ML20094P223

Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns for Underpinning of Auxiliary Bldg

ML20094P223
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/03/1982
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML19258A087	List: IR 05000329/1978020 IR 05000329/1981012 IR 05000329/1982007 IR 05000329/1982009 IR 05000329/1982014 ML19258A086 ML19351C947 ML20093B251 ML20093B495 ML20093B616 ML20093B708 ML20093B747 ML20093B900 ML20093B940 ML20093C001 ML20093C006 ML20093C017 ML20093C025 ML20093C030 ML20093C035 ML20093C068 ML20093C073 ML20093C079 ML20093C082 ML20093C101 ML20093C104 ML20093C108 ML20093C116 ML20093C174 ML20093C189 ML20093C196 ML20093C226 ML20093C231 ML20093C262 ML20093C318 ML20093C324 ML20093C347 ML20093C354 ML20093C374 ML20093C377 ML20093C390 ML20093C394 ML20093C398 ML20093C405 ML20093C440 ML20093C444 ML20093C649 ML20093M884 ML20093M994 ML20093N005 ... further results
References
CON-BX19-001, CON-BX19-1, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408170081
Download: ML20094P223 (40)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:" ~ 1 l' l MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF REVIEW CONCERNS FOR UNDERPINNING OF THE AUXILIARY BUILDING JUNE 3, 1982 I A i l I I i l 8408170081 840718 PDR FOIA g RICE 84-96 PDR t

n e MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF REVIEW CONCERNS FOR UNDERPINNING OF THE AUXILIARY BUILDING L CONTENTS REVIEW CONCERN 2: CONSTRUCTION PHASE 4 2-1 REVIEW CONCERN 2: CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 2-5 REVIEW CONCERN 5 5-1 REVIEW CONCERN 6 6-1 d TABLES 2-1 Auxiliary Building Underpinning Design Loads I 2-2 Auxiliary Building Underpinning Soil Pressure 2-3 Feedwater Isolation Valve Pit Soil Pressures 2-4 Rebar Stresses for Parametric Studies FIGURES 2-1 Auxiliary Building Underpinning Wall Reinforcing Detail 2-2 Underpinning Wall Details 2-3 Auxiliary Building Underpinning Wall Connection Detail 2-4 Soil Pressure Data Points 2-5 Feedwater Isolation Valve Support Detail 2-6 Existing Soil Springs Under Auxiliary Building 2-7 Reduction of Element Stiffness, Sh 1 2-8 Reduction of Element Stiffness, Sh 2 2-9 Existing Stress Analysis (Loading Condition for El 659'-0" and Above) 2-10 Existing Stress Below El 659'-0" 2-11 Construction Stage 1 - Soil Removed (Plan) 2-12 Construction Stage 1 - Soil Removed (Elevation) 2-13 Construction Stage 1 - Jacking Loads Applied 2-14 Construction Stage 2 - Soil Removed 2-15 Construction Stage 2 - Jacking Loads Applied 2-16 Construction Stage 3 - Soil Removed 2-17 Construction Stage 3 - Jacking Loads Applied 2-18 Effect of Tunneling Under Turbine Building i 2-19 Areas of Maximum Stress l: =

... _ - ~. ~ t. .i Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 + Response to NRC Review Concerns f. for Auxiliary Building Underpinning I I 1 Table of Contents (continued) ATTACHMENTS 2-1 Drawing 7220-SK-C-767-22, Underpinning Walls Els K, Kc, and H 2-2 Drawing 7220-SK-C-767-23, Underpinning Walls Plans and Misc Els i 2-3 Drawing 7220-SK-C-767-24, Misc Elevations of Underpinning Walls

• 5-1 Drawing 7220-C-1495(Q), Instrumentation Location for Strain and Settlement Monitoring 5-2 Extensometer (Strain Gage) Installation DMskiNG 7a M ~C ~IM3 [^&TRMM&rn77'N 3-3 S) &'7 E*M M / YO N # f N O / X, S N E W A I-4 e

1 l

~ g W' MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND-2 RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF REVIEW CONCERNS FOR UNDERPINNING OF THE AUXILIARY BUILDING 6 REVIEW CONCERN 2: CONSTRUCTION PHASE 4 c Furnish results of analysis of the auxiliary building permanent underpinning walls, and the feedwater isolation valve pits

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This response summarizes the results of the analysis of the auxiliary building superstructure, underpinning walls, and the feedwater isolation valve pits (FIVPs) for the completed conditions, that is, following soils remedial actions. Results of the preliminary analysis were submitted in December 1981. The stress analysis of the structure during the construction of the o underpinning walls has been submitted in a separate report. 2.0. ANALYTICAL MODEL The three-dimensional analytical model as shown on Sketches 7220-SK-C-767-1 through 24 (Reference 1) has been used for the analysis. Sketches 7220-C-767-1 through 21 have been provided to the NRC staf f during the audits of February 1 and 26,1982, and Sketches 7220-C-767-22 through 24 are included as Attachments 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. The basic description of the 3 b model has been submitted to the NRC in Appendix A of Reference 2. The model has a total of 3,292 nodes and 4,811 elements consisting of plate, beam, truss, boundary, and dummy elements to L simulate the structure. The FIVP structure has been analyzed by j; hand calculations. 3.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS -s For the analysis of the auxiliary building superstructure, applicable FSAR load combinations with jacking loads (PL) and long-term settlement effects incorporated as shown in Table Aux-1 of Reference 3 have been used. Dead, live, seismic, main steam line pipe break, settlement, and tornado loads with a global effect on the building have been analyzed by the finite-element model. Local effects of other loads such as normal and accidental thermal gradients, jet impingement loads, missile j loads,4.and pipe support loads other than those for main steam l line rupture have been added to local areas as appropriate. In j addition, the superstructure has been analyzed, for information i only, with the load combinations of Article 9.2 of American j Concrete Institute ( ACI) 349-80 (Reference 4) as modified by NRC j Regulatory Guide 1.142. ] i l I. p 2-1 L i. [ ' ~ ~ ^" ~ ~ ~ ~ ^

r* d'r d*-**-no+=~ .,4 a...pws., p j' -.. ,.l. Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 l - u-j' Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns for Auxiliary' Building Underpinning 4 - The f underpinning walls and the connections to the existing superstructure have been designed to satisfy the following requirements: Midland FSAR as amended for the effects of jacking load (P )g a. L-and long-term soil settlement loads b. ACI 349-80 code requirements as modified by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.~142. i. The underpinning walls and connections to the ' existing structure have been designed to withstand seismic loads from a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) with a multiplier of 1.5. This has - been done to provide assurance that the underpinning walls could resist the forces resulting from the site-specific response spectra (SSRS) earthquake. The superstructure has been analyzed and designed for FSAR earthquake loads. I The FIVP foundation has been designed for the effects of dead, live, jacking, settlement, and seismic loads. The seismic acceleration values have been determined by hand calculation assuming a ground acceleration for an SSE of 1.5 times the FSAR j j value. 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 ~ AUXILIARY BUILDING SUPERSTRUCTURE Analysis with FSAR and ACI 349-80 load combinations has been ^ completed. The analysis indicates that for the superstructure south of Column Line G, the walls above el 659' and the slab at t i el 659' between Column Lines G and H do not meet the criteria for allowable stresses. The membrane shear stress in the wall l exceeded 3 v12Pl which causes it to crack. It was decided to ~ strengthen the slab and to reduce the stif fness of the walls in the reanalysis. The reanalysis was performed assuming reduced stiffness for the walls and increased stiffness of the slab (from strengthening which shall be added). The analysis indicated that the acceptance criteria can be satisfied with modified slab and walls. Strengthening the slab either by adding plates on top of the slab or by adding rebar to the existing slab is being i evaluated. The forces and capacities at critical sections for the superstructure north of Column Line G is also being reviewed and the results will be provided in future FSAR amendments. 4.2 UNDERPINNING WALLS The design concepts of the underpinning walls below the electrical penetration areas (EPAs) and the control tower have been described in Reference 5. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the underpinning wall and reinforcing detail and Figure 2-3 shows f typical connection details with the EPA and control tower i n i 2-2 r.11-M e-i ~.- W*pg"-er-*y--ywNe w eg irymMP

• te--p--e--

-g-ree-p--W-ep yy-w g-eedE-iNww*yeg-g--wm-etey-upg--eg-,9m-yev--aw a y-ypgeeFw.,

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Respor.se to NRC Staff Review Concerns for Auxiliary Building Underpinning superstructures. Figure 2-4 shows the soil pressure data points and Tables 2-1 and 2-2 include the design load capacities and soil pressires, respectively. 4.3 FEEDWATER ISOLATION VALVE PITS FOUNDATION The analysis concept for the FIVP foundation has been described in Reference 5. The support detail is shown in Figure 2-5; Table 2-3 shows the soil pressures under the foundation and rebar details for the 3'-0" thick jacking slab. G 6 t 4 M 4 2-3 ? - = . a.- - -,.. _

L._ L ' ^ ^. ---.. L. i ~~ ~;*~ , - - - ~ W. Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns For Auxiliary Building Underpinning REVIEW CONCERN 2: CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 l Provide the'following: a) Results of analysis of the auxiliary building during construction of the underpinning walls with a soil modulus of 70 kcf under the main auxiliary building. b) Results of analysis for lost of support under the EPAs because of tunneling under the turbine building. i

5.0 INTRODUCTION

[l The auxiliary building temporary support system was analyzed at ~i appropriate sequential stages of excavation and jacking planned g during construction of the underpinning wall. The analysis was i based on the estimated 30 kef subgrade modulus of the existing i soil under the building (shown in parentheses in Figure 2-6). i The results of the analysis indicated that these were acceptable safety margins at the various construction stages. The results of this analysis were presented to the NRC staff during the structural audit conducted by them during the week of February 1, j 1982. I At the conclusion of the audit, the NRC staff requested that two parametric studies mentioned above be performed. The studies are i

f described below.

Additionally, the staff had expressed a concern ( about 20 feet for Stage i soil removal. The staff felt that c 30 feet should be used for Stage 1. This concern was also i' incorporated in the parametric analysis. 6.0 ANALYTICAL MODEL I i The three-dimensional, finite-element model, as shown in Drawing 7220-SK-C-767-1 through -21 and previously provided to the NRC 1 i during the February 1 and February 26, 1982 audits (Reference 6), has been used. The following assumptions were made in the analysis. 6.1 LOADS i P Loads include dead weight, weights of blockwall and equipment, and 254 live load on the structure, along with jacking loads applied as construction progresses. l t a g 2-5 i t U - -,,. -,,~ ~ ~L,.

• ~~*:.'.L..

J. C~C.~ ~ ~ ~ ~

m.u._ ci. ~ ~ Z.~__ ~ E ' lTE U.TZ ' T Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 bj_ Response to NRC Staf f Review Concerns t For Auxiliary Building Underpinning I 6.2 ALIDWABLE, STRESSES AND LOAD FACTORS These values are based on ACI 318-71 and the American Institute of Steel Construction manual, Seventh Edition. The computer results were multiplied by a factor of 1.43 to correspond to 1.4D + 1.7L. This is the same as in the previous analysis. 6.3 SOIL SPRINGS The soil springs are based on the values of soil modulii as shown in Figure 2-6. 6.4 MODULUS OF CONCRETE { The Young's modulus of concrete is based on E C = 57,000 fc' in accordance with Article 8.3.1 of ACI 318-71. No reduction due to creep has been assumed. 6.5 REDUCTION OF STIFFNESS The stresses in different elements of the finite-element model 30 kef under were evaluated using the previous analysis (Ksoil =ition and the main auxiliary building) for the existing cond Stage 1 of soil removal. Elements whose membrane shoar str as exceeded 3vTc7 or whose membrane tensile stress exceeded 4 c' were identified (open items list, Reference 6). These include some elements on the floor at el 659'-0" (shown in Figure 2-7 and Drawing 7220-SK-C-767-7) and on one wall below el 659'-0" between H and Fx on Column Line 5.3 (Figure 2-8 and Drawing 7220-SK-C-767-17). In accordance with Reference 6, the stiffnesses of these elements were reduced tot pxn where p = percentage of rebar n = modular ratio between rebar and concrete (assumed to be 8) This reduced stiffness decreased the stresses on these elements; however, the average stress on a total length of the slab as shown in Figure 2-7 increased by a small amount compared to the uncracked analysis (with soil modulus K = 30 kcf under the main auxiliary building).

7.0 DESCRIPTION

OF VARIOUS ANALYSES The analyses performed in respense to Review Concern 2a and 2b aredescribedinSections,/'.1and[.2below. For all stages of j 7 7' 2-6 i -~,c- ~~-s- -~m-e.. ..m+, .,n w.

~- 3 .c \\ f Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns For Auxiliary Building Underpinning a construction, the effect of soil removal has been simulated by applying a downward load at the ends of a weightless structure as shown in Figure 2-12. The magnitude of this downward load is equal to the sum of the reactions of the springs removed. In all analyses described hereafter, the change in stress due to any subsequent construction has been analyzed separately and added to the existing stress. The total stresses at any stage thus obtained are shown in Table 2-4. i 7.1 REVIEW CONCERN 2a 7.1.1 Existing Stress In determining the existing stress in the structure, two models have been used to represent the progress of the original ~ cons truc tion. The structure above el 659' was assumed to cause stress for structural elements at el 659' and above as shown in Figure 2-9; for all other areas, the structure was assumed to be loaded as shown in Figure 2-10. 7.1.2 Stage 1 Construction ,In Stage 1 of construction, the soil at the two extremes of the )EPAs is removed (Figure 2-11). To satisfy staff concerns, the width of soil removal is assumed to be 30 feet, compared to 20 feet assumed for Stage 1 in the previous analysis with K = 30 kcf under the main auxiliary building. = Upon completion of soil removal, grillage beams will be placed under the ends of the EPAs and ptedetermined jacking loads will be applied to the structure. 7.1.3 Stage 2 Construction The analysis for this stage combines the analyses for Stage 2 and part of Stage 3 of construction as presented in the February 1, 1982, structural audit and, therefore, is an upperbound analysis. This was done in accordance with the agreement with the NRC staff (Reference 6). Actual excavation limits and the extent of l deletion of springs are shown in Figure 2-14. At the end of Stage 1 of construction, additional jacking capacity will be l available at the ends of the EPA (capacity shown in parentheses). Piers CTl and CT12 on the south corners of the control tower will be installed before further excavation under the EPA.

However, I

the struccure will be monitored to detect unanticipated i t movements. If necessary, either of the following actions can be c j taken before a large amount of soil is removed. a. The jacking loads (shown in parentheses in E 3 Figure 2-16) at the ends of the EPA and piers CT1 and f 2-7 1

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns For Auxiliary Building Underpinning CT12 at the south corners of the control tower can be increased. b. Four additional piers on the south side of the control towers (CT2, CT3, CT10, and CT11) can be constructed. The structure has been analyzed for a large amount of soil removal as shown in Figure 2-14 and for each of the above conditions. The more critical results from the two cases are incorporated in Table 2-4. At the end of excavation in Stage 2, the design jacking loads will be applied to the structure as shown in Figure 2-15. c 7.1.4 Stage 3 Construction

s The design conditions for total soil removal and with jacking loads applied are shown in Figures 2-16 and 2-17, respectively.

7.2 REVIEW CONCERN 2b This study has been performed to analyze the effect of tunneling under the turbine building af ter the ends of the EPA have been supported by jacks, as shown.in Figure 2-18. It has been assumed that, because of tunneling under the turbine building, a strip approximately 6 feet wide on the south side of the EPA will lose soil support. 8.0

SUMMARY

OP ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 7: The areac of maximum stress have been identified in Figure 2-19, i and Table 2-4 shows the average stress in the rebar during the various construction stages. As Table 2-4 indicates, despite the j conservative assumptions, there is no overstressing of the ^ structure. i l' 2-8 f ., _ :n _ _ - r c. r _ ~ _ _.. - _ _ _ .n~

~ -

~ -~ o Midland Plant' Units 1 and 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns For Auxiliary Building Underpinning REFERENCES 1. Sketches 7220-SK-C-767-1 through 24, Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Model 2. Consumers Power Company;* Technical Report on Underpinning the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits for Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Consumers Power Company Docket Numbers 50-329 and 50-330, Enclosure 3 to J.W. Cook's letter to H.R. Denton (NRC), September 30, 1981 I 3. Consumers Power Company, Testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Regarding Remedial Measures for the hidland Plant Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits by T.E. Johnson, Docket No. 50-329 and l 50-330 4. American Concrete Institute, Standard Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures, ACI 349-80 5. Consumers Power Company, Addendum to Technical Report on Underpinning the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits, December 2, 1981

6. to CPCo letter to the NRC, Serial 16597, March 31, 1982, Midland Docket No. 50-329, 50-330 T

M O i f k i i ] 2-9 p l --~3

m. n :.w ; u . =.. ^ ~ ^ f' Midicnd Plcnt Unita 1 and 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns 4 for Auxiliary Building Underpinning + REVIEW CONCERN 5 A) Provide an updated version of Drawing 7220-C-1495. B) Should the strain gage on the wall'on Column Row 5.3-5.6 at elevation 646' be oriented diago.nally similar to the strain gages below elevation 614'? Should the wall on Column Row 7.4-7.8 shown on C) Drawing 7220-C-1495 have Columne G and H reversed? f Should the orientation of the strain gages also be 1, reversed at this location? D) What are the temperature requirements for the strain gages? E) Provide details of strain gages and gage reading frequencies.

