 @ c.c<,ce#dtoo since wmp$ ko,, E%CEE95 lop k%%t (**ff;p]

$ J9 f

% seca 6c6r mo 24,3 3 coyvydr s,fedo,,.K u,<pe, p c crechd e"v' 4 a6,mumam,u.a L A ww o,u m wdi,oc wd s gy b mehria.l c,e locubl I remeaJ % b s.pb 3 41-th met L.giawbda,u,e so.J c-tac a L. uemoeo TageeTimes a uueec. 4, %t nasr wees. moce. waec bu4h c)uimen,hel epmfe, 7 . t6 me,W, 8 p V e+m' q

MANHOLE COVER o -, y.,.g y,y g -- - l \\ ' ~ % var'5W ~~ ~~ l MONITORING ' EQUIPMENT b '] W ~ PRECAST CONCRETE N g g MANHOLE ._. n, i+ ~ n :s l] o IA

w. I.

GROUT SEAL ] Ml Q ^ = t -l y' .o E i BENTONITE SEAL i l a TOP OF SCREEN ly6" DI AMETER - WELL CASING 1 o -l i s e X l 4 h k --6" PVC WELL SCREEN 6 CENTRALIZERS t, I rGRAVEL PACK p BOTTOM OF SCREEN 1 (. 6" BLANK PVC CASING / 4 ('> i f PIEZOMETER TIP AND 3 A l/2" PVC RISER PIPE s s t f t > e s i BOTTOM OF GR AVEL e' PACK % CCAPPED AT BOTTOM 14' Mig i i T1Ptc84 i PERMANEWr MoNfibhW6 NOT TO SCALE gggggQ i i =i.e. ,,,r. .1 c' '.: ;. m. _.;. me.... s..a...m.. m. m.... e. r. s s. m., e. n,... g a..t z.. u.._g s,,, _g e e m.,, m.3 en=.. : . k~ ~ . r..- s.- g=. ef ..,[ .f m + ~,.n..,.:.=g n<~.., w.,, ~:*=.. w.% . :+ -"**N"- -w ....,../... m.-. g m :n.w...n=,--...... t-u..,,.

. - - -.. ::L.-..- - - --.

T h

l!NG GRADE WELL SEAL MANHOLE COVER I'L.'634..O' ,.,,,,- ~ \\ /

myi,
  1. ?

STEEL SLEEVE - Q,,l" DRAI N _LINE ~ GROUT SEAL l1. !; DISCHARGE PIPING y 7th)-

y -

) W DISCHARGE PIM

lTLESS ADAPTOR'

= l l k g s l l BACKFILL I l Skfkb TE SEAL l TOP OF SCREEN l ! l DN -6" BL ANK PVC CASING

EINFORCED I" FIBERGLASS,

jl l l q ; / elSCHARGE PIPE 4 l t 4 ^6" PVC WELL SCREEN JT HIGH-LOW LEVEL N -GR AVEL PACK \\ AlN A -CENTR ALIZE RS T l ' (h s I BOTTOM OF SCREEN N J PERM ANENT PUMP, WlRE AF q, DISCHARGE PIPING l s I / > PIEZOMETER TIP AND ll,[yl 1/2" PVC RISER PIPE { 'j 6" BLANK PVC CASING i l BOTTOM OF GRAVEL / l> PACK g}$ K gig -CAPPED AT BOTTOM i TipicAL i PP.RMAL*Mr lHE.WATi!Ri% NOT TO SCALE DE t b .smpurpkruutthem MiDt.AND 4n4 n%adt W j<.ma.w.c4 Et9.A7-3 N.S b -%= ant 6 der l

3 i I f $I i >w aa a f V Ees A" lj j ld 2g f k- '.,s a "i hj .3784 e a: 5:: O I i 1 d *e 4 U ,,E 23-i 'ct $;.i. t

  • 04G4 9

s wa 8* 1 );', g g (! !$d 5 i!I ESE +j j -f dO gn j g i,,j'jjjjii l "$3I5 klId i j.!.i b! b li! 3

  • n.

e lilillililillliilillfilllilli Illi illlll -l l si a p !.s..s.'..E..'...'.'. $..!.s.s. !s..!s.. $.! 5 i

22::::: :::: :::

e - ~- 4-4- illlifilittlitiliiilliIII:: :::: ett00 Y- / f,/ / N nk j-1 Y

t

/l l. / 4tj. l' 1 i N .jj / Inj .~ / ,I e I 'i I 8 J I i l T-i ').' l!g il j di x 7 ll \\ l1 11 u s s i A-s a i [ [f d h i s i - l. 3 ^ I, .I M= l !l : l l !- i I i o I !+ f/ 0,,i. 9 l ]njd6W l i ! il 'i. )ji / 7 i !? 00

~ p l,

-s i = e t i s I o ~' c l i l a d g i i ih g l 11 o' n i,ri c h xxssjs ssxx s u.s si sx1 x s s s d ss _xsss si J T-~ \\ 1\\1 ( _.,_jjj__. / W-(k i I! .f v/ s.N / { j k o A lv ,,I wm J ~ { /~ i 1 ,I .I. I .i. 1 4 m

) l,iijlls! a r< p a -=. 1 ,3 2i 3 3 {d +I e lillili e $4 i

n=

p g5 3 33 j y, ,1q / ps ll. ,Q s-f i l Y / lf 'N jl N1 I 8g j I3 I 1 @ gG( g, $4 ,I O y 'i, Q M,15 i' 3 : s 8' ) e i 0 o's-1 4 b ~8 y /W l'# ,!'A ohhfsmiIh5 ^ f;uuu; l l' de L c, M ,!!n M. Ei QO 1 i t IF j il i 0 41 ll i Ou h O llg j l t \\ u o ,l 11 gp 89 4 i t g 0 0 0 o s l O~ e3 9 g l i:1 l i h O 'i i .i s_l,ll !), l ll 11% Si i