RESPONSE

t A) -1 is an updated version of Drawing 7220-C-i 1495. 4 B) The strain gage (called extensometer on Drawing C-1495) was originally oriented vertically based on a preliminary i survey. Further investigation showed that a diagonal orientation of the strain gage is feasible. Thus, the strain gage is now oriented as shown in Drawing 7220-C-1495. C) Columns G and H and the strain gages should be reversed as shown in Drawing 7220-C-1495. g D) The strain gages use temperature-insensitive invar wire. 4 1 Also, all strain gages are located within the temperature-controlled environment of the auxiliary building. The l ef fect of the temperature range will be minimal; therefore, l temperature requirements are not needed. E) Strain gage details are shown in Drawing 7220-C-1495 (Attachment 5-1) and in Attachment 5-2. The reading frequency is shown in Drawing 7220-C-1493 ( AttachmentJ-3 ), c P l 5-1 4

xv-'

u

~ _., . -. ~. -... - - - Midicnd Plent Unita 1 cnd 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns for Auxiliary Building Underpinning c REVIEW CONCERN 6 a) Commitment.to perform test load above design load (e.g., 1.30 times) on installed pier to develop load-deflection curve for verification of hard clay soil modulus. Identify pier. k b) Consider loading pier to the allowable bearing capacity for the seismic condition (22 ksf) or consider perform-i ing a plate load test to that load level.

RESPONSE

a) A load test will'be performed on Pier Wil which is ' beneath the turbine building. The load test performed for this pier will generally have the same procedure as the test planned for an initial pier in the service water pump structure (SWPS). The procedure for the SWPS has conceptually been discussed in the response to confirmatory Issue'14 in the April 23, 1982, submittal of Additional Information for Review of the' Borated Water Storage Tank and Service Water Pump Structure Underpinning. -This response will provide a more detail- ,0 ed discussion regarding the procedure which will be used for the auxiliary building (and SWPS) test pier. An appendix to the underpinning specification is being developed for the test procedure. The procedure is based on ASTM D 1143-81, Standard Method of Testing Piles Under Static Axial Compressible Load.

However, several modifications have been made because of the special nature of the proposed test.

The load test will be supervised by the resident geotechnical engi-neer. The load test for Pier Wil will be made to a jacking i load which induces a maximum bearing pressure of 19 ksf. l This is approximately 304 greater than the design static maximum bearing pressure of 14.7 ksf. At pre-sent, it is anticipated that a load producing 19 ksf bearing pressure load can be jacked into the system without damaging the turbine building. The apparatus used for applying the load to the pier will be the jacking system specified to transfer load to the pier. Measuring devices to detect pier movement - will, as a minimum, be the dial gages specified to measure the deflection at the top and bottom of the pier. In addition, Cac1 son pressure cells will be installed near the top and bottom of the shaf t. 6-1 5

• e*e-F e ~' +
  • $+

M ea * - + + - * * * = ~ * * - * * -

o ...- m 9... 'I Midicnd Plcnt Units 1 cnd 2 l Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns for Auxil.iary Building Underpinning The load will be applied in increments of 25%.(or less) .of the -jacking load (hereaf ter referred to as the design jacking load) required to induce a 14.7 kaf bearing' pressure. Each load will be maintained until the rate of settlement is not greater than 0.01 in./hr, but not longer than 2 hours. When 100% of the design jacking -load is reached and the criteria have been met, the pier will be unloaded incrementally to zero load. Each decrement of load will be held for 20 minutes. The pier will be reloaded at the same increments as e initial loading allowing 20 minutes between increments until reapplication of 100% of the design jacking load 4 is complete. At 100% of the design jacking load, the i load will be maintained until the rate of settlement is not greater than 0.005 in./hr. Af ter the settlement criterion (0.005 in./hr) at 100% of the design jacking load is met, the load will be increased in increments of 104 (or less) of the design jacking load until the load is.approximately 130% of i the jacking load. Each load increment will be held until the rate of settlement is not greater than 0.01 in./hr, but not longer than 2 hours. The load at approximately 130% of the design jacking load will be held until the rate of settlement is not greater than 0.005 in./hr. On completion of the final test loading, the pier will be unloaded in accordance with specified production jacking procedures and the wedges will be driven tight-ly to lock off the force as specified by the design documents. Measures will be taken to eliminate the potential for load to be transferred via skin friction between the i s pier and the surrounding soil. Two options are being specified. The first consists of lining the inside of the pit with 1/2-inch thick plywood placed over the lagging and 1/2-inch thick fiberboard (Colotex). The second option consists of lining the inside of the pit with 1/2-inch thick plywood, groasing the surf ace of a the plywood, and placing another sheet of 1/2-inch 1 thick plywood over the first layer of plywood. In l either option, no nails or fasteners will be placed between the two sheets. Before placing the mud slab for Pier Wil, a number of tests will be performed using the miniature cone pene-t trometers. In addition, two hand-cut, 10-inch undis-turbed cube samples will be obtained in the soil directly above the bearing stratum. 6-2 e a. - r = : w=

=u

~=, =:

.- ~

= _. . a.- .~..,__.;~ j 2 Midicnd Plcnt Unito 1 cnd 2 Response to NRC Staf f Revicw C ncerno for Auxiliary Building Underpinning b) As stated earlier, the design static maximum bearing ~ pressure for the pier foundation is 14 7 ksf.- This represents a factor of safety (FS) of 3 with respect to the ultimate bearing capacity of 44 ksf. The pier design has also been analyzed using allowable bearing pressures of 17.6 ksf (FS = 2 5) for construction conditions and 22 kaf (FS = 2) for seismic loading. i The bearing pressure for the construction condition is temporary. The seismic condition represents pier loadings which are transient. In particular, the j bearing pressure associated with the seismic loading is extremely short-lived and is applied dynamically rather than statically as is the pier test load. Discussions with the NRC staff have indicated that the < staff would like the pier load test to be taken to a' j loading with a bearing pressure in excess of 22 ksf (the allowable bearing pressure including seismic loading). It is not possible to do this practically for the pier load test because at this stage of con-struction, available reactions will not be sufficient. In addition, the soil modulus which would be applicable to deformations caused by earthquake-induced forces cannot be determined by loading the pier to 22 kst. This modulus has been established by previous dynamic soil property evaluations which are presente'd in the j FSAR. To attain a bearing pressure exceeding 22 ksf, the NRC staf f has recommended that a plate load test be per-a a formed at the bottom of the pier excavation prior to placement of the mud mat, reinforcement, instrumenta-tion, and pier concrete. Such a test would increase the risk associated with construction and would yield results which require considerable extrapolation to the design conditions. It is important to note that performing a plate load test at the bottom of a pier excavation will require leaving the excavation open and the subgrade exposed to environmental effects. In underpinning construction, it is prudent to minimize the time during which,the excavation is left open. The longer the pier pit remains open and exposed, the greater the amount of ? risk to the excavation, subgrade, and adjacent structures. 6-3 I I

=. Midicnd Picnt Unito 1 cnd 2 Response to NRC Staff Review Concerns for Auxiliary Building Underpinning The results of a plate load test would not be directly applicable to predicting the performance of a pier. Such a test would be run using an 18-to 36-inch dia-meter plate on the pier subgrade surface. A plate system has a considerably smaller zone of influence than a 6' x 6' rectangular pier. Also, the pier will have 35 to 40 feet of soil confinement, which would not be present in the test of a small plate. If the results of a plate. load test are extrapolated to an actual pier, the results would be extremely conservative. In addition, the previously discussed comments related to ~ the soil modulus for the seismic condition would also e apply to a plate load test. Based on the above discussion, the performance of a load test in Pier Wil to 1.3 times the design jacking load will provide sufficient verification of the hard clay soil modulus in the static load range anticipated for the underpinning foundations. l f 6 M t t + k ( 6-4 /

~~ m. UNDERPINNING WALLS in pt,ug LOCATION A XIA L MOM'T MOM'T SHEAR SHEAR P (SEE FIG.1) K/FT K-FT/FT Qbf7 K/FT Qpi A fj@I Br.S // 37s 64.4 /3.2 B

• HORIZ.

l A ~ Y' * 'M Y70 /N SECT C EI"CN. // 7 N/ M 'L -u.z. .rer ios4 a oic I! D "l$'1. L !. INTERFACES i A XIA L SHEAR SHEAR l-LOCATION CAR INTERFACE K/F T K/FT K/F T I A cric. 2-1) HORIz si.s ss;o g 7. j i i. VERT 49 y jp, fy 3 E tric. 2-3) l } y NO TE:1)THE CAPACITIES CORRESPO'ND TO THE EXISTING AXIA L LOADS. 2)+VE AXIAL LOAD IS TENSION 3)THE CRITICAL OUT OF PLANE SHIAR IN THE UNDERPINNING WALL IS AJ k/f t WEILE TIE CAPACITY IS/apk/ft CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDuMD PuMT UNITS 1 & 2 Review Concern 2 l Auxiliary Building Underpinning Design Loads Tabl. 2-7 l

NET SOIL PRESSURE (t<S$ ULT. NET BEARING sto u a le r ML POINT SE T TL E MEN T CAPACITY prm) EL. CASE 1 CASE 2 CA S.E-1 (gsp) A 57/ ~ /f,8 ~/ f,6 -472-1s/,0 m d'7/' -- JS,4 /.f, 3- ~f o C f42 -j3,f )),9 -$9 a /4,7 -3. 0 - 4,3 a /44 ~ 9, 9 or - f,8 a -jp I It, 9, -4.o' r /f,6 -S. 9 -ja,y' ~ 4 /</,f & -2 9 N - r,,:3.. /4s 9 -3, o o' J J 7/ -/.C0 t /f, / -3,1 X .f7/ -/ 9 2 0 ~~ /: u. 1. Case 1 corresponds to nazimum compression f PT. A for settlement case 1. 2. Case 2 corresponds to maximum compressiod @ Pt. A for settlement case 2. n .S. Compression is negative not.: wet pre..ure is tat.1,res.ure CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY minus the pressure due to tha removed soil up to original Review Concern 2 ground elevation (el 600'). Auxiliary Building Underpinning Soil Pressure U TA B LE-2-2 yy --_._w-,.,,,.__ _ - _. ,_.-.__----__-.mm _,,e-m

m _. n am s a o . A a dfp W 'e E 63 y e,ovao saa e v t i h h SOIL PRESSURE (KSF) D + L+ E' D+L PolNT CASE I CASE 2 CASE 3 'l A s.o .s. / h B- - e,e - e., -</ l C -io.i - 10, 9 - 1. 3 i D - 4, 8 - 9. o. -s7 i E .s .s - 3. a +

1) CASE 1 CORRESPONDS TO M/N. COMPRESSION ON T*mt Adsd

2) CASE 2 CORRISPONDS TO MIN. COMPT.ESSION ON RfDWE8 A 88'd

3) COMPRESSION IS NEGATIVE

4) UI.TIMATE BEARINC CAPACITY = 25 KSF (ESTIMATED MINIMUM VA1,UE)

5) THE MAXIMUM MOMENT IS 31 K-FT/FT AND THE MOMENT CAPACITY IS 112 K-TT/FT CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

] MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 Review Concern 2 FIUP Soil Pressure and Rebar Detail TA B L E 3

-- a c< w.- I i L REBAR STRESSES FOR PARAMETRIC i 'i h STUDIES i

i l

Parametric Study l Parametric Study 2 Existing Construction Construction Construction ,j Description Steess Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 ksi Af ter Soil With After hhth After With

l Removal Jacking Soil Jacking Soi Jacking Load Removal Load Removal Load i

+ WaB Below 54 ksl 'i El 614*-O'* On Line 40 44 39 37 27 48 26 40 Allowable 5.3 Between Column Lines G and H t 54 ksi Slab At El 659' Between Column 15 17 13 12 0 23 0 20 Agowablo l Lines G and H t

• Compressive stress in stab; Hence, no tensie stress in rebar.

TABLE 2-4 G 2513-13 1 \\

- ~. g j a I:

• =.

i ^ AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING i i O I 03 wiusus fsyh)ez80sr$ 191W* 6 pou,o** Conc e . i i ii PE;6M, _.L L.NtM,t,.),',1, .11. -(L.L. i l....J..g '. j iFp.......hL-Ch****....... .ii a s..tT'[T.P-VJ-Dyg*.p -- ig i i } n , ~ ~ f . ie,.-

i EW EF g

O 'i O O.O!.i.s.- - !,. 6 :% .' p.i p" 7 l l ~- /,2l7S@f- ':t J :';.:.;i..'tI' ...Y.O......F l l '"$;dh ce ! s-5 vs .) ...:i.. g.. c. ......L.L.....

e...an

.~ ~ SOUTH ELEVATION OF LMDERPINNING WALL r l I L CRITICAL SECTION FOR WALL DESIGN i h @ @ ELECTRICAL PENETRATION WING @@ CONTROL TOWER APPROX, 25'N OF KC CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 i Review Concern 2 l Auxilliary Building Underpinning Wall Reinforcing Detail i 1-l lI Figure 2-1 i l l

. --- y q-j t .i ac=ca. OKe H Po*1** ~ a t l L.... y g..i. w.n s "." 5 4 /:".*3 l ,.. w ...e.<, 1 p ,.c e

r..

". 3*.; ~~ ~ [<.' a*,,- - - - - - rusowwc wac* / g.,,,,,,,,,,- =cau. ~ I ,.i.. s* **. i N -. u.e m es c E / i \\ r..*.*..**. { lgg;y,3

f..o es.t. s.'.a Jt.. * **

g . s-e 9, ~ -.....- w.

e....,.

x N 3.. d.ir N gr J N ew . u.-

,.;.,gV g..

... 7 h....,.,.,,.,. y r - - t ,w b.- r-x z e. -i e N m..n at. e ano Q ::.::.:.:i::i::. ;': .:.i.;;? q',% ,.. ~c" .~ M ks.

.s u..n Y nt~"""

hs m..:. :::. :.:..u.... ;. g.:. ,,,,w ,.co.w l \\'N tsweistumsse tes.t. gig g ~WX/#S f g3 m r s ',.m..w WALL UNDER ELECTRICAL ko t-44 e?.d 44 PENETRATION AREA WALL UNDER CONTROL TOWER CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 Review Concern 2 UNDERPINNING WALL DETAILS FIGURE 2-2 l'

g...

e, i-t . +P k ..fRA ta u a m m'i -o 2. cast arau swe M*n s*; { LTrn) } v.s _u. - - I l l l L L r DETAIL Of off YO EPA CONN 4rT/OM r; C avTA0L 7'o w ER )- I wwms m o muaw au n,- = =urs .. J >W cw'

:;3 O a; G

[ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 .e + - .e G -O Review Concern 2 Auxilliary Building Underpinning DETA/L Of U/P TO C. T CONNE47/dN ua11 connection Deta11s i Figure 2-3 .m-., w ---r. rw -,--.----_,.-,e_w p., .y y,-g

I i 1 g i-i i I ,i i 1 t l i i __ g = n e 9 / %u/Wllk }@9 ?Su er > w

--m

. g _e U6 lM 'soss os- _ Ve uunaawmW" i I W i i wm U C l rg mor,m, CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY I i 23 Up MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 .i l I l Review Concern 2 ? PLAN-AUXILIARY BUILDING sat ere.. re oae eaa. l UNDERPINNING FIGURE 2-4

...., ~. -.. .b - I l. y. Far.o w ATs.n (T WLWs. I'lT ' l '\\* ' Ei. 648)b6 6

• J3 w e m' - '

s.w /

9, T. :. si..s:4'.o-}

e.,

I,,, h; k '[ E.[#: ,d d 'd! '. '.'...f. a ... i.: ~* -+_ r DbM bkk El 604-O" su,iness k : 4 ::1. t.. .,.).. :. d. ~ t,. Access q[ $QQ*.q* f' ":. :.:: Uj. t;.'. 4' Muo MAi._ f..} JACKING SLAB

• .f EL.59 l'-G p~:~..

l.~~snmoin suv. coue.. <r i CONCRETE FILL .9',

. r.-

COMPACTED '--- : es - - ~ - - - - - GRANULAR FILL A .m.,u ~ v ~ N f N". k' :' I f ~ #.' ~ ~ ~ ~.Y I.. t7 571'-O' ~ l 8L.. .'., e l.V. 3 SU 330 T J E, A' L r I i I. i CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 Review Concern 2 Feedwater Isolation Valve Pit L Support Detail FIGURE 2-5 ___y.. ~ ~ - - -.____;-..-- ;

,.s AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING .t EXISTING SOIL SPRINGS UNDER AUXILIARY BUILDING l i KCF k=6 N r l t KCF k = 70 (30) l! l1 e L KCF \\ / k=18 j KCF i KCF k = 17 KCF k = 21 k = 17KCF k = 21 C 5.3 6.6 7.8 Figure 2-6 o 2s:3.oa i I i

,=, I AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING REDUCTION OF STIFFNESS '/l/,,/// './,!s'/llll. l// / g,3 ex be.S9 ,g,g i .d m g a. m. a gg =@_== gm. ---. M/ky<tg .e.e hw g'4' ,,,3g,g, $4e #, f ., fg.. ..u kg y f,j, ef "> , 9s, 06-d'@ %. 'l'" nf n ' 43-43.S8 l ni %8 M9 gs X (s.-4.256 94' 90 69 00 @) Cas) *Et. Y '/ [,, 941 944 US 9 30 937 936 iB. 934 ! l 943 Q} /,/ 4b /// 9U U 00 179 TB 127 z' 9M $N + M7 e @ "z.-M.sti J '!.. ne/bh us nf f o m a us.- ,/ -[' w / / m@,,@ ll g // - 79 m m m 9 m ..s .w 916 E f3 sig 56 3 UJ 9 57 k Q'9') Q6 7 'a Of (2I) (N) dg> %g , ti 914 913 912 til 914 961 M4 .n .= i x m - Tib GO @): 976 %S 16e tot NT 906 9e5 M4 903 962 e43 a7 g . se 29 ni m m m in . m m n2 ~ '//'/////, '. ', '/ ///,l///,//// '///,'/,//j////// I ' l //// ggg _., / / /.' '// //,.. //, ,3. .u .u en -m m m1 no [m$ l I c 3 "8O c c ' e 9 i 0 e e s e ? Y 9 5 ? ? e a s 1 2 3 t. v e x a = = J ? i l Figure 2-7 g,,3.g

i ~ [ 3 AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING REDUCTION OF STIFFNESS L @O@@ l fl4 117 lit [itsi E>' nd> m@ ii. m m 1 ~ i., n. @ @I@ m.s e,. m !m na a en 4 f d.?$ 2"32. 85 @ !#D I' g m'* m@ m@ s n. n, /e m Z = m j I* g m( .u.i so so m = wi su s ,j '*/ m @ I @ I .s. is, v. wi I *> .n, y, ,e,s.,m ,l @i@ @, ', ;.T i g e'. l ,,,, ar 5 - e i e a2 a m 2 .y 7' ,n. im em im iw m, a 4 .a.. p ,m&t9' // 's@ / j" g*,R N,, 7 "' ^"'- %__1 i -es .m es..s @ 1 ($Qa21N hsa> '"', %3,,, *,,,,[' %D

• ~"

i@ EE. s i "5 gj g rf.isn nul an em nu mi m m.. \\ Figure 2-8 aasi m WALL NEAR COLUMN LINE 5.3 4

i i AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING TYPICAL SECTION (Looking East) { i 1 / 5 LOADED AREA . l /y5j /SHOWN HATCHED O/ / ? -h! ----- E

,; g7gg7 EL 659'-0" i

RAILROAD BAY -:gV[6: ___ CONTROL TOWER EL 634'-6" '* f GRADE lj EL 634'-0" ,p \\ .g q N:[l_ jE'f0 EL 614'-0" BACKFILL g.T BACKFILL a EL 568'-0" r ORIGINAL SOIL EXISTING STRESS ANALYSIS LOADING CONDITION FOR EL 659'-0" AND ABOVE 4 Figure 2-9 o-2siao2 4

AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING TYPICAL SECTION l. (Looking East) f/ /

i

//- .i / ///' j [ / / [ NM' RAILROAD BAY / / CONTROL ,////4 ___ TOWER j/ 4 jj El_ 634'-6" 7 7f l EL 659'-0" GRADE

/,//

l,h/hll/l /f '/////, / g

/

j'7 p g j je EL 634'-0" j j EL 614' 0" / / BACKFILL &/ 'y.ery /y 1 g / ) / / 4 ( u / / / BACKFILL EL 568'-0" [ /

r. /7ff./} Y:n /./ ><4/ f 7.Y- /:

ORIGINAL SOIL EXISTING STRESSES BELOW EL 659'-0" Figure 2-10 ansia oi i

AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING CONSTRUCTION AREA 'l PLAN i CONSTRUCTION STAGE 1 N SUPPORTED ON TILL .i nss,//ssssssss,,sss-l /'$ } 12' ACTUAL l EXCAVATION pf = /--s, --- j SUPPORTED ON EXISTING FILL / Nf \\ h 4 / / b / SOIL SPRINGS l DELETED IN ANALYSIS i L e Figure 2-11 PARAMETRIC STUDY l G-2513-05

1 =_...._ _.. - AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING ~ ELEVATION VIEW AT K LINE c m CONSTRUCTION STAGE 1 (Soil Removal) .PRESTRESSING l EL 704' j l EL 695'-6" !l TOP OF GRADE EL 634'-6" .i: LOAD FROM !l LOSS OF SOIL / m ll SUPPORT / 3 7 ,,u,f y 3 g l ,,n,- M OF MAT BOTTOM OF MAT lj 3 EL 603' l y y u 30' SOIL SUPPORT DELETED i l WEST WING CONTROL TOWER EAST WING f a2sia.i2 Figure 2-12 I

AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN CONSTRUCTION STAGE 1 E N j (Jacking Loads Applied) SUPPORTED ON si,, ss? s s s s, s,, s,s SUPPORTED ON 500K EXISTING FILL / / x-N u l/ / I K 1,100 \\ /\\ / e i i Figure 2-13 l-PARAMETRIC STUDY I a2suos

.j AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING CONSTRUCTION AREA i r i PLAN CONSTRUCTION STAGE 2 E N i. (Soil Removed) SUPPORTED ON j s-> > ss? s s s s s s s, ss s', ls e (1,250K) SUPPORTED ON /' /' / / "' EXISTING FILL l K N 500 / \\ f I} s 7A$SN sxwwwwxxxx b Y$ W / l K SOIL SUPPORT ~

l 1,100 ASSUMED DELETED

\\ (2 750K) K j 1,300 .(1,500K) LIMIT OF ACTUAL SOIL EXCAVATION i, PARAMETRIC STUDY I Figure 2-14

AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING CONSTRUCTION AREA i PLAN L E CONSTRUCTION STAGE 2 N (Jacking Loads Applied) SUPPORTED ON lli TILL n u nn s s s s s s / n su, SUPPORTED ON i I EXISTING Fil.L K - i 500 N' 900 y K %S8NNM / ANNNNsssssANNNNN 4 //// M Mh kN bkN ME55 N \\M i a m K K 1,100 2, 00 K 1,300 K K K 1,300 1,100 1,100 1,100 l f Figure 2-15 ' PARAMETRIC STUDY l G-2513-08 1

= ,4 AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING CONSTRUCTION AREA ~ PLAN N CONSTRUCTION STAGE 3 E (Soil Removed) SUPPORTED ON TILL i* K / K H pw/ f; /2hfjfh/h'[/@ MVdW 900 / / a K K l 1,100 2,200 mwwm K K K 1,300 1,100 1,100 1,100 I i. 1 Figure 2-16 PARAMETRIC STUDY I G-2513-11 L

=- AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING CONSTRUCTION AREA ~ PLAN N CONSTRUCTION STAGE 3 E (Jacking Loads Applied) - SUPPORTED ON TILL 800K , SUPPORTED ON' // 500K //rs //, i i K / / 900 ANINlhhhhhkh $W3'""* K K 1,100 2, 00 3,400K K' 1,300 i 1,300 1,100 1,100 1,100 K K K ~ i! j j Figure 2-17 l G-251311

-w . ~ --4.- m'.e.-a. os'i-. 4 ....r / .j ~ a ~ \\ Y >h 5 o g

Jty,

\\

• o

^ 0

• g.

,, -m, z

= 7.. v P" ' :.' aEd L >,g '4 '#kh">> h + o, o s ['+I!fg \\;,, j% < s,,;;>/ O> x::.>3 Q 4% u P

F ~~ i p k b. I -C y L, C 2_././L a r,,/7 n. a< <~ hY, hi %, $tYc_, h oneu. ScY ku b

• Y "'

t v's. / // / / ~. q, t 7 M1P' Lek $6V%%e% ut A 4Y~~ 0 A 0 f*4 Vh n v J f l~ 61 2/~f7c3u AI / 6 4,- r-F2_ vet 'y e,>f ed b2n g j /eHer _s .n / at il ,,n aJ nua a I I l .-e- =_ - NM pfj+- ,.. ~ 4

• '#g i

s I

CJD3UmETS

i 3

U 90W2r .) w w c.a v Campany m, ~a - ~3,#. ry-y med Cassrrecties General offlees: 1945 West Parnett Roal, Jesason, MI 482oi * (517) 78MM53 N# June 1, 1982

n bMSI 3/D b!O i/D f

k.JLI mM ! l I 4,dfra // $&Tn I I j Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation N Wg

1. }

US Nuclear Regulatory Consnission !7"" f' [x M "' Washington, DC 20555 ^ MIDLAND PROJECT MIDLAND DOCKET NO 50-329, 50-330 RESPONSE TO TE NRC STAFF REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT-RELATED ANALYSES FOR THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING FILE: 0485.16, B3.0.3 SERIAL: 17228 ENCLOSURE: (1) STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING As a result of meetings with the NRC during the week of February 23-26, 1982, a number of analyses were completed to resolve concerns identified by the Staff for the diesel generator building. These analyses included: (1) analysis of the diesel generator building, including the effect of settlements which occurred before the removal of the surcharge; (2) statistical evaluation of the diesel generator building settlement data to support the conclusion that the structure is settling as a rigid body; and (3) analysis of the diesel generator building using zero springs and/or reduced spring values. The diesel generator building was analyzed as documented in the technical report for the governing loading contributions including the effects of the surveyed settlements recorded from the start of construction (6-6-78) to the removal of surcharge (8-3-79), and also for the effect of the predicted forty-year settlement. The maximum rebar stresses are within the allowable of 54 ksi and are, therefore, within the strength capacity of the building to withstand the design loads specified in the FSAR and Question 15 of.the NRC Requests Regarding, Plant Fill. I~ In Attachment I-I of the technical report the statistical evaluation of the surveyed settlement data verifies that the data contains both systematic and erratic errors due to optical' surveys at different elevations due to the inaccessibility of permanent markers during the surcharge. This data lends further support to our conclusion that the diesel generator building is undergoing rigid body motion. oc0582-0093a100 w M/ ne/n_ e. r: g < ww V / Uv v v C... s Mat ~~ ^ ~ a

o 2 In Attachment I-2 of the technical report the potential bridging of the building over soft. soils was also analyzed and by comparison with the original design analysis it is concluded that the structure will withstand the stresses of this hypothesis. We believe these analyses represent a complete response to the concerns identified by the Staff and the enclosed technical report completes the analytical activities associated with the diesel generator building. ) ( M I( Yb W y IC p;,- g JWC/WJC/akh CC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, w/o CBechhoefer, ASLB, w/o MMCherry, Esq, w/o FPCowan, ASLB, w/o RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector, w/o RSDecker, ASLB, w/o SGadler, w/o JHarbour, ASLB, w/o GHarstead, Harstead Engineering, w/a DSHood, NRC, w/a (2) DFJudd, B&W, w/o JDKane, NRC, w/a i FJKelley, Esq, w/o i RBLandsman, NRC Region III, w/a WIDiarshall, w/o JPMatra, Naval Surface Weapons Center, w/a W0tto, Army Corps of Engineers, w/o WDPaton, Esq, w/o SJPoulos, Geotechnical Engineer =, w/a FRinaldi, NRC, w/a HSingh, Army Corps of Engineers, w/a l BStamiris, w/o 1 i i oc0582-0093a100 -m.. = =. .=..2.

i

• a
  • "*P I

4 -siil.kelap w ,pp Iq ,4 5. _a 1 a 6. e i. t I \\ t (- O 3 ',' "u " ^ " 3 i ( g' I I TECHNICAL REPORT STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING S 4 ~ 4 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 3 / - P / l t - z.vy a s' a y 7 y - "*m A 1

1 = MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 TECHNICAL REPORT STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ( DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING TABLE OF CONTENTS O3,, 'e3 Page 1.O STRUCTURAL REANALYSIS 1 1.1 STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 1 1.1.1 Load Cases 2 1.1.2 Load Combinations 2 / 1.1.3 Allowable Material Limits 4 2.0 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING ANALYTICAL MODEL 4 2.1 APPLICATION OF LOADS TO THE BUILDING MODEL 4 2.1.1 Dead Loads 5 2.1.2 SNttlementLoads 5 2.1.3 Live Loads 8 2.1.4 Wind Loads 8 2.1.5 Tornado Loads 8 2.1.6 Seismic Loads 9 2.1.7 Thermal Loads 10 3.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 11 3.1 SETTLEMENT /LONG-TERM MODEL 11 3.2 SHORT-TERM MODEL 14 L 3.3 ZERO-SETTLEMENT MODEL 11 3.4 STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY COMPUTATIONS 11

4.0 CONCLUSION

S 13 REFERENCES 14 APPENDIX A OPTCON 11 h ~ ~ T,' ~ ,[' -_, _T_.! 'IT ~~ _ ..~ ~ _,_._,[~.,_.

._.a rc. _:.=. w wa Midland Plant Unito.1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Dies'el Generator Building Table e.f mcontents' Crontinued) TABLES I I-l Loads and Load Combinations for Concrete Structures Other than the Containment Building From the FSAR and Question 15 of Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill -I-2 Loads and Load Combinations for Comparison Analysis Requested in Question 26 of NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill I-3 Soil Properties Used in the Seismic Analysis I-4 Rebar Stress Values for the Diesel Generator Building Structural Members (According to FSAR and the Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 15) FIGURES I-l Diesel Generator Building Dynamic Lumped Mass Model for Seismic Analysis I-2 Diesel Generator Building Finite Element Model I-3 Summary of Actual and Estimated Settlements I-3A Comparison of Measured Settlement Values (Pre-Surcharge) With Settlement Values Resulting From a Finite-Element Analysis of the Diesel Generator Building I-3B Comparison of Measured Settlement Values (Surcharge) with Settlement Values Resulting From a Finite-Element Analysis of the Diesel Generator Building I-3C Comparison of Actual Measured Settlements (Post-Sur-charge) Plus Estimated Secondary Compression Settlement ( with Settlement Values Resulting From a Finite-Element Analysis of the Diesel Generator Building I-4 Basis for Calculation of Equivalent Shear Wave Velocity 4, e i f. I s iii o I b I ~ ^ T_7 ", T ~72 7' _ _l,*~"j7 " ^. "[ C,____ ______.['C. 7.. _ _ __ _.,,, ___. _ _.. _., m.

-m... ..'___.x._ s Midland Pltnt Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Dies'el Generator Building 0 q,.. - - 3 Table of Contents (continued) ATTACHMENTS I-l Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis I-2 Analyses of DGB for Zero Spring Condition O h i 1 3 i [ s t s P t \\. i, e l! iV i ~. p ,...y., --m-. www.

f MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 P TECHNICAL REPORT STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY 7 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE l DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING l

. n C,

,n I

1.0 STRUCTURAL REANALYSIS To account for the effect of the observed and predicted settlement on the diesel generator building, a structural remnalysis was performed. This reanalysis proceeded by defining the acceptance criteria for the structure (see Subsection 1.1). 3 These acceptance criteria differ from the acceptance criteria used in the original design and analysis of the structure and set forth in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) only in the addition of four load combinations that include the effect of settlement. These additional load combinations are described in i subsection 1.1.2, Equations 1 through 4. To investigate the effects of the load combinations on the structure, the structural reanalysis uses two different mathematical models of the diesel generator building: a dynamic, lumped mass model and a static, finite-element model. The dynamic, lumped mass model (described in Subsection 2.1.6 and o illustrated in Figure I-1) is used to generate seismic forces in j the building, given the input ground motion from the operating basis earthquake (OBE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) 4 specified in the FSAR. k The finite-element model (described in Subsection 2.0 and illustrated in Figure I-2) is a more complex mathematical model that reduces the diesel generator building to an interrelated system of plate, beam, and boundary elements representing the walls, slabs, foundation, and soil. The finite-element model is used to assess the effect on individual elements of various load combinations applied to the structure as a whole. (These load combinations include seismic forces generated with the dynamic, lumped mass model.) The finite-element model-thereby allows the identification of those sections of the diesel generator building i that will experience the greatest forces due to the postulated load combinations. The allowable stress is then calculated and compared to the actual stress level in these sections based on 7 the forces derived from the finite-element model. This comparison shows that even those sections of the building } experiencing the highest forces meet the acceptance criteria. i j 1.1 STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Because of the settlement problem, a structural reanalysis of the diesel generator building was performed to determine if the structure met the structural acceptance criteria which are o consistent with FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3, with settlement effects included as outlined in the response to NRC Requests Regarding i Plant Fill,-Question 15, Revision 3, September 1979 i j (Reference 1). e 4 i r

---

'2*~.r

LT~T .--.n.- .. N - l~,.. --,,_ _ N~N $$-. -.A Y ---l_.,,--_, ,,.,.,.,,,w.