l i

,a

== y j%_ _ _ 4,ri - g NI I

== 7 ,,xX [ \\A3 h, is o +- 3 17 I I I // I n 1 I y / giu j-l i .c

-e ,3. l' evech6n l}& 223lez M. a, hhk Ah 3 Q c?C \\_ a WELL FAILURE MECHANISMS AND' RESPONSES i' .t .,f Event 50.54F Reference Repair Time \\ i l. Electrical Failure 24.C A. Single Well (Wired in Parallel) Less than 1 day. f' B. Multiple Wells Due to One day to initiate power outage operation of back-up diosal power to inter- ~; captor walls. Operate until normal power can be restored. 2. Failure of Timers / Pumps / 47.6 Less than 1 day, replace-4 Check Valves ment parts on site. 3. Header Pipe Break 24.C One day to attach flex-ible hose to each well affected and pump water to stora drains. In case of interceptor well header failure, initiate back-up wells (on sep-arate header system). 4. Well Screen Installation 47.6 Two days to acidize well. '5. Complete Loss of Well 24.C Four days to replace one well using cable tool rig. One day if other drilling method used. t i [. t 4 Wh===+--~

  • eg.

=s = g w, em =.ea: e - -'., *.

  • m e _mm y _-+ M6_- he h n m_* nm__ m___m'"WauriP**'L.

4%Mi!ES_WQ-$2 E @. g _iR O _A ._M,_*.:l* O{=* fl A. ".C O E,lo %. 7 T' ,d=-

9. ~4 A-v s

pu t-w. f n..

r-

-wt 9n wggsoy,, q&g _:,;, _g.'.,.'<' 'p, ,~ .p; n 't;&y?y#@#ipsq' f:3., j e:.. y.w. en n w :n n _ n w n .,w~ ' eg&g,. %"'t. ',%. 5 -wx '

w. n.

w-w -c =- - a.M.,'?JtGW.c . 5. - 9L

  • e et de..

i ~; e-A, ..,. ; ~- M ..e 1.- sg _1 t . ROR'th[b5bummu,-,. -t v: .o. i n '.c 3 FMc ad '\\ MT40%#9 NAP 8r =2.J-- ^ 'T C7;' 3 _ JMM" ~~m-M f kRQ*k [ .g~. _ s E Nvg p:, F.) k .T f%D .f $ '-. fk' 'jNk4'y- .g_MSN--[KM:L3JERU.. - NTE 7,y ~~~ .yy. em-m_a __. m _o f_a~~' - s ,. m ~. ., - - -Q.5f W^'" }

  • t,'

.. -n^ W .X }al. >

  • n3

. f,q;1 sq -g 4,a M :- e sN'$' y ', d" __ - - '., N. C h, w?2&9%W Y%Y.<.45 9:MM = ,. ~. aIkoO .b 4. Q b = k;&dh${.*'.}.},fbh .:) F t - a

4. 4.t"(*.

b "4 W5~ * ', $$% x. *,' _ Y >,...,L.T l fi lT. m w ~. ._m , IIII m. - ~ ' ',, = l

_ f

+

g E h-i ti4tt 1 -:._ . i_. + i g_._.jp'_ i ? i__ l' I -t: .J ___i 1 --p__ 3_. t & ~, s... n_ 1 __--. a e n 4 o

. -4 :.:_..

u.:..St:: o _x n _.b! . y. J g -g, i g D_.. ,i L _.~., . 4, 1..q . +..q.. qmq .- -3,. ++ _.. 4 L = L.., -q[ CFMT 4PemmHRWhNnWM so 5 y w .x [y' l .p x fJL x1- :::: xx' j..M j q g~:x:. : g*g . :j ,j-ye----~f, o#,

Lx__- _

W*. s:xx:::: xxw a in fdm 3g-__a: [ g! . ~m-r rh- .y 1 r-m a ju

g

.g-a i g 3 3 xx-- _..y I s a. .o.. k 4--.. wJ-I 4 St.x.. x: i Exx i 1 b i i y. I a1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ^ L i i i n I 'f isq 1 m' 44' l i ? i H + 1 i I -g-1

c i

1 l

4

p_. 1 r 4.m_ m-m g g. 1 m 1 1 f J a,= _-_., J _ _, _ M. -U +-. _u, I i o... ,g j 'f i i,-i.EEh. gj NT! M ~ h hHt.j!! it$g j !! - l 4. i f ? g NvM4W+wveMl . n sl:- -u ly.n g -,.f !h' b}+^k lll !! d 1 gttI :$:.~1.__. e i + -M ^ I I I L hh b i A ..I t:t __

TtTt l

l .g .p.1 'n t. t d! tt. ]- Aa I ) I _.a...q' i _2 .i __a s..- ~"" q--irL -d i g

i 1-c_rs. t_i
-t

++ r i o ip i

  • [

_M' F5$$3MWYEOhsSM ieg-%PA . il vdNNJ 3, -.. c-.. ~'~~ ~" ,5 b {l . j p )__.-__-- "'~~"' ' ~[~~[ h M-' -bi-p* = A ,p A a a A .:( .S S 5 3 r, g .a s w W Ad N O3LVA311 s h h emIm 7/mT=F W 825 M 3*H g g ?

h $\\1t,n in 905l II" W" g g, ~ e '.; w., wa. sh 'w DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 631 vicxssuRa. Mississ Pri sesso ..u....v, WESGA 4 JUN '80

SUBJECT:

Report on Review of Geotechnical Aspects of the Seismic Safety of Midland Nuclear Power Plant District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit ATIN: NCEED-T/Mr. Neil Gehring 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 1. Inclosed is a Memorandum for Record dated 30 May 1980, subject: Visit to Midland !6chigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) by P. F. Hadala (Incl 1). This memorandum is an interim report on our work under your IA0 No. NCE-IA-80-047 2. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Hadala at PTS 542-3475 FOR THE COMMANDER AND DIRECTOR: l 1 Incl F. R. BROWN ^ as Engineer Technical Director CF v/inc1: Mr. Jim Simpson, NCDED-G Dr. Lyman Heller, NRC y.JoeKane,NRC i -_.wu,m .wm.*.mewh*+- 6 .,,,,.2 h, _y._, .__,.._.My __A ,e. um