. :ax : ; :. Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Dies'el Generator Building 1.1.1 Q.,o'ad Cd'se'sb 3 ~ The following loads are considered in the reanalysis: a. Dead loads (D) b. Effects of settlement combined with creep, shrinkage, and temperature (T) c. Live loads (L) d. Wind loads (W) e.. Tornado loads (W') f. OBE loads (E) g. SSE loads (E') h. Thermal effects (To) Thermal effects appear twice' in this list (Items b and h). For j load combinations committed to in the response to Question 15 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, thermal effects are 4 contained within the settlement effects term, T. For load combinations committed to in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3, thermal t effects are contained in the thermal term, To (Refer to Table I-1). y All other load cases appearing in the load combinations for Seismic Category I structures listed in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 (e.g., rupture of pipe lines) do not occur in the diesel generato2 building and are not addressed. s 1.1.2 Load Combinations The load combinations employed for the cripinal analysis and design of the diesel generator buildi%t nrc provided in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3. The original rJLP. cad combinations did not q contain a settlement effects ter,,'tt. /or the structural r7analy ~ performed in response..r i @..a -ion 15 of the NRC hequests xegarding Plant Fill (September 3979), four additional load combinations were established and committed to be considered. These additional combinations consider the effects of differential settlement in combination with long-term operating conditions and with either ind load or OBE. Table I-1 provides the load combinations listed '.n FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 t - and the'four additional load combinations. These load combinations comprise the acceptance criteria for the diesel generator building and are hereinafter referred to as the Midland acceptance criteria. l. 2 ii

. u. a... m :.. ^ 10 i Mid1tnd Plant Unita 1 and 2 Structurs.1 Strazaca Inducsd by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 1 By requigihg' c.ombination of differential settlement with wind loads and OBE, the Midland acceptance criteria are more stringent than the requirements of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318. ACI 318 only requires combining the effects of differential settlement with the dead loads and live loads. The Midland acceptance criteria are less stringent than ACI 349, because ACI 349 (as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142) includes load combinations that combine the effects of differential settlement with extreme loads such as tornados and SSEs. In the response to Question 26 of NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, a commitment was made to do a separate structural reanalysis of the diesel generator building in accordance with ACI 349, as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142, for comparative purposes only. Table I-2 + provides the load combinations of ACI 349 as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142. It is unnecessary to use all Table I-1 load combinations 'in the structural reanalysis. A number of combinations can be ? eliminated from the analysis after comparison with more severe loads or load equations. For example, Equations 6 and 10 from Table I-1 are: a. U = 1.25 (D + L + Ho + E) + 1.0To (6) b. U = 1.4 ( D + L + E ) + 1. 0To + 1. 25Ho (10) Because there are no significant forces on the structure due to thermal expansion of pipes (Ho), these two expressions can be-rewritten in simpler forms: a. U = 1.25 (D + L + E) + 1.0To (6) b. U = 1.4 (D + L + E) + 1.0To (10) The second expression is more critical than the first. Therefore, Equation 10 is used in the analys'is and is considered to envelop the lower force components resulting from an analysis using Equation 6. Utilizing this approach with the entire set of load combinations eliminates the less critical equations and condenses the list to 10 load combinations. Table I-1 Load Combinations Equation No. l~ l-a. 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.05T (-1) l l-l b. 1.4D + 1.4T (2) c. 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0T (3) d. 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 1.0T (4) 3 s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~.

---

~

w -.w r um. w-- -, - - -i.,w ww-ewy-w-- =n-w .i ww* w su. w,.---, - - - w i---w--w

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of 000720 0 the Diesel Generator Building e. 1.4D + 1.7L (5) f. 1.25 (D + L + W) + 1.0To (7) g. 1.4 (D + L + E) + 1.0To (10) h. 0.9D + 1.25E + 1.0To (11) i. 1.0 (D + L + E') + 1.0To (15) j. 1.0 (D + L + W'.) + 1.0To (18) 1.1.3 Allowable Material Limits In accordance with regulatory requirements and the recommendations of the American Concrete Institute (ACI 318 and ACI'349), the maximum rebar tensile stress allowed in the diesel generator building rebar equals 0.90 fy (where fy equals yield stress) for computation of section capacities. Because the diesel generator building rebar has an fy value of 60 ksi, the maximum allowable tensile rebar stress due to flexural and axial loads is 54.0 ksi. Rebar stress values subsequently calculated for critical, reinforced concrete sections of the diesel generator building were based on this maximum allowable rebar stress value (54 ksi) and a maximum allowable concrete strain level of 0.003 in./in. 2.0 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING ANALYTICAL MODEL The structural reanalysis of the diesel generator building uses a finite-element model. The required load combinations were applied to this model and the resulting forces were investigated for compliance with the structural acceptance criteria. The diesel generator building was modeled as an assemblage of plate, beam, and boundary elements. The structure is defined by a set of 853 nodal points and 1,294 elements. Of these elements, 901 are plate elements representing walls and slabs, 141 are beam elements, and 252 are boundary elements (translational springs, in both the vertical and horizontal directions) representing varying soil pressures. Vertical springs were used for dead load, live load, and settlement analysis. Sets of vertical and horizontal springs were used for other load cases. Certain items, such as steel platforms and lightly reinforced interior secondary structural walls, have not been included in the model for the reasons listed in subsequent sections. Figure I-2 illustrates an isometric view of the finite-element model. 2.1 APPLICATION OF LOADS TO THE BUILDING MODEL The following loads have been applied to the model in the manner noted. g

. we.x._ _.u.. L Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 l Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of 00072090 th* "i*1 G*"**** r 8"ildi"5 t 2.1.1 Dead Loadsi The dead load of the structure was simulated by specifying a mass acceleration value equaling that of gravity (32.2 ft/s ). Secondary structural walls and platforms were not included in the model because their contribution to the gross weight of the structure is minimal (less than approximately 3 percent) relative to the sum of the other loads considered. Their. exclusion does not significantly affect the magnitude or distribution of stresses. The louvers on both the north wall and south wall, along with the doors on the north and south walls of the building, were modeled simply as penetrations, with dimensions equivalent to those of the doors and louvers. This is acceptable because the doors and louvers contribute insignificant 1y to the building stiffness and total building weight. The diesel generator pedestals and the ground floor slabs were omitted from the. finite-element model because they were not constructed monolithically with the remainder of the structure. Consequently, they do not add stiffness to the structure. 2.1.2 Settlement Loads The settlement effects were modeled into the structure with vertical springs as boundary elements representing varying soil conditions. At 84 locations along the building footing, springs with varying properties were applied to represent the nonhomogenous nature of soil conditions existing beneath the diesel generator building. Values for vertical springs were developed for two general those springs calculated for long-term loading (dead cases: load, live load, surcharge load, and differential settlements) and those springs calculated for short-term loading (wind, tornado, and seismic). For long-term loading, the settlement analysis addresses four distinct time periods. A unique set of measured or estimated settlement values then corresponded to each of the following periods. a. July 10, 1978, to August 15, 1978: Although construction of the diesel generator building began in spring 1978, survey data on the diesel generator building were available only as of July 10, 1978, August 15, 1978, represents the closest survey date prior to the halt of diesel generator building construction. p b. August 15, 1978, to January 5, 1979: Diesel generator building construction resumed and the ductbanks were separated from the structure during this period. 5 i l' r--- 7 -- --m.--, y g9 9 y--g. y-m i,-m ...-,p.,,-ww. 7,,m. e.q- ,,..e-womm,,,,. - - -.-i.,y.w, em-g-w-y,.e

t_ -. - - = = 2 w i Midlond Plant Unita 1 ond 2 [ Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of l 00072090 the Diesel Generator suilding 4 ' January 5, 1979, is the last survey date prior to the 7 start of surcharge activities. -l c. January 5, 1979, to August.3, 1979: Surcharge activities occurred within the structure during this l period. August 3, 1979, is the last survey date available prior to the start of surcharge removal from ( the diesel generator building. d. Forty-year Settlement Estimates: This estimte is comprised of the following: 1) Actual measured settlements from September 1979 to December 1981. These settlements are small when compared with the predicted settlements and are + j mainly due to dawatering. 2) Predicted secondary consolidation from December 1981 to December 2025. These values are based on the conservative assumption that the surcharge [ remains in place over the 40-year life of the plant, thus exceeding the settlement which will actually occur. To determine forces resulting from settlement, an analysis was performed separately for each of the above four cases. Analysis results were first combined with each other to form one settlement term, then combined with other load cases (e.g., tornado, seismic, etc) to form the required load combinations of the Midland position, and of ACI 349, as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142. For settlement case a, a longhand analysis was performed to account for stresses in the partially completed structure. With the actual settlement values from survey data imposed on the partially completed structure (represented as a grade beam up to el 635) this calculation indicated that the measured displacements would result in a maximum rebar stress of 2 ksi. For the other three settlement cases, individual finite-element models were used. For settlement case b, the finite-element model represents the structure as-built to el 662'-0". For i settlement cases e and d, the finite-element model represents a L fully constructed structure. In each of the three finite-element analyses, the diesel generator building was analyzed for "best fit" settlements resulting from a statistical analysis of the [ recorded or estimated settlements. For cases b, c, and d, h springs were typically calculated at each nodal point along the l foundation by dividing the structural load represented at the selected point by the measured or predicted settlement at that point. The ' finite-element analysis of each case then involved several iterations in which the soil springs were varied until 6 c= m - =

==:

===u -..:- -:u

L. ^ ~ -. ~ ._ _: L J J. ~ ~ ^ Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building the deflected shape of the diesel generator building, as calculated by the model, approximated the "best fit" settlements. Figure I-3 summarizes the actual and estimated settlements employed in the finite-element settlement analyses (cases b, c, and d). Figures I-3A, I-3B, and I-3C give individual isometric presentations of measured and predicted settlements and also show settlement values resulting from the finite-element analysis of the diesel generator building model for cases b, c, and d. The comparison shows good correlation between values resulting from the finite-element model and the measured values and also for the. predicted settlement values. Because of the great overall stiffness of the structure-(shear walls are over 50 feet high and 2-1/2 feet thick) in particular when compared with the stiffness of the underlying soil, the building will undergo mainly rigid body motion. (For a complete discussion showing that the structure has been experiencing primarily rigid body motion, refer to Attachment I-1, Settlement Data Analysis.) Differences between calculated and measured settlements are small and are within the accuracy of the survey. The maximum total rebar stress resulting from all settlement analyses (cases a, b, c, and d) is on the order of 21 ksi, which occurs in the south wall in the vertical direction. The maximum horizontal rebar stress resulting from all settlement analyses is on the order of 18 ksi, which occurs in the south shield wall. The location of maximum settlement stresses typically does nor coincide with the location of maximum seismic or tornado stresses. Actual calculated moment and forces for settlements have been combined with other load cases and are included in Table I-4 in accordance with the governing load equations. (A second method of addressing settlement, involving the use of ziro and near zero values for soil spring constants, is discussed in Attachment I-2.) Other springs were developed for short-term loading, in which it was assumed that the structural movement was small enough to assume the soil was linearly elastic. The modulus of elasticity was estimated using soil d.ensity and measured shear wave velocity j values. Springs were developed for the vertical and horizontal modes. These springs were calculated by determining the amount of force required to produce a unit displacement in the direction indicated by the particular mode. The footings of the diesel generator building were assumed to be resting on a large mass of elastic soil for the vertical mode and embedded within the mass of soil for the horizontal mode. The settlement due to seismic shakedown was also identified as a possible occurrence during a seismic event. The maximum differential settlement due to seismic shakedown, as stated in Question 27 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, is 7

==

=^^ L. -

2:...- L. -.- -.L -. L...J...L

=- - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by 2 Dif ferential Settlement of - the Diesel Generator Building 000:2CLO approximately 1/2 inch. The effects of seismic shakedown settlement will act to reduce the effects of differential settlement and for this reason the effect of seismic shakedown was not the governing case in the structural reanalysis of the diesel generator building. 2.1.3 Live Loads 4 Live loads were applied to the modeled structure by applying pressure loads on the plate elements which represent the floor I slab at el 664'-0" and the roof at el 680'-0". During the plant life, a maximum live load of 100 psf is predicted to occur on the roof slab, whereas for the floor at el 664'-0", a maximum live load of 250 psf is postulated. One hundred percent of the live load was used in the design of individual structural members, such as floor slab at el 664'-0" and roof slab at el 680'-0". For overall building response, however, the live loads considered were limited to 25 percent of the above maximum loads. This 25-percent value represents the live load expected to be present when the plant is in operation, i.e.,100 percent of the live load will not act simultaneously on every square foot of the l floor space. i j 2.1.4 Wind Loads Loads resulting from the design wind (100-year recurrence with a velocity of 85 mph) were applied to the modeled structure as a pressure load on the plate elements that represent the exposed i walls. Wind loads on the roof and south wall hatch covers were determined assuming the hatch covers were in place. These loads l were then distributed to the nodal points which define the perimeter of the respective hatches. j 2.1.5 Tornado Loads As specified in BC-TOP-3-A (Reference 2), various combinations of velocity wind pressure, differential pressure, and local pressures were applied to the modeled structure. The maximum ) wind velocity of the tornado was 360 mph. The original structural analysis performed in accordance with the l FSAR considered various tornado-generated missiles. The analysis considered missiles equivalent to a 4" by 12" by 12' wooden plank (108 pounds) traveling end-on at 300 mph at any height; a 4,000 pound automobile with a velocity of 72 mph no higher than 30 feet above the ground with a contact area of 20 square feet; a i 1-inch diameter, 3-foot long, 8-pound steel bar traveling at L 216 mph at any height in any direction,-and a 35-foot long utility pole, 13-1/2 inches in diameter, weighing 1,490 pounds, traveling at 144 mph, and striking the structure not more than 8 o L b I

.._ - : : =,.-. i ~.-...-,. -,. - -

a r Midland Pltnt Unita 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of 3 00072000 the Diesel Generator Building 30 feet above the ground. For tornado-generated missile loads, the structure was allowed to locally exceed the yield strain. The results of the original tornado-generated missile load analysis showed the diesel generator building was acceptable. Results of missile impact tests conducted over the last 6 years indicate that reinforced concrete walls, thinner than the exterior walls of the diesel generator building, have a considerable margin against local damage. The tests indicate that a wall thickness of 12 inches would sufficiently preclude unacceptable local damage (spalling) from these missiles. (The thinnest exterior wall of the diesel generator building is 30 inches thick.) 2.1.6 Seismic Loads The seismic response of a structure depends on the stiffness . properties and mass of the structure, the input seismic motion at s the structure location, and the soil properties of the foundation

medium, of these parameters, only soil properties are affected by insufficient compaction of backfill.

The following paragraphs describe how the effects of insufficient compaction and eventual r sure!.arging were accounted for in the revised diesel. generator building seismic analysis. The design spectra and design time history as defined in FSAR Section 3.7 have been used in this reanalysis. The analytical models used for the original seismic analysis and for the seismic reanalyses described in this report are one-dimensional, stick-type, lumped mass models using beam elements to represent the structural stiffness and impedence functions of the foundation medium (see Figure I-1). 4 The effect of soil-structural interaction is accounted for by coupling the structural model with the foundation media. The foundation media are represented by impedance functions which represent the eguivalent spring stiffness and radiation damping j coefficients as specified in BC-TOP-4-A (Reference 3 ). I The structural stiffness of the lumped mass model was not revised d in the new dynamic analysis. The difference in the new'model was confined to the treatment of the soil-structural interface. The revised analysis developed the impedance functions based on the i building's foundation dimensions and the modification in the soil properties described below. In addition, for the horizontal accelerations, the weight of the soil and the concrete pedestals and diesel generator pedestals within the building were included in this revised model. The original (presettlement) diesel generator building seismic analysis was based on the underlying till material, which has a 9 5 i

==r. - -.. -.

==7

r.-, z 2.-, =

~.- i Midicnd Plcnt Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by i Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 000720s0 shear wave velocity value of 1,359 ft/s (see Table I-3 ). This value was rot adjusted for the 30 feet of plant fill between the till and building foundation elevation. The first seismic reanalysis accountml for the soil properties of the fill by averaging the measured shear weve velocity of the fill and underlying till (Figure I-4) over a depth of 75 feet, which is the smallest dimension of the building. This resulted in the value of 796 ft/s, which was used in the seismic reanalysis. However, the effect of decreasing shear wave velocity to a lower bound estimate of 500 ft/s was also analyzed. Both the measured shear wave velocity value of 796 ft/s and the lower bound shear wave velocity value of 500 ft/s were supplied by soil consultante. The floor spectra at all elevations of the diesel generator building were generated using a shear wave velocity value of 796~ft/s. The resulting floor response spectra were combined in an enveloping fashion with the spectra developed in the original analysis which used a shear wave velocity value of 1,359 ft/s. The floor response spectra were further broadened to account for a lower bound shear wave velocity of 500 ft/s.

Thus, conservative floor response spectra were generated.

The results of the seismic reanalysis indicated that the seismic forces at all elevations of the diesel generator building were somewhat higher than the forces determined in the original analysis. The highest seismic acceleration was derived from an analysis using a shear wave velocity value of 796 ft/s. This increased seismic load was conservatively simulated by applying the maximum structural acceleration occurring in the dynamic model to the finite-element model in north-south, east-west, and vertical directions. The combined effect of the three directional responses was assessed using the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares method recommended in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92. The ability of the structure to withstand these increased seismic forces in combination with the other loads is described in j Section 3.0. 2.1.7 Thermal Loads Thermal effects were included in the analysis as a linear variation of temperature across the thickness of an element. The j thermal effect due to linear variation of temperature across the thickness of an element (also called gradient) results in bending moments being applied to the element. In general, the temperature gradient which is of most concern for the diesel generator building is that anticipated to occur in the winter. In accordance with the Handbook of Concrete Engineering + n i 10 z. =-w 2

=====-u

- = =. : = :.. - = =

Midltnd Pltnt Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 00072050 (Reference 4) and FSAR meteorological data, the equivalent steady-state exterior winter temperature of 14.6F was calculated. The corresponding maximum interior ambient air temperature was 75F. For information on how thermal effects were applied to the model, see Section 3.0. 3.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE To determine force components in accordance with accepted analysis techniques, the force components resulting from each load condition of Section 1.1 are calculated separately. 4 Applicable loads are applied to any of three models. (The three models are identical in every aspect except for the spring elements used to represent the soil pressures.) Various load factors are applied to the separate load conditions which are then assembled to create the required load combinations. Using this combined response, the structure is examined to ensure that the allowable stress limit is not exceeded. 3.1 SETTLEMENT /LONG-TERM MODEL The soil moduli used to calculate the soil springs for this condition are based on the actual measured settlement data (for settlement prior to fall 1981) and estimated 40-year settlement values (for settlement subsequent to fall 1981). Dead load is applied to the model causing differential settlement to occur. As detailed in Section 2.1.2, three different models (for three different time periods) are used for this purpose. For each settlement model, an analysis iteration occurs to produce a deflected shape which best approximates the appropriate "best-fit" settlements for the particular time period being investigated. The settlement forces corresponding to each unique time period are then obtained by imposing the calculated deflection values on a finite-element model and removing the dead load. 3.2 SHORT-TERM MODEL The soil moduli used to calculate soil springs for this model corresponds to short-term loads (i.e., wind, tornado, seismic). 1 3.3 ZERO-SETTLEMENT MODEL I I The dead load and live load case are constructed on the zero-settlement model. To approximate zero settlement, large values are entered for the soil springs into this model. l 3.4 STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY COMPUTATIONS The computations necessary to verify structural adequacy were performed using a computer analysis program (OPTCON) capable of 11 i l ___---y---

~_.. - N A ~ ~ MidlOnd Plont Units 1 Ond 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 00972000 analyzing reinforced concrete sections. This reinforced concrete analysis program models a portion of the diesel generator building and analyzes it for forces that resulted from the BSAP finite-element model analysis. Refer to Appendix A for additional information concerning OPTCON. To determine the structural adequacy of the diesel generator building, the modeled structure was partitioned into structural ( categories (i.e., north wall, center wall, roof, etc). Critical elements from each category were then selected for further investigation based on their axial force, moment, and in-plane shear force. Using OPTCON, rebar stress values were then calculated in these critical elements to verify that the allowable rebar tensile stress value was not exceeded. To facilitate the calculation process, a computer program was specifically written for selecting critical elements that would undergo OPTCON investigation. This program was written so that its selection of critical elements was based on a comparison of the axial force, bending moment, and in-plane shear force of each separate element within a structural category with all other elements of the same structural category. Once these critical elements were selected, a thermal gradient 4 was assigned to each element based on the location of that l element within the building. Based upon the procedure discussed above, all structural categories of the diesel generator building were investigated and found tc meet the structural acceptance criteria. Table I-4 shows the results of the analysis. The left-hand column of Table I-4 describes the various structural categories of the diesel generator building. The second column shows the load combination which produces the highest stress, i.e., the load combination which is critical for a particular structural I category. The third column presents the rebar stress value computed by OPTCON for the critical element within each structural category. The highest rebar stress value (reflecting the combined effects of flexural, axial, and in-plane shear loads) exist in the south wall where the rebar stress value is 44.0 ksi. The fourth column indicates the concrete compressive stress associated with the maximum rebar tensile stress in each structural category. J The final structural reanalysis of the diesel generator building showed that the critical load combinations (Table I-1) are those which include either the tornado load case (W'), the SSE load h case (E'), or the settlement load case (T), specifically: a. 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W' + 1.0To (18) b. 1.0(D) + 1.0(L) + 1.0(E') + 1.0(To) (15) 12 4 6 I 1 r --: : - x = m-- -=-.v==.=--------L- ~

.x.

MidlCnd PlCnt Unita 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 00072Cs3 c. 1.4(D) + 1.4(T) (2) In approximately 70 percent of the diesel generator building, the tornado load combinations produce the these stress levels.

4.0 CONCLUSION

S The diesel generator building is a massive, reinforced concrete structure with extensive reserve strength. The structural reanalysis performed on the diesel generator building verifies that the integrity of the structure will not be violated even under the most critical load combinations. Based on the analysis performed, it can be stated that the settlement has had minimal effect on the structure, and there is reasonable assurance that the diesel generator building will safely perform its intended function over the operating life of the Midland plant. A 4 13 J i

__ _ u- _a o Midlend Plent Units 1 Ond 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 0 0 0 '? 2 0 9 0 REFERENCES 1. Consumers Power Company, Response to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Docket 50-329, 50-330 2. Bechtel Power Corporation, Tornado and Extreme Wind Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3, August 1974 (BC-TOP-3-A) 3. Bechtel Power Corporation, Seismic Analyses of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3, November 1974 (BC-TOP-4-A) 4. M. Fintel, Handbook of CJncrete Engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, September 1974 r 14 1 l i l x:

a. - --.

MidlCnd Plant Unita 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building 4 000720aO APPENDIX A OPTCON The OPTCON computer code is a versatile and complete design and analysis program for reinforced concrete structures. The program may be used for the investigation of an existing reinforced concrete section where the reinforcing steel area is a predetermined. Alternatively, it can be used for obtaining an 2 optimum design by allowing the program to determine the minimum reinforcement required. The computer program operates on the axial force / moment interaction diagram (IAD) of a section, where an IAD is a plot of the maximum allowable resistance of a section for given stress and strain limitations. Combinations of moment (M) and axial i load (P) falling within this area are acceptable. Figure IA-1 depicts the appropriate IAD for a symmetrically reinforced, symmetrically shaped section subjectea to a combination of flexural and axial loads. The OPTCON program handles loads consisting of axial forces and corresponding bending moments due to different types of loads. Special subroutines are provided to incorporate the thermal effects into the design and/or investigation. The cracking effect of the concrete and the yielding effects of the reinforcement (as allowed by the appropriate stress / strain yielding criteria) are considered in the calculation of the thermal loads and moments computed by the program. i 1 l l i A-1 i ~.-- -. .. - - = :

: u -- -, _. 2 = -. -, = s :,_ -..

~. - -..= .-~1 \\ 5 Midimd Plant Units 1 cnd 2 Structural Stresses Induced by the Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building i 000t c.JD o Compression C(-) satir s Design -s' Criteria ',. stic. -v ;- l 4(?!? - +: 'isssii:/..... Interaction Diagram i , ihNi$., , 4, < v.:s 's,si ~

i:!8il..,

";!!39 !s!!> '^ i Compression s ~. Failure Zone / , iiis?

iin!

s ig:.:s, ,~ .s e .=' 'E }. + +-Mi', e ~ ,;* x;y: ' ~ ~ .M f ii.:i!%i'...... < iii.S;'{ ~ ~ v s, .,s s isisE, jEip E$f.3::j'!j?i'ij!!@)J2::ij:. , ' fi:Kii' + ' ', ',,iiW, ^ ' " N Balanced s s , !:s:ie ,t a ure , wa ~ ,s ~, 4 5;isi!!?!!.' ^^T s .:.mp 5 s-Tension 's ,.,iec. .= s 7,g,, , x' Meis Zone s Moment l (+)M p / Tension T(+) Figure IA 1 TYPICAL INTERACTION DIAGRAM (for single axis bending on a section with symmetrical re.. forcement)

t_ Midland Plcnt Unit 3 1 cn'd 2 I Structural StrG0cGa Induccd by Differential S3ttlement in j the Diesel Generator Building n 0 0 0.. e4-, TABLE I-1 i. LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR CONCRETE i STRUCTURES OTHER THAN THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING FROM THE FSAR AND QUESTION 15 OF RESPONSES TO NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 15 a. Service Load Condition U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.05T (1) U = 1.4D + 1.4T (2) b. Severe Environnental Condition U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0T (3) U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 1.0T (4) FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 a. Normal Load Condition U = 1.4D + 1.7L (5) b. Severe Environmental Condition (6) U = 1.25 (D + L + Ho + E) + 1.0To U = 1.25 (D + L + Ho + W) + 1.0To (7) U = 0.9D + 1.25 (Ho + E ) + 1. 0T o (8) U = 0.9D + 1.25'(Ho + W) + 1.0To (9) i c. Shear Walls and Moment Resisting Frames I U = 1.4 (D + L + E) + 1.0T + 1.25Ho (10) o l U = 0.9D + 1.25E + 1.0T + 1.25H (11) o o

l d.

Structural elements carrying mainly earthquake i forces, such as equipment supports l U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.8E + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (12) l l-L ? 1 l. r

~ .. a u a u. .....c... s o. Midinnd Plcnt Unito 1 and 2 Structural Stranson Inducrd by Differential Settlement in 0 7 2 T 'J C "h* "i*1 "*"*"** " ""iidi"' Table I-1 (continued) e. Extreme Environmental and Accident Conditions U = 1.05D + 1.05L + 1.25E + 1.0T,+ 1.0H + 1.OR (13) a U = 0.95D + 1.25E + 1.0Ta + 1.0H4+ 1.OR (14) U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E' + 1.0To + 1.25He + 1.0R (15) U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E' + 1.0Ta + 1.0Ha + 1.OR (16) U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0B + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (17) U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0To + 1.25H, + 1.0W' (18) where 1B = hydrostatic forces due to the postulated maximum flood D = dead loads of structures and equipment and other permanent load contributing stress E = operating basis earthquake (OBE) l E' = safe shutdown earthquake load (SSE) He = force on structure caused by thermal expansion of pipes under operating conditions I H, = force on structure caused by thermel expansion of i pipes under accident conditions L = conventional floor and roof live loads (includes moveable equipment loads or other loads which very in intensity) R = local force, pressure on structure, or penetration caused by rupture of pipe T = effects of differential settlement, creep, shrinkage, and temperature T, = thermal effects during normal operating conditions, including linear expansion of equipment and tempera-ture gradients 4 i4 T, = total thermal effects which may occur during a j design accident U = required strength to resist design loads or their related internal moments and forces 2

^ -- -- h - - = " --- +....-.. Midicnd Plcnt Unito 1 cnd 2 -Structural Strascos Inducsd by Differential Settlement in the Diesel Generator Building 00072020 Table I-1 (continued) W = design wind load W' = tornado wind loads, excluding missile effects, if applicable (refer to subsection 2.2.3.5) a O 4 4 4 e 3

2: : - - - - : = 2, _.. - _r=

u -.

a:~~;. r _.. Midlcnd' Plant Unita 1 cnd 2 Structural Strensea Induced by Differential Settlement in L the Diesel Generator Building L 000720 0 TABLE I-2' LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR L COMPARISON ANALYSIS REQUESTED IN QUESTION 26 OF NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL ACI 349 as Supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142 a. Normal Load Condition: U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.7L + 1.7Ro U = 0.75 u.4 (D + T) + 1.7L + 1.7T + 1.7Ro ] o b. Severe Environmental Condition: U = 1.4 ( D + T) + 1. 4 F + 1.7 L + 1. 7H + 1. 9 En + 1.7Ro U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.7W + 1.7Ro U = 0.75 [1. 4 ( D + T ) + 1. 4 F + 1. 7 L + 1. 7H + 1. 9 Eo + 1. 7To + 1.7Roj U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.7W + 1.7T o + 1.7Ro] c. Extreme Environmental Conditions: U= (D + T) + F + L + H + To + Ro + W: U= ( D + T) + F + L + H + To + Ro + E., d. Abnormal Load Conditions: U= (D + T) +F+L+H+T. + R. + 1. 5 P. U= ( D + T) + F + L + H + T. + R. + 1. 2 5 P. + 1.0(Y, + Yg + Ym) + 1.25Eo U = ( D + T ) + F + L + H + T. + R. + 1. 0 P, + l. 0 ( Y, + Yj + Ym) + 1. 0 E., 1

-+v--

1. .. s !a.. u :. A Midltnd Pltnt Unito .1 cnd 2 Structural Straccan Inductd by Differential Settlement in the Diesel Generator Building Table I-2 (Continued) where 0007.20L0 Normal loads are those loads encountered during normal plant operation and shutdown, and include: T = settlement loads D" = dead loads or their related internal moments and forces L = applicable live loads or their related internal moments and forces F = lateral and vertical' pressure of liquids or their rela-ted internal moments and forces H = lateral' earth pressure or its related internal moments and forces To = thermal effects and loads during normal operating or shutdown conditions, based on the most critical transient or steady-state condition Ro = maximum pipe and equipment reactions if not included in the above loads Severe environmental loads are those loads that could infre-quently be encounter'ed during the plant life and include: En = loads generated by the operating basis earthquake (BOE) W = loads generated by the operating basis wind (OBU) s pec i-fied for the plant 4 Extreme environmental loads are those loads which are credible but highly improbable, and include: E,= loads generated by the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) We = loads generated by the design tornado specified for the plant Abnormal loads are those loads generated by a postulated high-inergy pipe break accident and include l P. = maximum differential pressure load generated by a postulated break I. l T. = thermal loads under accident conditions generated by a postulated break and including To l 2 l'

p Miditnd Plant Unita 1 cnd 2 Structural Str3EOsa Induend by Differential Settlement in g g, ;,3, 0 the Diesel Generator Building Table I-2 (Continued) R. = pipe ' and equipment reactions under accident conditions generated by a postulated break and including Ro U = required strength to recist design loads or their related internal moments and forces Yr = loads on the structure generated by the reaction on the broken high-energy pipe during a postulated break Yi = jet impingement load on a structure generated by a postulated break Y = missile impact load on a structure generated by or during a postulated break, such as pipe whipping e 0 3

. :a - 2. .. a Midltnd Pltnt Units 1 and 2 } Structural Strocccs Induend by ,4 Differential Settlement in the Diesel Generator Building 00072GS0 TABLE I-3 SOIL PROPERTIES USED IN THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS First Second Original RevisedD3 RevisedI1) Analysis Analysis Analysis Modulus of Elasticity (E) 22,000 kaf 6,598 ksf 2,609 ksf Poisson's Ratio 0.42 0.45 0.40 Unit Weight (w) 135 pcf 116 pcf 120 pc/s 4 Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) 1,359 ft/s 796 ft/s 500 ft/s Shear Modulus 7,746 ksf 2,275 ksf. 971 ksf 3 UI Note different shear wave velocity values. f i e a 1

2 w _ _. Midland Flant Unita 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by ^ Differential Settlement of the ? Diesel Generator Building C037PGi0 ,,,L, REBAR STRESS VALUES FOR THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS (ACCORDING TO THE FSAR AND RESPONSES TO NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL, QUESTION 15) Compressive Tensile Concretet2) Rebar Stress Stress Value (ksi) Value (ksi) Description of Load (1) Allowable Allowable y Members / Location Combination = 54 kai = 3.4 kai s Exterior - West 2'-6" thick wall Tornado 25.03 0.425 horizontal rein-forcement Exterior - South 2'-6" thick wall Seismic 44.04 0.000838 horizontal rein-forcement i Elevation - 664'-0" 2'-0" floor slab Tornado 39.15 0.068 N-S reinforcement I Elevation - 680'-0" l'-9" floor slab Tornado 36.06 0.834 E-W reinforcement South 2'-0" missile shield Settlement 42.79 0.185 wall south, horizontal j reinforcement ( Interior L 2'-0" interior missile Tornado 28.06 0.000(3) shield wall, vertical reinforcement North 2'-0" missile shield Tornado 13.85 0.000(33 wall north, horizontal reinforcement 1 7.,_,

.. - ~ TABLE I-4 (continued) Compressive Tensile Concrete Rebar Stress Stress t 2) DhsNrip'h'onofCC0 value (ksi) value (ksi) 3-t Loadi11 Allowable Allowable Members / Location Combination = 54 ksi = 3.4 ksi Exterior - North 2'-6" thick wall Tornado 21.90 0.313 horizontal reinforce-ment Exterior - East 2'-6" thick wall Tornado 23.64 0.403 horizontal reinforce-ment Interior l'-6" thick wall Tornado 16.66 0.000(3) horizontal reinforce-ment South I 2'-Od thick box Tornado 8.02

0. 000t 31 missile shield / south, horizontal reinforce-ment

-1 Footing 2'-6" thick footing Tornado 35.22 4-NOTES: (13The tornado load combination is 1.0 (D + L) + 1.0W' + 1.0To. The settlement combination is 1.4D + 1.4T The seismic load combination is 1.0 (D + L) + 1.0E' + 1.0To. (2iconcrete stresses shown are associated with maximum rebar tensile stresses shown in this table. 13)Section is in tension. 2

-a. _ ~- (. 1 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 (

• Structural Stresses induced by Differential Settlement in i

the Diesel Generator Building ( El 680'.0" M (Lumped Mass Point) i (Member Number) El. 664' 0" 'N lM 2 i O El. 647' 0" 'h M s/ 3 Rotational Spring Horizontal Translational Spring K K / sy e e x El. 630'.0" / -ve. j pj Horizontal Damper Rotational Damper C C Cm e. 'T zy lIgzN* / f r i iit rit tittrii itri r Vertical Damper Vertical Translational Spring FIGURE 11 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING DYNAMIC LUMPED MASS MODEL FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS i

l ~ Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses Induced by i Differential Settleenent in the Diesel Generator Building. 4 61W centerline to centerline l 152'-6" i centerline to centerline s, i k / / idig*. / y 'Ng ). :... o, 1 / / o /, ', * ', %y 7 % / \\ f i mm / / - o - s / w s s h s N f s,/ / / / ) s f s / k,, ['p i< N / N-[ . 3g N AN Icfr / s" - i e.nte,im orroo, 5'*6 'g*"g'3 N N\\N s/ .. // N Norm \\ N\\ . x / [ N / / V N \\ ) \\ N\\Q js4S / N NN /; N/ \\y/ FIGURE l-2 DIESEL GENERATOR BU'lLDING FINITE ELEMENT MODEL typical vertical translational spring (for ease of presentation, only vertical translational spelngs have been depicted) k

00072000 / LINE A ' O.77 1.09 1.54 1.98 2.41' LINE 8 1.50 1.51 1.78 1.86 1.91 LINE C 1.33 1.15 1.19 1.18 1.29 TOTAL 3.60 3.75 4.51 5.02 5.61 orF.