7

  1. a l

.. f . c.. '=, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY etl 4 WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 631 s vicxssuRo. Mississ PP soleo .m,.u .w.WESGA 30 May 1980' MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT:

Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisicas 1-27), j i Background and scope 1. The writer visited the Midland Michigan Nuclear Power Plant on 27-28 February in the company of NRC and COE representatives. Bechtel and Consumers Power .i 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 Incl 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 pro. ject-relating to safety. My involvement is in support of Detroit District and by prior agreement with the District.is 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 sumarized in the following paragraphs and reviewed Volumes 1-7 of " Response to NRC Questions Regarding ') Plant Fill." Comments regarding liquefaction potential b,M h. An independent Seed-Idriss Simplified Analysis was performed for the fill g. area under the assumption that the groundwater table was at or belov .. f[' elevation 610. For 0,19 g peak ground surface acceleration, it was found w that blow counts as follows were required for a factor of sapey hwa.5: cf 1 i p VnCorYeCTf5 toon15 I Elevation Minimum SPT Blow Count

  • ft Forc* F.S. = 1.5 610 14 h M.S coNL C"

605 16 W""M t 600 17 l 595 19 i \\ 'For M = 7.5, blow counts would increase by 30 percent. k s

6 _- -=. m~- - n.- n - - - - _ - = - ~- y s. .c I 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) 'l The analysis was considered conservative for the following reasons (a) no 1 account was taken of the weight of any structure, (b) liquefaction criteria for a magnitude 6 earthquake were used whereas an NRC memorandum of 17 Mar 80 considered nothing larger than 5 5 for an earthquake with the peak acceleration } 1evel of 0.19 g's, (c) unit weights were varied over a range broad enough to cover any uncertaintyrand the tabulation above is bas _ed nn N =^=+ canearvative b 4 ' set of assumptionsg The curve described in the above tabulation is compare

j ocM

- to those'ior other groundwater tables and earthquake loading conditions in j ' 'h([ Inc1 3 i yOe 5 All of the plotted boring logs of the plant fill aren enenhhed to _me - M _by the Detroit District, CE, were reviewed..-Out of over 250 standard psne-tration tests on cohesi6nlesrplant-fik1-or natural foundation material belov elevation 610 (iliich 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. @ se tests are u stea in Inci ). s I[,g Some of the testa on natural material QLin the tableyvere conducted at depths of at lessithan 10 ft before approximately 35 ft of fill was placed over the location. T! rose tests ariidentiified'Ey the symbol B ansV prior to comparison with the criteria should be multiplied by a factor of about g [ gel ( 2.3 to account for the increase in effective overburden pressure that results from the placement and future devatering of the fill. 6. Of the 23 tests on plant fill which fail to satisfy the criteria, most are near or under structures where remedial measures alleviating necessity for 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 lov 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. l 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 i fill is kept at or below elevation 610. I i 8. In order to provide the necescary assurance of safety against liquefaction j 4' it is necessary to demonstrate the water will not rise above elevation 610 'I 1 during normal operations or during a shutdown process and the applicant has h,p decided to accomplish this by pumping from wells at the site. In the event of a failure, partial failure, or degradation of the devatering system (and its backup system) caused by the earthquake or any other event such as equipment breakdown, the water levels will begin to rise. Depending on the answer to Question A below concerning the norma % aperating water levels in -l 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 A

r-1 j i l f WESGA 30 May 1980 l

SUBJECT:

Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of l the Midland Plart Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) i 9 In response to Question 24 the applicant states "the operating groundwater I level will be approximately el 595 ft" (page 24-1). On page 24-1 the applicant ak also states "Therefore el 610' is to be used in the designs of the devatering 1 .T system as the maximum pemissible groundwater level elevation under SSE con-ditionn." On page 24-15 it is stated that "The wens vill fully penetrate j y the backfill sands and underlying natural sands in this area." The bottom of ] the natural sands is indicated to vary from elevation 605 to 580 within the Q lant till area according to Figure 24-12. Question A, B, and C, which I l would like posed to the applicant are as follows: A. Is the normal operating devatering plan to (1) pump such that the 3 vater level in the vens being pumped is held at or below elevation 595 or (2) to pump as necessary to hold the water levels in all observation vens near Category I Structures and Category I Pipelines supported on plant fill at or below elevation 595, (3) to pump as necessary to hold water levels in the wells mentioned in (2) above at or below elevation 610, or (4) something else? If it is something else, what is it? lk B. In the event the water levels in observation wells near Category I p(.I structures or pipelines supported on plant fill exceed those for normal operating conditions as defined by your answer to Question A, / what action will be taken? In the event that the water level in any of these observation vens exceeds elevation 610 what action will be taken? C. Where are and/or where will be the observation wells'in the plant fill area that will be monitored during the plant lifetime? At i what depths will the screened intervals be? Will the combination of (1) screened interval in cohesionless soil and (2) demonstration of timely response to changes in cooling pond level prior to drawdown be made a cond?. tion for selecting the observation wens? Under what conditions win 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 dewatering 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 dewatering system when the cooling pond is at elevation 627 and determining the water level versus time curve for each observation well. The test should be continued until the water level I in any well reaches elevation;610.or the. num of:the_ time intervals allotted for repair and the time interval needed to accomplish shutdown (should the { repair prcve unsuccessful) has been exceeded, whichever occurs first. In 1 view of the heterogeneity of the fill, the Itkely variation of its permeability I and the necessity of making several assumptions in the analysis which was presented in the applicant's response to Question 24a, a fun-scale test should give more reliable information on the available time. Question D is as follows: i D. If a dewatering system failure or degradation occurs, in order to assure that plant is shutdown by the time water level reaches {* L elevation 610, it is necessary to initiate shutdown earlier. In 3 n

^' w e. 'l

r ;

+ .l {.. i'

  • WESGA 30 May 1980

.l

SUBJECT:

Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 Feburary 1980, A Review of j the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) p

r i

event of failure of devatering system, what is the water level or < f [. [ condition at which shutdown vill be initiated? How is that condition determined? An acceptable method would be a full-scale worst-case M test performed by shutting off the entire devatering system with the cooling pond at elevation 627 to det' ermine, at each Category I j structure deriving support from plant fill, the water level at which a sufficient time vindow still remains to acccmplish shutdown before i the water rises to elevation 610. In establishing the groundwater } 1evel or condition that vill trigger shutdown, it is necessary to account for normal surface water inflow as well as groundwater l. recharge and to assnme that any additional action taken to repair the devatering system, beyond the point in time when'the trigger condition is first reached, is unsuccessful. I Comments regarding seismically induced settlements 'll. An independent approximate analysis based on the same references cited p' on pages 4-5 of the answer to Question 4 given in " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill," the same assumption of dry sand used in the preparation .M ( of Table 4-1A of Question 4 and my engineering judgment indicated that the \\ y numbers for seismically induced settlement in that table which are for 0.12 g q 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 limited field k check data for the method only confirms its accuracy 150 percent. Thus, one has to either argue that the capillary action in those sands above the water table would 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 k) or allow for another 1/4 in, of settlement. While this latter course of action is probably 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 4 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 v ups fog the earth shaking described above hid wt. eM-QCo de4w We eg Mcws ton % quake,dt odddioon! Y4" 4tWe med Wdet ste4 hohq Comments regarding the natural slopes containing i the R/C pipe service water return lines 1 12. The two reinforced concrete return pipes which exit the service water structure and run along either side of the emergency cooling water reservoir f}d and ultimately enter into the reservoir are necessary for the safe shutdown and r.re buried within or near the crest of Category I slopes that form the sides of the Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir. The reviewer has been unt.ble i 4 ( to find any report on or analysis of the seismic stability or calculation of postearthquake residual displacement for these slopes. While the limited data i 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 l examined by state-of-the-art methods. Therefore, Question E is as follows: k i k .li

I b.

%J

^ w

a'

% ~ ,3 u ~__ - ) ' WESGA 30 May 1980

SUBJECT:

Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of J. the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) j E. Have seismic analyses of the slopes leading to an estimate of the permanent deformation of the pipes been performed and if so, please hp ak provide a review copy. If none are available, please provide analyses to include the following: (1) a plan showing the pipe ,h*[g location with respect to other nearby structurec, the slopes of the reservoir and the coordinate system; (2) cross-sections showing 'i i the pipes, normal pool levels, the slopes, the subsurface conditions i 'i as interpreted from borings and/or logs of excavations at (a) a I locatior parallel to and about 50 ft from the southeast outside vall of the service water pipe structure and (b) a location where t the cross section will include both discharge structures. Actual j boring logs should be shown on the profiles; their offset from i the profile noted, and soils should be described using the Unified Soil Classification System; (3) discussion of available shear strength data and choice of strengths used in stability analysis; (4) determination of static factor of safety, critical earthquake acceleration, and location of critical circle; (5) calculation of residual moveme'nt 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. Comments regarding the service water structure foundation 13. The vertical pile support proposed for the ovarhmr sectinn nf the. service water pump structure vill provide the sunport_necessary_f.or_.the d 7TrYeture under comuiM hic and seisinTe inertial loadinea even if the soil under tne overhang portion oI nne structure should liquefyJ nrnvu ad g jiroposed 100 ton ultimate pile loaa capacities are achieve (la I have no W (i reason to think they ven't be achieved at this time, and the appli_q_aut has g committea no a 11ela loading cm to cemonstrate the pile capacity, Calcu- ~ ,T y" I~a~tions were made by the writer to determine the critical buckling load for the 14 in, outside diam concrete filled steel pipe piles assuming them to be laterally unsupported over lengths of 40 and 50 ft with all reasonaole 0 assumptions of end fixity and a 3/8-in. pipe thickness. The worst combination M of parameters still provides a generous factor of safety against buckling I under the proposed ultimate load. Hence, even if the fill material underneath f Y the overhang should liquefy and fail to provide lateral support to the piles, I they should be capable of carrying the vertical static and inertial loads janticipated. Fully adequate lateral support is provided by structural connection of the overhang to the rest of the structure. However, the dynamic 1 response of the structure, includine the inertial loads for which the structure , itself is designed and the mechanical equipment contained therein g qu).d change I as a result or Ine invroducalon or tne piles. Therefore, Question F is as 7 foliovs: F(a). Please summarize or provide copies of reports on the dynamic (O analyses of the structure in its old and proposed configuration 4 if such are available. For the latter provide detailed information on the stiffness assigned to the piles and the way in which the stiffnesses were obtained and show the largest change in interior floor vertical response spectra resulting from the proposed 5 A_

5 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)

I 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 -i and the range of numerical stiffness values assigned to the vertical I piles. fe.f f F(b). Provide after completion of the new pile foundation, in accordance e ,j vith commitment No. 6, item 125, Consumers Power Company memorandum .] dated 13 March 1980, the results of measurements of vertical applied load and absolute pile head vertical deformation which will -{ be made when the structural load is, jacked on the piles so that j the pile stiffness can be determined and compared to that used in l i the dynamic analysis. f! Comments regarding rattlespace at Category I pipe penetrations of structure valls f /

14. During the site visit the writer observed three instances of what appeared to be degradation of rattlespace at penetrations of Category I piping through concrete valls as follows:

a. West borated water storage tank - in the valve pit attached to the base of the structure, a large diameter steel pipe extended through a steel sleeve placed in the wall. Because the sleeve was not cut flush with the vall, clearance between the sleeve and the pipe was very small. . W(4 /' Steen 6 tw.p:s.91< s

l

' w ::s ~ <} k lf_,, %Q h f t Y 'U "8 f -t b Two 'of the service water pipes penetrating the northwest vall of the service water structure had settled differentially with respect c. to the structure and vere resting on slightly squashed short pieces of 2 x h placed in the bottom of the penetration. From the inclination of the pipe, there is a suggestion that the portions of the pipe further back in the vall opening (which I could not see) were actually bearing on the invert of the opening. The 6 b...