• FP

... E.P o 0E..P..C ":L_. 9 ':iDidn.. P.. m..j Q L._lJ

1. ' M I D...

I j e q I ~ Y-NORTH ( I j ).' p-BAY 3 h BAY 4 f E: BAY 2 BAY 1 y 4 _a

6 a

.........s. . t... .s- .s :.. :.. v. a .o... .a, 1 w..s.. u.:a a.: u u O O O O O o I LINE A 1.14 1.12 1.46 1.92 2.21 LINE B 3.00 2.92 3.16 3.37 3.24 LINE C 1.62 1.67 1.69 1.98 1.89 TOTAL 5.76 5.71 6.31 7.27 7.34 LEGEND O - DlESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SETTLEMENT MARKER SETTLEMENT IN INCHES FOR l PRE. SURCHARGE PERIOD (8/78199........ LINE A SURCHARGE PERIOD 1/79 (1/79-8/79)....... LINE B POST SURCHARGE PERIOD (9/7912/2025)..... LINE C ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE i FIGURE I 3

SUMMARY

OF ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS (for finite element analysis) l I 4 ~ - - __._..s.

W O 9 ' MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT IN THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING O O l REFERENCESURFACE ~ / ia NORTH / c,- 0 0.77 IEEl 1.54 lEM in:M 1.98 PEh1 '2.41 BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 MEASURED / SETTLEMENTS / 1.12 1.46 ~ ' ' O %' 1 14 1.27 11.8 61 6 2 17 CALCULATED ~ 1.92 SETTLEMENTS 2.21 i e FIGURE I-3A COMPARISON OF MEASURED SETTLEMENT VALUES WITH SETTLEMENT VALUES RESULTING FROM A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING PRE-SURCHARGE PERIOD AUGUST 1978 - J ANUARY 1979 i

o MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT IN Tile DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING f REFERENCE SURFACE / i NORTH O i / O O -1 l 1.48 l 1.51 } m 1.50 " -e_%__ II.721 lg,g3l l1.60l l 9i g l 1.78 ' ~ j 86 ^b BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 O -l i g 2.92 ~ 3.00 : M 3.24 -~~~ 6 13.0 5] 3.16 CALCULATED / MEASURED /~ SETTLEMENTS SETTLEMENTS FIGURE I-3B COMPARISON OF MEASURED SETTLEMENT VALUES WITH SETTLEMENT VALUES RESULTING FROM A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SURCilARGE PERIOD JANUARY 1979 - AUGUST 1979 1

m MIDLAND FLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 j STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY I DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT IN Tile DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING REFERENCE SURFACE i NORTl1 0.51 0.45 0.40 o 0g8 ,0.39 i----- i t------ W-j g , g l O / LL16] i.15 i,i9 i,i, f / .i j -m 1 "1.29 N -o 1.33 d llt2.3.] g p 31 i j j j / / / O / BAYI BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 / / / / / / / 0.42 i H / ~ ~ ~ -t r - ~ ~ - - -e w--- w i- - -a l 0.47 o,47 0.49 0.43 1.62, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.g - - - -4 11.83l ~~~~ ALCULATED j 9g SETTLEMENTS i g-ACTUAL MEASURED SETTLEMENT FROM SEPT.14,1979 TO DEC.31,1981. TilESE INCLUDE EFFECT OF DEWATERING TO APPROXIMATELY EL.595', AND REPRESENT MOVEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE DUE TO SETTLEMENT OF THE FILL AND NATURAL SOIL BELOW. ACTUAL MEASURED SETTLEMENTS FROM SEPT.14,1979 TO DEC.31,1981 PLUS [. ESTIMATED SECONDARY COMPRESSION SETTLEMENT FROM DEC.31,1981 -O TO DEC.31.2025 ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE. FIGURE I - 3C I. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL MEASURED SETTLEMENTS PLUS ESTIMATED SECONDARY COMPRESSION SETTLEMENT WITil SETTLEMENT VALUES RESULTING FROM A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF Tile DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EOST-SURCilARGE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1979 - DECEMBER 2025

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Structural Stresses induced by Differential Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building OOO7EULb

o. : *<.

t ~ Elevation 664 s / s r

1. i s +

s i ii N.: :.x. fyg ee w.y H a, - mj, y

g ;

[ Final Plant Grad y 'jR j$: ' '/ ' 'M Elevation 634'-0" ' " ' " " ' " ~ 2' "' "" """ " lll ll1 Iil lIi

t.,

.a. 3. _

9, ~-.

i g,,,,,,,, gyg,,4 t -W.r-g c- , -V = 500 feet /second :g.: f-o - s. ;_ :. :._y, y-Q ~. y t: s>, L' Elevation 615 + } ,= 3 ,, y _ gaa3 ~ - i.;.2 v.,, 3. 33 ;,w.. 3; r m. y. v. _ g l. e ,s,

e,. '" s _ Y = 850 feet /second wk;u.;W l. $E"65.t. ' ~ ^ '

1. a. g.:> s - APP. 75FT. :...:.t?,' T::

A.

- 3~- "L . amm - + ..a n,-.. e xM:n M **; svn:: @,w'- <-..;,y*~.=.% w, ??':? 8 .,,,- m, #. n' Elevation 600; (originalgrade). 1. 3 O< . -.._.i ? .,m,,;gp p y

g;.g;a;qp.a.g ;;?g.- g.

m :;, p. , n.s y, fii~;;,.'. L. a;., i. '. ' ' '~ . n :- G> ,=- ~.s.ce: .+. ~ - ~-ww._ _ + e n a. V = 850 feet /second s i l l t Elevation 550 (depth of V = 2300 feet /second s FIGURE l 4 1 BASIS FOR CALCULATION OF EQUIVALENT SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY YkLUES (V,) (Shaded region represents the area over which rneasured shear wave velocity o values (V,) were averaged, resulting in a V value of 796 ft/sec.) 3

c i .I r 000723E0 ^1 ATTACHMENT I-1 TO TECHNICAL REPCRT 4 STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING 4 1 -=- f 6

• i

= e. =e..v. -m a e .. e - 6

-.i-.~.. MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING 0gV -.,O ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATION OF BUILDING SETTLE-1 MENT AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE 3.0 SETTLEMENT DATA, MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS, AND 2 METHODOLOGY TO DERIVE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT DATA 4.0 DATA ANALYSIS 4 5.0 DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY DATA 6

6.0 CONCLUSION

S 8 REFERENCES 9 TABLES 1 Exterior Wall Settlement Data 2 Difference of Settlement Between Two Consecutive Measurement Dates of Markers for Exterior Wall 3a Relative Displacement Along North Wall for Settlement Markers 3b Relative Displacement Along South Wall for Settlement Markers 4a Angle Variation for Markers 1-22-21 Along Exterior South Wall 4b Angle Variation for Markers 21-20-3 Along Exterior South Wall 5 Result of Warpage Analysis FICURES 1 Derivation of Differential Settlement From Settlement Data 2 Measurement Locations 3 Settlement Along South Wall 4a Settlement-Time Curves for South Wall 4b Settlement-Time Curves for North Wall 5 Analysis of Angle Variation i G Warpage Analysis 7a Modified Settlement-Time Curves for South Wall 7b Modified Settlement-Time Curves for North Wall 8 Differential Settlement Determination ii 1 --g&-we .gg. g-v uy.-- w -eppm., p mer. es m.*w

~. 3 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the analysis of the surveyed settlement data of the diesel generator building (DGB). The reported settlement data obtained between November 24, 1978, and November 19, 1979, were studied. Section 2.0 presents a general discussion of the structural response due to differential settlement. (Differential settlement is defined as structural deformation which induces

stresses, i.e.,

rigid body motion is not considered to be differential settlement.) As indicated in this section, an accurate settlement data set is required for structural analysis. A description of the settlement data, measurement location, and methodology used to derive the original settlement data is presented in Section 3.0. The settlement data in a time-history form is presented in this section. The effectivenes.s of settlement in the time-history form is discussed. Section 4.0 presents the four different analyses made on the original settlement data. The original data analyzed in this section do not indicate a consistent structural deformation. A further discussion of the accuracy of the settlement data is provided in Section 5.0. Conclusions of this study are presented in Section 6.0. 2.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATION OF BUILDING SETTLEMENT AND STRUCTURAL

RESPONSE

Figure 1 illustrates the building settlement data and differential settlement derived from the settlement data. The stresses induced on the structure from date i to date j are functions of the relative differential displacements and are defined as D, D, and D in Figures 1b and Ic. 2 3 4 Figure la indicates that the elevation measurement is subjected to an assumed measurement error (E). The accuracy of the measured absolute total settlement is higher than the accuracy of the calculated relative differential settlement. Letting So be the absolute settlement of a particular reasurentent point, the error of total settlement is E/S. The error of differential settlement is E/D. It is obvious that E/D, is much larger than E/S. i e 1 1e-v=-s-t M

• e-h*w-.

hew e ewa ~

~ = ~. Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Dies.el Generator Building settlement Data Analysis l If E/Dn is large, the differential settlement value (Dn) should net be imposed on the structure for the structural analysis. The absolute settlement value (Sn), however, has a higher accuracy j and, therefore, may be utilized. The soil stiffness derived from ) S may be used to determine the structural responses. n 3.0 SETTLEMENT DATA, MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS, AND METHODOLOGY TO DERIVE THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT DATA The settlement data of the DGB were obtained at different locations during different time periods. Figure 2 illustrates-the locations of " scribe" and permanent " markers." Before installation of the permanent building markers (DG markers 1, 3, and 20 through 29), settlements had been monitored by surveys on construction scribes which were elevation marks placed on the inside of the building exterior walls 3 or 4 feet above final grade. A total of 26 such construction scribes were placed between March 28, 1978, and May 12, 1978. Elevation surveys of these scribes began on July 10, 1978, and continued at weekly intervals until November 24, 1978. The first permanent building settlement marker, DG-3, was installed May 9, 1978, marker DG-1 was installed September 9, 1978, and markers DG-20 through 29 were installed November 15, 1978. The permanent markers were installed on the outside of the building walls 1 to 4 feet above final grade and consisted of short steel rods grouted into the walls. When the surcharge was placed, thene permanent markers were no longer accessible and temporary markers were set in the mezzanine floor at elevations 663.5 to 664. Temporary markers consisted of nails set in the concrete in locations generally above the corresponding permanent markers. i. The settlement record included settlements monitored by the construction scribes which had occurred up to November 24, 1978. The settlement data had been calculated by assuming the settlement of a given DG marker on November 24, 1978, equal to the settlement recorded at the scribe for that particular area of the building. Beginning December 1, 1978, and up to and including Marc' 22, 1979, only the permanent DG markers were L optically surveyed. Placement of the surcharge prevented the use of the permanent markers after March 22, 1979, and temporary markers were installed to continue monitoring the settlements. The first survey of the temporary DG markers was made on 4 March 24, 1979 (2 days after the final survey of the permanent i markers), except for temporary markers DG-23 and 29 which could not be surveyed until April 9, 1979 (18 days after the final survey of the permanent markers). Temporary DG markers were surveyed during surcharge and surcharge removal until H 2 h ,.rr. .-m-

2. i.._.. m.- u. .u Midicnd Plant Units 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis G G 0 s " u- "" O 0 September 14, 1979, according to the settlement record table. By this time, the permanent DG markers were accessible. The procedure used to obtain and calculate the original settlement data was to: a. Convert the settlements of the construction scribes to the corresponding permanent markers for the period between July 10, 1978, and November 24, 1978. b. Set the settlements of the permanent DG markers on November 24, 1978, equal to the settlements measured by - construction scribes up to that date, for the particular 2 area of the building where a given DG marker was located. c. Obtain the elevations of the DG markers by optical surveys and calculate the settlement of a marker on a given day by adding the settlement of the marker on November 24, 1978, to the change in elevation of the marker between November 24, 1978, and the day of the survey. This procedure continued until March 22, 1979, when the permanent DG markers were no longer accessible. d. Install temperary DG markers above the level of the surcharge and obtain their elevations on March 24, 1979 (except for temporary markers DG-23 and 29 which were not surveyed until April 9, 1979). The settlements of the permanent markers on March 22, 1979, were added to the elevations of the corresponding temporary markers on March 24, 1979, to establish base elevation for the temporary markers. Because temporary markers DG-23 and 29 were not surveyed until several days after the final survey of the permanent markers, settlements of these markers between March 22 and April 9, 1979, were estimated from the behavior of nearby markers and these estimated settlements were added to the April 9, 1979, elevations to establish base elevations for these two

markers, e.

Calculate the settlements of the temporary DG markers on a given day by subtracting the marker elevation determined by surveys from the base elevation established on March 24, 1979 (April 9, 1979, in the case of markers DG-23 and 29). Settlements of the temporary markers were calculated in this manner until September 14, 1979. f. Obtain elevations of the permanent markers on September 14, 1979, and calculate settlements of the permanent markers on that date by subtracting the marker elevations from base elevations for the permanent 3 ~ ,e,-. v, ew - .e.-mm

-.L --.e_

w.._ w..

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building 2c00 Settlement Data Analysis markers. The base elevations for the permanent markers were established for December 2, 1978, by adding the settlements which had occurred up to that date (these settlements were estimated from scribes up to November 24, 1978) to the elevations of the markers obtained from surveys on December 2, 1978. P The settlement data were plotted in Bechtel Drawings SK-C-628 and t SK-C-629 (Reference 1). Figure 3 illustrates the settlement values of the south wall for several dates. The settlement data I plotted in Reference 1 for permanent markers DG-20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 29 for the period from July 10, 1978, to November 24,- 1978, were derived from the settlement data of the nearby scribes by taking the numerical average values. Because the structure was only partially constructed before November 24, 1978, and the structural analysis shows that the stress level is low because of high structural flexibility, data earlier than November 24, 1978, are.less important and, therefore, are not considered in this study. a The reported settlements after November 24, 1978, are listed in Table 1 and are plotted in a time-nistory form in Figure 4. These data were originally used in the settlement and structural evaluations. The settlement-time relation shown in Figure 4 is a better form for studying the accuracy of the survey. The presentation method used in Reference 1 and Figure 3 (i.e., the settlement-marker location relationship) is misleading. For exemple, the structural shapes plotted in Figure 3 are based on the premise that the structure deformed accordin without considering survey accuracy.g to the reported data Figure 4 reflects survey errors. A discussion of there errors is presented in Section 5.0. Section 4.0 presents numerical analyses based on the original data. 4.0 DATA ANALYSIS The settlement history data for the exterior wall settlement markers shown in Figure 2 are listed in Table 1. The data were analyzed and are presented in this section. The analyses include: a. Difference of settlements between two consecutive measurement dates b. Relative displacement along north and south walls c. . Angle variation analysis 4

-. - 3. - w. _ x -.

s. a -

a '. - = - Midland P1 tnt Units 1 and 2 3 Diesel Generator Building 000TP. B0 Settlement Data Analysis d. Warpage analysis These analyses are discussed as follows. 4.1 DIFFERENCE OF SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN TWO CONSECUTIVE MEASURE-MENT DATES Si for all marker points on the exterior wall The values of Si of the DGB as shown in Figure 2 are listed in Table 2. The negative values indicate that either the structure moved up or a potential measurement error existed. Because the structure cannot easily move up on its own weight, it is likely that negative values indicate a measurement error. I 4.2 RELATIVE DISPLACEMENTS ALONG NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS To establish a datum point, the displacements of the exterior corners are normalized to zero. The relative displacements of the interior points D, D, and D as defined in Figure 1 are 2 3 4 calculated and are listed in Table 3. If the measurement was 100%' accurate, these relative displacements should be positive, negative, or zero for differential settlement. a. If the relative displacement is positive or negative, the structure is undergoing differential settlement and the curvature increases or decreases. b. If the relative displacement is zero, the structure i remains at the previous curvature. Table 3 shows that data varies irregularly. It cannot be concluded from these data that the structure developed p differential settlement in the period considered. 4.3 ANGLE VARIATION ANALYSIS Figure 5 illustrates the method used to calculate the term called " angle." The variations, with respect to time, of " angles" between markers 1-22-21 and 21-20-3 are listed in Tables 4a and 4b. If the measurement is 100% accurate, the angle will continue increasing or decreasing through the survey period for differential settlement or will remain constant for rigid body motion. Observations of the angle are listed below: 5 b .-m. .-*.w P-a*w._ -=

p.u.

1 . -l .~ -l Midland Plant UnitO 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building ^ 0 0 0 7 2 C' 0 0 Settlement Data Analysis 9 Angle 1-22-21 from 11/24/78 relatively constant in the to 03/22/79 range of 179.941 degrees 7-from 03/30/79 relatively constant in the to 09/06/79 range of 179.864 degrees from 09/14/79 relatively constant in the to 08/28/80 range of 179.934 degrees Angle 21-20-3 has a pattern identical to that of Angle 1-22-21. Based on the difference between successive reading dates, the change in angle between marker points on the exterior south wall is small with a random change in algebraic sign. Therefore, these results show that the structure developed rigid body motion in the periods during which settlements were measured and the random change in algebraic sign of the change in angle is due to the accuracy of the measurements being taken. l 4.4 WARPAGE ANALYSIS A review of the settlement data for the settlement markers on the four corners of the DGB indicates the amount of warpage the structure has attained. The method of analysis for warpage is illustrated in Figure 6. Results of this analysis are listed in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the warpage across the structure (IDIFD) is very small and varies with time between positive and negative values. It can be concluded from this analysis that the survey data is not accurate enough to prove that the structure has developed differential settlement (or warpage) across the corners. 5.0 DISCUSSIONS OF THE SURVEY DATA The numerical data analyses presented in Section 4.0 reveal that i the reported settlement data do not identify a consistent pattern of differential settlement in the overall period considered. This warrants a further consideration of the accuracy of survey data. There are two types of errors in the original data (see Figure 4). The first type is the erratic error that occurred in a particular marker elevation reading on a particular date. This type of error occurred most often in the period between December 15, 1978, and March 30, 1979. Considering the l consistency of relative elevation of the north wall in the periods of December 2, 1978, to December 8, 1978, and January 26, 6 g l, l

l _. a w ) Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 000t4o 0 Di'**1 G*"*r** r 8"ildi"S e a n ~s Settlement Data Analysis e 1979, to February 16, 1979, the inaccuracy of readings on markers DG-27 and 28 in the period from December 15, 1978, to January 19, 1979, is quite obvious. Readings from marker DG-24 on January 19, 1979, is 0.012 ft lower than the average value of January 12 and January 26, 1979. Erroneous readings are also observed on May 3, 1979, for markers DG-1, 3, 22, 24, 25, and 28. These erratic errors are clearly reflected on the settlement-time curves shown in Figure 4. The second type of error is the systematic error that is carried over in the period from March 30, 1979, to September 6, 1979. Inspecting the relative elevation in the periods after March 30, y 1979, shows that a systematic inconsistency existed between September 6, 1979, and September 14, 1979. The systematic error during the period from March 30, 1979, to September 6, 1979, had been studied by Mr. Peter A. Lenzini of the University of Illinois (Reference 2). o Both survey data records and Mr. Lenzini's report show that on September 14, 1979, the discrepancy between temporary and permanent markers is as high as 0.017 ft at marker DG-27, 0.016 ft at marker DG-3, 0.015 ft at marker DG-28, etc.. E Mr. Lenzini corrected the original data and calculated the l' settlement relative to January 26, 1979. As discussed in Section 3.0, the procedure to obtain and calculate the original settlement data in the period between 3 March 24, 1979, and September 14, 1979, is to determine the base elevation for the temporary markers by adding the settlement of permanent markers to the corresponding temporary marker elevation. The base elevation is then used to calculate the settlements for the subsequent dates. This procedures indicates that the erratic error during the time to establish a base elevation can be carried through the period of temporary marker survey. Therefore, the erratic error becomes a systematic error. L l Because the errer may be about 0.02 ft, settlement-time curves in Figure 4 are smoothed and illustrated in Figure 7. L Based on Figure 7, the differential settlements developed in the south wall are plotted in Figure 8. It is found that as long as the comparisons are made within the period of the same measurement location, deflection is a rigid body motion (Figures 8a and 8b). When settlements of different measurement locations are compared, a higher curvature was observed (Figure 8c). This indicates the structure was developing rigid body motion and differential settlement was due to a survey l error. This observation agrees with the angle variation l, analysis, as indicated in Section 4.3. 1 ~. _ _

~ ~ _u.,- .l_ Midland PlOnt Unit 0 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building 0 Settlement Data Analysis As indicated in Section 2.0, the absolute settlement (Sn) has a ~ higher accuracy than the relative settlement (D ). To utilize the available data, the soil stiffness derived from S may be used for structural analysis. This approach can minimize the effect due to survey error.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S Based on this study, the following conclusions concerning the Midland DGB settlement data are made. 6.1 The survey data varies up to 0.02 (erratic error) ft. 6.2 The existing data does not indicate a consistent pattern of differential settlement. This is proven in the differential displacement analysis, angle variation analysis, and warpage analysis. U 6.3 Systematic errors are contained in the survey data. 6.4 By smoothing the settlement-time curves to correct the erratic error, the data reflect that the structure was developing rigid body motion in the period during which settlement was measured at the same locations. 6.5 Differential settlement is derived only when data obtained at different elevations were compared. This is 'due to systematic errors. Therefore, it is concluded that the structure is under 4 rigid body motion during the period considered in this study. 6.6 The total settlement data has a higher degree of accuracy than the relative differential settlement values. Therefore, the soil stiffness derived from the total settlement data may be used for the structural analysis. Because of the errors in the differential settlement values, these values should not be imposed on the structure for structural analysis. I 1 8 b I

• O

=-%,,. .-e ,__[

.- ~ ~ ~ Midland Plcnt Unita 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis R M RMCES ] 00072090 l l '. Bechtel Power Corporation, Midland Project Drawings SK-C-628 and SK-C-619, Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data 2. Peter A. Lenzini, Review of Data .? l l l 9 l

' _.1 _. Midlcnd Plant Unita 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis TABLE 1 00072090 EXTERIOR WALL SETTLEMENT DATA * (Ft) Date 1 3 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 781124 0.215 0.282 0.217 0.183 0.184 0.166 0.146 0.146 0.163 0.188 0.211 0.240 781202 0.217 0.295 0.238 0.195 0.188 0.167 0.146 0.155 0.178 0.202 0.226 0.249 781208 0.216 0.299 0.231 0.194 0.198 0.170 0.152 0.158 0.181 0.206 0.232 0.255 781215 0.218 0.318 0.243 0.196 0.188 0.168 0.153 0.166 0.190 0.206 0.259 0.283 781222 0.228 0.342 0.264 0.213 0.200 0.177 0.164 0.168 0.190 0.206 0.263 0.292 781229 0.229 0.350 0.272 0.219 0.204 0.177 0.159 0.168 0.190 0.:M6 0.264 0.299 790105 0.234 0.350 0.280 0.229 0.211 0.188 0.163 0.174 0.203 0.236 0.244 0.299 790112 0.231 0.349 0.280 0.231 0.214 0.181 0.160 0.180 0.209 0.236 0.267 0.301 790119 0.238 0.354 0.287 0.234 0.218 0.192 0.174 0.180 0.209 0.236 0.271 0.305 790126 0.234 0.356 0.280 0.227 0.210 0.188 0.164 0.180 0.209 0.236 0.261 0.303 790201 0.237 0.357 0.284 0.236 0.214 0.192 0.168 0.189 0.220 0.250 0.272 0.306 790216 0.259 0.378 0.314 0.265 0.245 0.210 0.179 0.205 0.239 0.266 0.288 0.329 790223 0.277 0.398 0.335 0.282 0.261 0.216 0.181 0.201 0.232 0.267 0.289 0.340 790302 0.280 0.428 0.366 0.305 0.274 0.225 0.182 0.201 0.232 0.267 0.312 0.364 790309 0.322 0.451 0.401 0.338 0.315 0.251 0.207 0.224 0.256 0.297 0.324 0.383 790215 0.344 0.466 0.407 0.346 0.324 0.260 0.213 0.231 0.263 0.303 0.328 0.397 790322 0.354 0.476 0.411 0.352 0.327 0.266 0.215 0.235 0.271 0.312 0.340 0.401 790330 0.349 0.495 0.425 0.369 0.337 0.270 0.227 0.255 0.305 0.342- 0.371 0.426 { 790406 0.400 0.536 0.475 0.421 0.380 0.303 0.242 0.274 0.321 0.359 0.384 0.453 790413 0.439 0.570 0.514 0.452 0.413 0.332 0.260 0.281 0.331 0.369 0.197 0.477 790420 0.442 0.577 0.522 0.458 0.420 0.336 0.260 0.284 0.330 0.372 0.398 0.479 790426 0.454 0.583 0.526 0.467 0.424 0.345 0.268 0.289 0.335 0.375 0.404 0.486 790503 0.449 0.583 0.528 0.465 0.423 0.341 0.266 0.283 0.334 0.374 0.402 0.485 790511 0.464 0.594 0.536 0.470 0.435 0.352 0.277 0.294 0.337 0.379 0.409 0.492 790518 0.464 0.600 0.543 0.479 0.439 0.354 0.274 0.296 0.344 0.385 0.412 0.d96 790525 0.464 0.598 0.541 0.477 0.439 0.352 0.274 0.293 0.340 0.380 0.409 0.494 7?0531 0.464 0.598 0.543 0.478 0.439 0.350 0.273 0.294 0.340 0.331 0.410 0.4?6 + 790605 0.467 0.601 0.542 0.480 0.443 0.333 0.275 0.295 0.344 0.380 0.412 0.496 790607 0.471 0.603 0.546 0.481 0.443 0.357 0.277 0.297 0.341 0.333 0.413 0.49? 790615 0.473 0.606 0.549 0.485 0.446 0.359 0.281 0.297 0.345 0.386 0.416 0.503 790622 0.477 0.612 0.555 0.487 0.447 0.361 0.283 0.300 0.34? 0.389 0.420 0.507 j 790629 0.477 0.612 0.556 0.439 0.447 0.360 0.280 0.299 0.350 0.389 0.418 0.504-790706 0.478 0.612 0.557 0.491 0.451 0.361 0.281 0.300 0.349 0.389 0.419 0.506 790713 0.482 0.415 0.557 0.490 0.453 0.364 0.287 0.302 0.346 0.3!8 0.420 0.507 l 790720 0.482 0.616 0.560 0.492 0.454 0.365 0.283 0.302 0.348 0.389 0.419 0.508 790727 0.485 0.618 0.561 0.493 0.454 0.366 0.286 0.302 0.351 0.392 0.422 0.510 l 790803 0.484 0.620 0.561 0.495 0.454 0.366 0.288 0.302 0.351 0.391 0.423 0.510 790810 0.484 0.620 0.564 0.494 0.457 0.369 0.288 0.304 0.352 0.392 0.424 0.512 790817 0.479 0.615 0 119 0.491 0.453 0.364 0.285 0.306 0.352 0.394 0.423 0.511 790824 0.471 0.608 0.552 0.487 0.444 0.357 0.277 0.295 0.347 0.387 0.416 0.504 790831 0.466 0.605 0.544 0.480 0.439 0.351 0.273 0.291 0.341 0.382 0.410 0.499 790906 0.462 0.402 0.546 0.478 0.439 0.349 0.269 0.289 0.341 0.380 0.410 0.497 790914 0.464 0.614 0.544 0.477 0.448 0.358 0.271 0.298 0.330 0.363 0.393 0.493 790921 0.464 0.615 0.544 0.477 0.450 0.360 0.271 0.297 0.333 0.363 0.392 0.492 ~ 790928 0.464 0.616 0.544 0.477 0.450 0.359 0.271 0.295 0.334 0.362 0.392 0.492 ~ 800206 0.458 0.616 0.536 0.467 0.441 0.348 0.265 0.291 0.326 0.365 0.395 0.491 800627 0.459 0.615 0.538 0.469 0.441 0.349 0.264 0.289 0.323 0.361 0.422 0.487 800822 0.456 0.612 0.536 0.468 0.440 0.348 0.265 0.28! 0.323 0.362 0.423 0.4?0 800828 0.456 0.612 0.537 0.468 0.440 0.350 0.269 0.288 0.326 0.364 0.424 0.491

• See Figure 2 for location of settlement markers.

y

~ .. _ ~ _ l Midland Plcnt Unit 8 1 End 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis TABLE 2 000l2aoO us DIFFERENCE OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN TWO CONSECUTIVE MEASUREMENT DATES OF MARKERS FOR EXTERIOR WALL *, (Ft) Date 1 Date 2 1 3 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 781124 781202.002.013.021.012.004.001.000.009.015.014 .01 5.009 781202 781208.001.004.007.001.000.003.006.003.003.004.006.006 781208 781215.002.019.012.002.000.002.001 .008.009.000.027.02S 781215 781222.010.024.021.017.012.009.011.002.000.000.004.009 781222 781229.001.008.008.006.004.000.005.000.000.000.001.007 781229 790105.005.000.008.010.007.011.004.008.013.030.000.000 790105 790112.003.001.000.002.003.007.003.004.006.000.003.002 790112 790119.007.005.007.003.004.011.014.000.000.000.004.004 79011? 790126.004.002.007.007.008.004.010.000.000.000.010.002 790126 l 790201 ~ 790201.003.001 .004.009.004.004.004.009.011.014.011 .003 790216.022.021.030.029.031.018.011.016.019.016.016.023 L 790216 790223.018.020.021.017.016.006.002.004.007.001.001 .011 790223 790302.003.030.031.023.013.009.001.000.000.000.023.024 790302 790309.042.023.035.033.041.026.025.023.024.030.012.019 790309 790315.022.015.006.008.009.009.004.007.007.006.004.014 790315 790322.010.010.004.006.003.006.002.004.008.009.012.004 790322 790330.005.019.014.017.010.004.012.020 .034-.030.031 .025 790330 790406.051.041.050.052.043.033.015.019.016.017.013.027 7t0406 790413.039.034.039.031.033.029.018.007.010.010.013.024 790413 790420.003.007.008.006.007.004.000.003.001 .003.001.002 i 790420 790426.012.006.004.009.004.009.008.005.005.003.006.007 790426 790503.005.000.002.002.001.004.002.006.001.001.002.001 790503 790511.015.011.008.005.012.011.011 .011 .003.005.007.607 j 790511 790518.000.006.007.009.004.002.003.002.007.006.003.004 790518 790525.000.002.002.002.000.002.000.003.004.005.003.002 790525 790531.000.000.002.001.000.002.001 .001.000.001.001.002 790531 790605.003.003.001.002.004.003.002.001.004.001.002.000 790605 790607.004.002.004.001.000.004.004.002.003.003.001.003 1 790607 790615.002.003.003.004.003.002.002.000.004.303.003.004 I 790615 790622.004.006.006.002.001.002.002.003.002.003.004.004 j 790622 790629.000.000.001.002.000.001.003.001 .003.000.002.003 790629 790706.001.000 .001..002.004.001.001.001.001.000.001.002 I 790706 790713.004.003.000.001.002.003.006.002.003.001.001 .001 790713 790720.000.001.003.002.001.001.002.000.002.001.001.001 790720 790727.003.002.001.001.000.001.001 .000.003.003.003.002 790727 790803.001.002.000.002.000.000.002.000.000.001.001.000 790803 790810.002.000.003.001.003.003.000.002.001 .001.001 .002 790810 790817.007.005.005.003.004.005.003.002.000.002.001.001 790817 790824.008.007.007.004.009 007.008.011.005.007.007.007 ??0824 790831.005.003.006.007.005.006.004.004.006.005.006.005 790031 790904.004.003.000.002.000.002.004.002.000.002.000.002 790906 790914.002.014.002.001.009.009.002.009.011.017.017.004 790914 790921.000.001.000.000.002.002.000.001.003.000.001.001 790721 790728.000.001.000.000.000.001.000.002.001 .001 .000.000 790928 800206.006.000.008.010.009 011.004.004.008.003.003.001 800206 800427.001.001.002.002.000.001.001.002.003.004.027.004 L 800627 800822.003.003.002.001.001.001.001 .001 .000.001 .001.003 l 800822 800828.000.000.001.000.000.002.004.000.003.002.001 .001

• See Figure '2 for location of settlement markers.