t 1,- WESGA 30 May 1980

SUBJECT:

Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of _he Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) 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 h. Whether these irregularities are normal manufacturing irregularities or the result of concentration of load on this temporary support caused by the settlement of the fill, I have no way of knowing. j These instances are, in my view, sufficient to warrant an examination of y those penetrations where Category I pipe derives support from plant fill , y-on one or both sides of a penetration. Therefore, Questions G and E are as follows: G. What is the minimum seismic rattlespace required between a Category I pipe and the sleeve through which it penetrates a vall? H. Identify all those locations where a Category I pipe deriving support from plant fill penetrates an exterior concrete valls l Determine and report the vertical and horizontal rattlespace presently available ar.1 the minimum required at each location and describe remedial 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 information at those locations requiring major excavation should be deferred until the data from the other locations have been examined. Comments regerding foundation material properties used in seismic analysis of structures 15 Inclosure 6 shows a su-mm y of cross-hole shear wave velocity (V ) and s load test data from which it can be seen that the V for the plant fill is between 500_and 1000 ft/sec.,LErom Section 3.7.2.h Sf the FSAR it can be ~ calculated that an average Vs of about 1350 ft/see was used in the original dynamic soil structure interaction analyses of the Category I structures. c'y { This is confirmed by one of the vievgraphs used in the 28 February Bechtel presentation. Plant fill Ys is clearly much lover than this value as p(I indicated in Inci 6. It is understood from the response to Question 13 ffg concerning plant fill that the analyses of several Category I structures are underway using a lover bound average Vs = 500 ft/sec for sections supported on plant fill and that floor response spectra and design forces vill be taken as the most severe of those from the new and old analyses. I The questions which follow are intended to make certain if this is the case and gain an understanding of the impact of this parametric variation in foundation conditions. Questions I, J, and K are as follows: I. What Category I structures have and/or vill be reanalyzed for changes in seismic soil structure interaction due to the change in plant fill stiffness from that envisioned in the original designf Have any Category I structures deriving support from plant fill been i excluded from reanalysis? On what basis? 4 7 s ~

_--..-m WESGA 30 May 1980

SUBJECT:

Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of theMidlandPlantUggiand2FSAR(Including,Re sions 1-27) f J. Tabulate for e h-o is e aly , he foundation parameters (Vs, v a d $usei and the equivalent spring and damping n constants derived therefrom so the reviewer can gain an appreciation of the extent of parametric variation perfomed. 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 i OL - plot the old, new, and revised enveloping floor response spectra ll fJ so the effect of the changed backfill on interior response spectra (p predicted by the various models can be readily seen. 2 Category I retaining vall near the f, southeast of the service water pump structure 'l

16. This vall 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 vall 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 vall? What additional data beyond that shown in Figure 2h-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 vall? Please explain the basis of [ your answer. 5 Status of review of teotechnical + earthquake considerations

17. When formal or informal ansvers to the questions posed above are available p

from the applicant, this reviewer can quickly come to conclusions on all g sj geotechnical considerations which influance safety under earthquake excitation. () It vould be desirable but not mandatory to witness the service water pump struc-ture pile load test and the. jacking of that building's load onto the completed piles. t l l / 6 Inci P. F. HADALA l} Engineer CF v/ incl. Acting Assistant Chief, Mr.Neilbehring,DetroitDist

  1. 7 Dr. Lyman Heller /Mr. Joe Kane, NRC Mr. Jim Simpson, North Central Div 8

i !1 ~_.- m_

Y $.4. N r,c7 m y , J Z 7,, n 7 o 1 2 9.* *. y ..- A._f. G$~o L_ 3~O_.iA)B o ttec_lc...._ ' 8CcHTe4 - Sep.7~6tN

.__).ar( Z.1/re{

ACB/F/.pht/ AS.WC luMC1 B :uta ),f.)2,~,ef Pam b .. Bach _h! Gede l wc. wezwa ' west - ose_ ^ l cMrt.S[0/ s. k_. e_.-_._ ._. 0 e. c; d h l - d f ,I* et Tr.S_.._Ec9R)S hk.M S F .osepk_ Nowa.- __ NR C M F.S. M cb 5 dor SEwrc& m ac-o a (3.- D/ML-.= - c.4 s, rx. s )..M /20Le. .N! C' -K--d.- h - 1t-El' m -}h?AAu- = I_.? f -........_ C o k,b.1 S e p c-D9.bts4 M.C...kD .Yr.t \\As. a.f.__. t l

j. _

.GuL. b_.NgpA.\\.A .. b.j 3._ M.D 4 hk E O*- bp pc.w.,3 u_. i r-s C 64 M i,_..ccJog_ E f F_. ( _l (' ' )c h A.__ . /.".'.J kn JG.G.d ..pp.cfogs,J_ER l A.R G) W L l _ N ? J % k.._..M.M _ N %C i b!v! k_Ge

  • l Cecfc.r.$-[91-rw. h n b Y

. _LloH>v.. $AU6/D.t.Cnopt._ 5, E knsell..&t

  • 'L..

I..._h. llRQ.k.._[l-l/20 VEN GA2) An.. _.._.._ ~.__.._...__ _. GnameRk_Pous2 t-h ...._...._8eckh/ A. ll.0!s rft".t fczw7df____d. N4 Y _-latYAf /$7tSC5'M c wsues. Sa 0 l D. E. Ho@ a Co.).-.. - ._..... Dbt". _. $ 0 ~ b/tSt& l... _ l M.u!MS '!M>- 1 m x a,, T'u.. !.. A E tY _.. ._.._ @ C f 5 @ l4. L.o.a%.on h" I~~~_~__.~_...______j / ...G,A Ar ( m + = %. a a. 9 'Wch y L. a. M A b e s / W . L%.&.... L.& @af~...... N.. Cd. }l. .. S q L.{du.a.R. 2. x 4, a.i ......... w.....n,' r = _.. -

.,s. ~ .. _.N.v/y D..... . N A L / C M Rec)$ --- -- - - 2/. ....~ Ad-hp OJL3h/ U3 SL.f. ' f-- - E Tre_L.usM a.s e p G -..- - .N N. .e ...,,, g g w up gme N. N h* h M _ay.. yp Q, -.. a ~ w g ema.. GknK.fhald'i MRc NRK/_oss.)_ss. ts J.sw 7 Nora-Je pswe A a l l I f as 'r1 h. P m l - li A lA.A h CVA b S i -b hm % 6 1 . 6 M nc h 95 m OA0,,1 J \\ m \\

  • .eee mMM w-M e-e G

W eph'. _W.e 6 N ..e-e e .e.e.e e .We _gn N 1 e... -eo o. 6 6 s. .-M6 4e M eaMN gg..m 6N.MMM=.&_ .w--^ w m. e ..e a.--em.m. e e e.- M- .M*h M. e e.,

  • am a m.

m o--_ 9.....,.. , S< b'.- 6 m EWW GN4 h 6hM. __,e.g -m--- h h. e e.e6 mW.em m h. 'J 1 I l ~ -.. ~... ,. a wm,.._._e

~ !.. ' l t,'- sk MEETING WITH NRC ON MIDLAND PLANT FILL STATUS AND RESOLUTION _ I February 27 & 28, 1980 Midland Site G.Keeley(pp} r V

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.0 PRESENT STATUS OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS T. Cooke (cp' 2.1 Heetings with Consultants and Options Discussed (Historical) 2.2 Investigative Progras A. Boring Program B. Test Pits I C. Crack Monitoring.and Strain Gauges - j D. Utilitims 2.3 Settlement . ) A. Area Noted B. Preload C. Instrumentation 3.0 WORK ACTIVITY UPDATE J. Wanzeck 3.1 Summary of work activities and settlement surveys for all Category I structures and facilities founded partially or totally on fill f 4 d.0 REMEDIAL WORK IN PROGRESS OR PLANNED (Q4,12, 27, 31, 33 & 35) m Jii A MaM,9 4.1 Diesel Generator Structures 4.2 Service Water Pump Structures I 4.3 Tank Farm 4.4 Diesel Oil Tanks 4.5 Underground Facilities '4. 6 Auriliary Building and FW Isolation Valve Pits v 4.7 Liquefaction Potential . 3 J.-t n T VALUATION OF P NG.( 16, 17, 18 19 & 20). M N D. $ F Riat 5.0 YA,.Y M" kb TQJ., anc, Bh. Y6.0 b EWATERING (Q24) 4 aris

i 7.0 ANALYTICAL INVESTICATION B. Dhar 7.1 Structural Investigation (Q14 26 28 29, 0 & 34)

, j 7.2 Seismic Analysis (Q25) b,NC 7.3. Structural Adequacy with Respect to PSAR, FSAR, etc. - i 4 N 8.0 SITE TOUR All < i 9.0 CONSULTANTS

SUMMARY

b' b Peck /Hendron/ i Could/Davisson 10.0 DISCUSSION All 4 e A - ~ 

- = -

~ < x....:

  • /. ',. li '

q f.

  • f ATTENDEES

[ 4 Consumers Power Bechtel consultants, d S. Keeley Harris Burke R. B. Peck T. C. Cooke Sherif Afifi A. J. Hendron, Jr. T. Thiruvengadam Don Riat C. H. Gould gJ_ Bimal Dhar H. T. Davisson - a A a. Bill Paris M =% '61ius Rote J I g Jim Wanzeck f f. hq-_ ~ A f Karl Wiedner John Rutgere ] l }* Lynn Curtis Al Boos i4 Chuck McConnel 4 ll NRC US Coro Of Engineers E-TEC \\; NieD @.Gehring] P. Chen I r' R. Jackson J. Grundstrom J. Brausner G. Kane) B. Otto ll 7% 'i T. Cappucci >6% W _. Lawhead O inaldi A NTu3C. P. Hadala' R. Conzalis F. auer 7- ' ' ('M D dMM G. Callagher R. Cook + -l US Navy Weapons Center / P. Huany g J. Matra i k 4 -i i I i 1 1

  • >w-
    • ,h-*

9N'.@'_'_ _" f. SuP812" - .m7Y 2- - ^ ~ ' - - - 3

O f i i i 6 eii f i l I II I t i6 I ie i i i 3 l 8 1 i 4 8 9

1 esr g

, _} mm me. 2, / m. 7V/ m.QW ChbN / DL,(,,%Cpf P*# t d f I .r

/1 M

9 2^ t AA JII/ 7 r /jr ,'r. rwr _.amw W i m i w 's f l Iwn= e m3 a. t l _d .LI "WCF Dr a. i y-shhns . l _. L s .1 / &Q..tf3 JE [PC J5A Y Jg.T a'e @ jg a ' a'w' wr

==n-, l Sa $N' z I E,..hil 8 E n 2.. I i 84 3 I 4W er 4 g . x. m t i i U J l ( m-ff 't V LGC LJ Utv rv% I<d i.u m 1 n, g 3 ,,g av v,r w_ a-h, r== u- -l W i 8 /C TT I$ i Mei ha g i n a <- m n r. y u V44 O w. gg i m'a, \\ \\ \\' 1 W i \\ h b) 4- \\ \\'I) fT s t ') M &JD '7 n 6 \\ n se D ..a. . u n Afy % m 's # r 1 M 6. n'447 C#; L2"1rs =J N 1.- T C 1 lllr L L6 O' ' U_ i ' " = = 95 =* EV 1 \\ W h' J Ps t k ~~ 9 V T1 \\ u n - u s lll~ f.Jhdi 'Jlk T l I g 1 l -a L'LL k 0 ~fT. l' 1 1 13 p$ \\ .I La 1 6R O t~ a g i \\ x w s u 't [ k of If L'A T s. w a l a gr t 1N gg x _tri tt kC 03 d 2 L P s. 1 v E h G s v.. :. ' M 'P d r c i sm er-ri z cnr' ar- >% ,. n,-n r o A nJ T I NL= \\Tb'8 N

V IL,K.

1 tMVb W'C wk, NF i-s 1 i _T'.ME[g i s o = . T"" d"

=== I i =" Lef.in ta9 "T' k if rss a g 4%E a 4 ,4 13 WP ,T4 i i -J i Nru nd'd l L.J UfW bl i WJ N V g l hti rai-n L mre' d".Al l _ti t @ 1I i i T.PL.J C r-t%Pk ...? \\!.Ul'L wl I LDA E Js3 4L m8 RLl W Th "l a # or 42l a l / I f"a " ' ' ' 5 t I l. I i i 47 P%/? '"d PL1 Y blT i JJ., UJ L.I 6.7%,1 eI I L E I r7 'a s 1=,,N.u e'dL 4 l ^ I 6 i alp P VTT*(.) .s# t l 1 1

P a n EL i 6 i i i i 6 ,I ItI r i %WBat2 i FtD I 7 CIAsiri n t

  • 6e A

F tLL Q D Elm. .si. I i b tt '54m D 1 E CJ s i gr i d m T'? ' I m p et L. JWf 1,6 %InLMD D f 4 . 6 MW.tpWJUi5b l_ e i 1 M F MT ' h..L 'uad M Lt. 1 ' t,.. I i. L 6 i! T..pt.

  • r r

IJ l l i n 41 ' E t*

  • i-I L.L1 e '* mh", y(. --

L .S LDAM I WT I F 'E

  • 31 MiV 1.m 1

L t e __ M 17 P' t=. J _ A OM i f.t ':nl DL.L ) 'A3 1 A.,+J ) i J )

.I a

i . O.. : *(k. _C E L, (t T

P E

Q4r* g,7 r L j I .dC. i I i .mt Wu - c. a p--, g ih r 1-h. ca ! qn m. , f_ % 2 m., ii 8 pd I f 1 { g = fg. 3 y, - r i 4 m .e - u. I E $4 C*i K . i_ Q irJ.O MIM A L: \\ G t t- Q,lJ - 8.,. i *- a; a g I a e i i 3._l 'C ) 'l 'T_ MC l O II as I g p /-_ *Len -,,m, ,1,. i , m.,- y I n m m 6 4 l E Eg g

  • 1.i i

!=a 6 a .m 40-k w 7 1,7 \\ .'.,1

  • 1

'" a = ',,,g, d @,, ilz , g W 7 = u' ="9T m L"D"* ' E L El m i l '" "m" W lA I i e um T L 1"'. a T 2I I'

  • ]J." Aquam 4

ir k r-*.i jr E $1 '.' t ,K i r L" = dB 4 6_"W J F I u i,. m. rw. m -i i i '- s .5 w ri-- = r;,,3 i-6 ln , l i j {V l $m T ' 97*'8 a i~ 64. '~, n 'F' r i' '"U' [ ~ I e ,sn n a i il T P G i ~T I T*

  • 4r la IoW

. i w 'r 6 i bl

  • l Can
  1. i i

2 i\\ 7 e i i i A m . e; \\ 2 .I 'UERL T i i i

  • I AJ./N m i yW',,

m m 2 i v s e-2 m im I l\\ = c n i. ~ r"' m' s i f l iii-P' f_ e m e m'.rw w-n , w w w w reg. 8 '"I'*'" i 'r' ifi v a -' i =, e i.7 Li ur i i la ,a in mm _j /'\\ m'i Ek 1 I + i m m g .,Li 1 " w 8' I Y i* "l' i:- 1 k mL L Y i./'uam. ' i '~ E a .3 a"pg y, ) i i V 6\\'u 7 J N *! /% ir h8 ..,[ l-4 r ur,w gw 3 g a 4 ma 'r I 8* L3 ,.,.= b f7 n lE Y dm Y 8 If 0 L.- Y .mps je& A as'io

  1. lh i

I k"A = y 7,,, a I em I e=P' enI i b*"ri MEI 1 _ S J I a Yr g /a Ji m "'! n "A L LJ ch44 LJr PTL i sur w ai4 m QY gI E '- ! t =* '"a* aA-nf,t 'ig_L.h i a t

  1. 4 kest i

0u j g l i g- ,_f !. A W i g-g g w , 'h y E i Nm \\ J _y l ii M 'i

  • [y p"N)

,g,,e r m i_yw w M 4a m tit o kL1 m a V i %=4 . mh *T* 4=1 A (d an Ql =. n T "i R 4mrL 4 6 Wi eea m .w. _g al as.a i m f..1 t-L 1 ! i ! e g i . e,,i q -5x "i i E Y A i m E Led ! n. /.t\\ O9 c;gn-ni k LJ. 54 'T i ,1 T ,i m ,qm, j ; gpdy e 1 i=' j r, h /1 L' V a Y I ii r y l {t M' 3:j. I t'%

== .m i ai i 4e.,,x:. u_ i 4-w i-i ,d I L l s 4 w i I O M Ydh Y OWd %iyre ' 'c ,N h h (d b SqM, o b td ~

  1. s i

t . w!g. s, ~ i 2 ~ a Nec-J,atLw s:w "w s m r MOM bvhWd ~ c==, j ThM -,.w 9* 3 .m e h,, i q E 5 ~'- 1 E _' e UP i LiC."th' ,gg i /I. r_ il ILoGkt-LJ LUJJ U.J y,J NT~h m U_ ./1 N 7. n I! t i ! ! 8 i l l Ii! ! ! o ! t i e } t i, e e f 1""'*".} d N.51 D '** n ' \\ M

  • G" e -

Q' i gh T, a= '* 4=gs'* C ) l 1 I i

== l f"_J K,, __,c,,,71. U i Ti OG l L%k= 1 M \\v tc_ 34

  • _si i

i .i h ' ! ' l t i l! ! I ! l ! ! ,i l t I i _

i j ( l O 5 ! != '"='*=E iJ!

8Ag i! IC l (.% 3. ) (\\ E .'TU !A L 4m. I i i ! !t. i i i M r*\\%J L4 1 i e 'A,.g.,D L. d ' llN.J i i i th glpN Ti ! i =g i.! l i i !.i _ : i.. i : : ! i.. i ,i i i i e i 1'"d.' e _1 i " de Q'!1 t--i 1% . II ! i, i i i6 i i ! . t i i i il a i 1 9 2; i. , i i i i,i! t' Lv!. %, n i i. i i , i , i i i F ._1 i.i I! 1 i i i,iit.! ii i,. i ii.i T i., . i i i i i ; 4.. i ir.= n.___,

.....-........ 1...a ~ u.,c,, a a _ p m. .4 A,, s s <m> i Summary of " Low" Blow Counts in Cohesionless Soils Below El.ev. 610 [ % 11 ocukio n M /C li udion D N 4%b'# l G PL N' N Fill Value Cat. or Boring Elev Blows /ft Location I Nat'l Rentarks Y SW3 608-11 Service Water Pump Storage Yes F,ll Pile support planned 4 SW2 608 11-Service Water Pump Storage Y-F Pile support planned Y DG18 609 12 Under Diesel Gen. Bldg. Y. F MDG18 607 13 Under Diesel Gen. Bldg. Y F-AX13 597 7 N.E. of Unit 2 No F p AX13 591 10 N.E. of Unit 2 N F-M AX4 601 12 Between Unit 2 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Underpinning planned + AX4 593 19 Between Unit 2 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Underpinning planned NAX15 595 il' Between Unit 1 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Removal & repl w/ conc

)

' MAX 15 593 11 Between Unit 1 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Removal & rep 1 w/ conc 9F AX7 605 7 Between Unit 1 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Removal & repl~w/ conc

  • AX7 594 7

Between Unit 1 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Removal & repl w/ conc

  • AX7 590 20 Between Unit 1 & Turbine Bldg.

Y F Removal & repl w/ cone

  • AX5 601 3

Between Unit:1 & Turbine Bldg. Y F Removal & rep 1 w/ conc l-- 3

  • AX5 598 4.p Between Unit 1 & Turbine Bldg.

Y F Removal & rep 1 v/ conc YAX11 606 13 Under Unit i Valve Pit Y F Underpinning planned Y i. 6 Under Unit 1 Valve Pit Y-F Underpinning planned AX11 600

NAX1 593 10 M.

Under Unit 1 Valve Pit Y F Underpinning planned 'N ' ?, ~ . -. s. E,,". Sheet 1 of 3 1 <g.

.u:......_....._.. c. ,,_ ~ ,; L _ _,, Sununary of " Low" Blow Counts in Coh'esionless Soils Below Elav. 610 (Continued) ,g N Fill-Value Cat. or Boring Elev Blows /ft Location ,J___ Nattl Remarks DGl9' 608 3' Under Diesel Gen. Bldg. Y F ll ( 'i( DG13 604 6 Under Diesel Gen. Bldg. Y F l {

  1. DGT

'598 10 E. of Diesel Gen. Bldg. N F N DG7 595 15 E. of Diesel Gen. Bldg. N F N 604 15 S. of Diesel Gen. Bldg. N F , (l ,,, Q Q M DG5 anneplace<J A 'b5 we gSW6 600 3 Service Water Pump Storage Y N-B) Pile support D42 587 21 Under Diesel Gen. Bldg. Y N-A Ok when corrected 5 608 6 N. Part of Turbine Bldg. N N-B Ok when. corrected 4 5 604 7 N. Part of Turbine Bldg. N N-B Ok-when corrected N D21 594 5 E. Side of Turbine Bldg. N N-B t l 17 603 13

8. Part of Turbine Bld.

N N-B Ok when corrected 6 CT1 604 11 N. Condensate Storage Tank Y N-A f 355 601 7 NW of Intake Storage N N-B Ok when corrected-1 j DG28 600 9 Between Diesel Gen, & Turbine Bldge, Y N-B Ok when corrected i 22 603 10 N. of Borated Water Storage N N-B Ok when c'orrected f 21 602 8 NW of Borated Water Storage N N-B Ok when corrected l Sheet 2 of 3 p. 6 L

C. . o.--_........._ a ! 1.. c... ~ ~. ' _... J. .3 . ;.. :., _..., _ _.. ;. a. m _. m 2. ~ .) Sununary of " Low" Blow Counts in Cohesionless Soils Belov Elev. 610 (Concluded). .,b N Fill' Value Cat. or Boring Elev Blows /ft Location I Nat'l R rks 2 599 h W. Part of Auxiliary Bldg. Y N-B 2 596 15 N. Part of Auxiliary Bldg. Y N-B Ok when corrected 10 ~600 13 N. Part of Auxiliary Bldg. Y. .N-B Ok'when corrected 10 596 17 N. Part of Auxiliary Bldg. Y N-B Ok when corrected r i I l 1 1, 1 4 i j l' Sheet 3 of 3 i [. - e a. .J

- _. _ _ _ i_ _ ] i SHEs% WME VE. toc \\TT ; GPS ~ 500' 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 W. g g e 1 O l l 1I i .g 62s 1 'm j G U ji ~ l1 i i O 'i 620 !I ie g h RANGE OF MINIMUM SHEAR WAVE ' VELOCITY B'ASED ON REBOUND OF. d OlESEL GENERATOR BUILDING I ~ 615 j a i g e l l e i l e h I !610 e 5 Il 3 >l 6[lE a w g O i l' 80s 't $ !I a' O o' l !e o APPROXIMATE BOTTOM OF FILL j l g I I1, -o 600 I I I $e A o e di U i 1l g ^ I t85 <B a es* 0 .t. 590 LEGEND: BECHTEL O CONDENSATE' RANKS AREA ANN ARSOR i O m BORATED WATER STORAGE TANKS AREA i o SERVICEWATER PUMPSTRUCTURE l OA DIESELGENERATOR BUILDING SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE PLANT AREA FILL SutNay (FS^t Z 5

  • 1 h i

e westoo sm,1 mma na N*# 7220 FIGURE as.2 r 1 Lo, - _ - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20094K165&oldid=4324729"