..= =- ---w = - - =

Midland Plant Unita 1 cnd 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis TABLE 3a 00072090 RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT ALONG NORTH WALL FOR SETTLEMENT MARKERS * (Ft1 From To Date Date 24 25 26 27 28 781124 781202 .000 .005 .007 .003 .000 781202 781208 .000 .003 .003 .002 .000 781208 781215 .000 .000 .005 .020 .000 781215 781222 .000 .007 .008 .006 .000 781222 781229 .000 .004 .002 .001 .000 781229 790105 .000 .005 .011 .029 .000 790105 790112 .000 .005 .006 .002 .000 790112 790119 .000 .012 .009 .007 .000 790119 790124 .000 .010 .010 .010 .000 790126 790201 .000 .003 .004 .005 .000 790201 790216 .000 .004 .005 .001 .000 790216 790223 .000 .006 .009 .000 .000 790223 790302 .000 .006 .012 .017 .000 790302 790309 .000 .001 .005 .015 .000 790309 790315 .000 .002 .002 .002 .000 790315 790322 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000 790322 790330 .000 .003 .012 .004 .000 790330 790406 .000 .005 .002 .004 .000 790406 790413 .000 .010 .005 .004 .000 790413 790420 .000 .003 .002 .002 .000 790420 790426 .000 .002 .002 .004 .000 790426 790503 .000 .004 .001 .001 .000 790503 790511 .000 .001 .006 .003 .000 790511 790518 .000 .003 .007 .005 .000 790518 790525 .000 .002 .003 .003 .000 790525 790531 .000 .002 .000 .001 .000 790531 790605 .000 .001 .002 .033 .000 790605 7'0607 .000 .001 .006 .001 .000 790607 790615 .000 .002 .001 .000 .000 790615 790622 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 790622 790629 .000 .002 .006 .002 .000 790629 790706 .000 .000 .002 .00I .000 790706 790713 .000 .003 .007 .003 .000 790713 790720 .000 .002 .004 .002 .000 790720 790727 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 790727 790803 .000 .002 .002 .002 .000 l 790803 790810 .000 .002 .001 .000 .000 790810 790817 .000 .004 .002 .003 .000 790817 790824 .000 .003 .002 .000 .000 790824 790831 .000 .001 .001 .001 .000 790831 790906 .000 .001 .002 .001 .000 790906 790914 .000 .012 .003 .005 .000 7?0914 790921 .000 .001 .004 .001 .000 790921 790928 .000 .002 .001 .001 .000 ) 790928 800206 .000 .000 .006 .002 .000 800206 800627 .000 .008 .016 .024 .000 800627 800822 .000 .002 .001 .000 .000 ) 800822 800828 .000 .003 .001 .000 .000 4

• Settlement marker locations are shown in Figure 2.

r

p m#se waw-4 4- -NM*+*"M== b Mid12nd Plcnt Unita 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis TABLE 3b 00072090 RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT ALONG SOUTH WALL FOR SETTLEMENT MARKERS * (Ft) From To Date Date 1 22 21 20 3 781124 781202 .000 001 .004 .011 000 781202 781208 .000 000 .002 .010 000 781200 781215 .000 006 .009 .003 000 781215 781222 .000 001 .000 .000 004 001 .002 .002 000 781222 781229 .000 003 .008 .007 000 781229 790105 .000 005 .004 .002 000 790105 790112 .000 790112 790119 .000 002 .003 .002 000 790119 790126 .000 005 .006 .007 000 001 .007 .002 000 790126 790201 .000 009 .008 .009 000 790201 790216 .000 '790216 790223 .000 002 .002 .002 000 003 .006 .008 000 790223 790302 .000 790302 790309 .000 004 .000 .007 000 790309 790315 .000 011 .010 .011 000 790315 790322 .000

007

.004 .006 000 790322 790330 .000 009 .010 .001 000 790330 790406 .000 006 .006 .007 000 790406 790413 .000 005 .006 .004 000 7?0413 790420 .000 003 .001 .002 000 790420 790426 .000 007 .000 .003 000 790426 790503 .000 003 .000 .003 000 790503 790511 .000 002 .008 .004 000 790511 790518 .000 002 .006 .002 000 790518 790525 .000 001 .001 .000 000 790525 790531 .000 000 .001 .002 000 790531 790605 .000 001 .001 .004 000 i 790605 790607 .000 003 .002 .001 000 790607 790615 .000 001 .002 .000 000 790615 790622 .000 003 .003 .000 000 790622 790629 .0C0 000 .002 .001 000 790629 790706 .000 003 .002 .001 000 790706 790713 .000 002 .005 .003 000 790713 790720 .000 001 .002 .002 000 790720 790727 .000 003 .001 .001 000 t-790727 790803 .000 000 .002 .001 000 790803 790810 .000 001 .002 .003 000 790810 790817 .000 003 .003 .000 000 790817 790824 .000 001 .003 .000 000 790824 790831 .000 000 .003 .002 000 790831 790906 .000 004 .001 .003 000 790906 790914 .000 004 .009 .013 000 i' 790914 790921 .000 002 .000 .001 000 I 790921 790928 .000 000 .000 .001 000 790928 800206 .000 004 .007 .007 000 800206 800627 .000 001 .002 .003 000 i 800627 800822 .000 002 .002 .001 000 800822 800828 .000 000 .000 .001 000 f

• Settlement marker locations are shown in Figure 2.

l .7

.m__._. Midland Plant Unita 1 cnd 2 Discal Gancrator Building Settlement Data Analysis TABLE 4a 00072090 ANGLE VARIATION FOR MARKERS 1-22-21 ALONG EXTERIOR SOUTH WALL Settlement Data From Tb1 1 AAngle** Date 1 22 21 Angle * (Deg) Date i Date i (Deg) 781124 .215 .184 .183 179.95467377 '781124 781202 .00884919 781202' .217 .188 .195 179.94582558 781202 781208 .00325775 781208 .216 .188 .194 179.94908333 781208 781215 .00675774 781215 .218 .188 .196 179.94232559 781215 781222 .00448990 781222 .228 .200 .213 179.93783569 781222 781229 .00159454 781229 .229 .204 .219 179.93943024 781229 790105 .00159454 790105 .234 .211 .229 179.93783569 .790105 790112 .01124763 790112 .231 .214 .231 179.94908333 790112 790119 .00325775 790119 .238 .218 .234 179.94582558 790119 790126 .00838280 790126 .234 .210 .227 179.93744278 790126 790201 .00561142 790201 .237 .214 .236 179.91183136 790201 790216 .01725197 790216 .259 .245 .265 179.94908333 '790216 790223 .0045?671 790223 .277 .261 .282 179.94448662 790223 790302 .00000000 790302 .280 .274 .305 179.94448662 790302 790309 .01018715 790309 .322 .315 .338 179.95467377 790309 790315 .01800728 790315 .344 .324 .346 179.93666649 790315 790322 .01517487 .352 179.92149162 790322 790330 .01215744 790322 .354 .327 790330 .349 .337 .369 179.93364906 790330 790406 .02564049 790406 .400 .380 .421 179.90800858 -790406 790413 .00667191 7f0413 .439 .413 .452 179.90133667 !790413 790420 .00801086 790420 .442 .420 .458 179.90934753 790420 790426 .01971245 ??0426 .454 .424 .467 179.88963509 790426 790503 .00709915 790503 .449 423 .465 179.89673424 790503 790511 .00635338 790511 .464 .435 .470 179.90308762 790511 790518 .00150299 790518 .464 .439 .479 179.*0158463 790518 ??0525 .00302887 790525 .464 .439 .477 179.90461349 7?C525 790531 .00152588 790531 .464 .439 .478 179.90308762 790531 790605 .00492096 l 790605 .467 443 .480 179.90800858 790605 790607 .00765800 790607 .471 .443 .481 179.90035057 790607 790615 .00000000 790615 .473 .446 485 179.90035057 790615 790622 .00618935 t 790622 .477 .447 .487 17f.89416122 790622 790629 .00318718 l 790629 .477 .447 .489 179.8f097404 1790629 790?06 .00767326 1 i 790706 .478 .451 491 179.89864731 790706 790713 .00121307 790713 .482 .453 .490 179.89956036 ,790713 790720 .00049019 i 790720 .482 .454 .492 179.90035057 790720 790727 00618f35 790727 .485 .454 .493 179.89416122 790727 790803 .00160599 790803 .484 .454 .495 179.89255524 790803 790810 .00730515 790810 .486 457 .494 179.89986038 790810 790817 .00322723 790817 .479 .453 .491 179.90308762 790817 790824 .00915718 790824 .471 .444 .487 179.!9393044 790824 790831 .00280380 790831 .466 .439 .480 179.89673424 790831 790906 .00969124 790906 .462 .439 .478 179.90642548 790906 790914 .02540588 790914 .464 .448 .477 179.93183136 790914 790921 .00600433 790921 .464 .450 .477 179.93783569 790921 790928 .00000000 790928 .464 .450 .477 179.93783569 790928 800206 .00269508 800206 458 441 .467 179.93514061 800206 800627 .00473022 800627 .459 .441 .469 179.93041039 900627 800822 .00323368 800822 .456 .440 .468 179.93364906 200822 800828 .00000000 800828 .456 .440 .468 179.93364906

• See Figure S
  • 4 Angle is the angle increment between Date i and Date j.

Midicnd Plant Unit 3 1 and 2 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis 00072090 m LE 4b ANGLE VARIATION FOR MARKERS 21-20-3 ALONG EXTERIOR SOUTH WALL Settlement _ Data From Tb'l 1 ~ AAngle** _Date 21 20 3 Angle * (Deg) Date i Date $ (Deg) 781124 .183 .217 .212 179.95256424 781124 '781202 .02645493 781202 .195 .238 .295 179.97901917 781202 781208 .02593613 781208 .194 .231 .299 179.95308304 781208 781215 .00495338 781215 .194 .243 .310 179.95803642 781215 781222 .00058746 781222 .213 .264 .342 179.95862389 781222 781229 .00306892 781229 .219 .272 .350 179.96169281 781229 790105 .00063457 790105 .229 .280 .350 179.97032738 790105 790112 .000!1253 790112 .231 .280 .349 179.96951485 790112 790119 .00836945 790119 .234 .287 .354 179.97788429 790119 790126 .01285342 790126 .227 .280 .356 179.96503067 790126 790201 .00269508 790201 .236 .284 .357 179.96233559 790201 790216 .01554871 790216 .265 .314 .378 179.97788429 790216 790223 .00647736 790223 .282 .335 .398 179.98436165 790223 790302 .00574175 790302 .305 .366 .428 179.99011040 790302 790309 .02967072 790309 .338 .401 .451 180.01978111 790309 790315 .01978111 790315 .346 .407 .466 180.00000000 790315 790322 .01211357 790322 .352 .411 .476 179.98788643 790322 790330 .00886726 790330 .369 .425 .495 179.97901917 790330 790406 .01109123 790406 .421 .475 .536 179.99011040 790406 790413 .02200317 790413 .452 .514 .570 180.01211357 790413 790420 .00352478 790420 .458 .522 .577 180.01563835 790420 790426 .01563835 790426 .467 .526 .583 180.00000000 790426 790503 .01211357 790503 .465 .528 .583 180.01211357 790503 7?0511 .00000000 790511 .470 .536 .594 180.01211357 790511 790518 .00222397 790518 .479 .543 .600 180.00928960 790518 790525 .00000000 790525 .477 .541 .598 180.00988960 790525 790531 .00574875 790531 .478 .543 .5?3 180.01563835 790531 790605 .00574875 790605 480 .542 .601 180.00988960 790605 790607 .00574175 790607 .481 .546 .603 100.01563835 7?0407 790615 .00574875 790615 .495 .549 .606 180.00f88960 790615 790622 .00574875 790622 .487 .555 .612 110.01563835 790622 790629 .00000000 i 790629 .489 .554 .612 180.01563835 790629 790706 .C0000000 L 790706 .491 .557 .612 180.01563835 790706 ??0713 .00352478 790713 .490 .557 .615 180.01211357 790713 790720 .00501S23 790720 .492 .560 .616 100.01713181 790720 790727 .00149345 790727 .493 .541 .618 180.01563835 790727 790803 .00574875 790803 .495 .561 .620 100.00989960 790803 790810 .01109123 [ 790810 .494 .564 .620 180.02098083 790810 790817 .00384903 I 790817 .491 .559 .615 100.01713181 790817 790824 .00149345 790824 .487 .552 .608 180.01563035 790824 790831 .00574175 i ' 790831 .480 .546 .605 180.00908960 790831 790906 .00?24220 790906 .478 .546 .602 180.01713181 790906 790914 .02702141 790914 .477 .544 .616 179.99011040 790914 790921 .00988960 790921 .477 .544 .615 100.00000000 790921 790928 .00988960 790928 .477 .544 .616 179.99011040 790928 800206 .00574875 800206 .467 .536 .616 179.98436165 800206 800627 .00352478 800627 .469 .538 .615 179.98788443 800627 800822 .00000000 800822 .468 .536 .612 179.98788643 800822 800828 .00222397 800828 .468 .537 .612 179.99011040 ?

• See Figure 5 p
  • AAngle is the angle increment between Date i and Date j.

~ - - ~ ~

Midlcnd Plant Unita 1 cnd 2 Diesel Generator Building Settlement Data Analysis 00072090 l TABLE 5 RESULT OF WARPAGE ANALYSIS (Ft) Date i Date i A B C D DP DIFD EDIFD* 781124 781202 .000 .002 013 .015 .011 .004 .004 781202 781208 .004 .001 004 .006 .011 .005 .001 781208 781215 .001 .002 019 .027 .018 .009 .008 781215 781222 .011 .010 024 .004 .025 .021 .013 781222 781229 .005 .001 008 .001 .002 .001 .014 781229 790105 .004 .005 000 .000 .001 .001 .013-001 .003 .001 .004 .001 790105 790112 .003 .003 790112 790119 .014 .007 005 .004 .012 .008 .017 .010 .004 .006 .023 790119 790126 .010 .004 002 790126 790201 .004 .003 001 .011 .002 .00? .014 790201 790216 .011 .022 021 .016 .010 .006 .008 790216 790223 .002 .018 020 .001 .004 .003 .011 790223 790302 .001 .003 030 .023 .028 .005 .016 r 790302 790309 .025 .042 023 .012 .006 .006 .010 790309 790315 .006 .022 015 .004 .001 .005 .005 7?0315 790322 .002 .010 010 .012 .002 .010 .005 790322 790330 .012 .005 019 .031 .036 .005 .000 790330 790406 .015 .051 041 .013 .005 ..008 .008 790406 790413 .018 .039 034 .013 .013 .000 .008 790413 790420 .000 .003 007 .001 .004 .003 .005 790420 790426 .008 .012 006 .006 .002 .004 .009 .002 .003 .005 .004 770426 790503 .002 .005 000 790503 790511 .011 .015 011 .007 .007 .000 .004 790511 790518 .003 .000 006 .003 .003 .000 .004 .003 .002 .001 .003 002 790518 790525 .000 .000 790525 790531 .001 .000 000 .001 .001 .002 .005 790531 790605 .002 .003 003 .002 .002 .000 .005 790605 790607 .004 .004 002 .001 .002 .001 .004 790607 790615 .002 .002 003 .003 .003 .000 .004 790615 790622 .002 .004 006 .004 .004 .000 .004 .002 .003 .001 .005 790622 790629 .003 .000 000 790629 790706 .001 .001 000 .001 .000 .001 .004 790706 790713 .006 .004 003 .001 .005 .004 '.002 .001 .001 .000 .002 790713 790720 .002 .000 001 790720 790727 .001 .003 002 .003 .000 .003 .005 790727 790803 .002 .001 002 .001 .005 .004 .001 I 790003 790810 .000 .002 000 .001 .002 .003 .004 .001 .001 .000 .004 005 790810 790817 .003 .007 .007 .007 .000 .004 007 790817 790824 .008 .008 .006 .002 .004 .000 003 790824 790831 .004 .005 003 .000 .003 .003 .003 790831 790906 .004 .004 .017 .014 .031 .028 790906 790914 .002 .002 014 ,001 .001 .000 .028 001 790914 790921 .000 .000 790921 790928 .000 .000 001 .000 .001 .001 .029 790928 800206 .006 .006 000 .003 .000 .003 .026 001 .027 .003 .030 .004 800206 800427 .001 .001 003 .001 .001 .000 .004 800627 800822 .001 .003 800822 800828 .004 .000 000 .001 .004 .003 .001 i

• IDIFD is the accumulated value of DIFD o..

.~, .a -ammm..-e e g. g mi-- g

e. ~.. - -. 00072090 E REF LINE ""d 1 2 3 4" 5 se se se S* l(/ (/ (a) '4 DATEi 'I _ 5 DATEJ / N N N N (b) _/ (c) 0'+ D[ f 2 D-4 Where D, D and D are determined from the following equations: 2 3 4 2 = [0.50(I

3) + 1 D

0.25(I - 2 D3=[

3) + 1 3

D4 = [0.75(I

3) + 1 4

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 DERIVATION OF DIFFERENTIAL 4 SETTLEMENT FROM SETTLEMENT DATA FIGURE 1 ESFIGENERATOR SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS 6/6/82 G 2M841 =

d_ .,g_,__. 1 O "^"#".... O =ca'a= 00072090 O25 28 26 27 b/ r-1 g@ G g O O GC77 0 m @ 60 g3 n8 9 r.)O 9@@ 8 SaMO @B@ @B GG@ @@ a i e ~ DATA DATE DATA DERIVATION 7/10/78 - 11/24/78 Measured settlements on scribe, then converted to the equivalent settlement on marker location 12/2178 - 3/22179 Measured settlements directly from marker 3130/79 - 9/14179 Measured settlements from substituted marker inside the building on mezzanine floor el 663' 9114179 - Now Meesured settlements directly from marker CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY e MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 1 MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 2 De L GE RATOR ButLDING SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS 5/6/82 G.2506-10 = =.

- ^. O A 00072090 22 21 20 3 0.000 0.100-t 0.200- ""N \\ 781124 p g 2 (SCRIBE) E 0.300- \\ S 781202 (MARKER) 'N N. N N

• 'N N

0.400-g N, N N N N N \\.

• **...r 4 4,*...,,"' N.,

N N, f 790315(MARKER) g\\ \\ g g -790322 (MARKER)

• N'***.

N N790330 0.500- \\ (SUBSTITUTED MARKER) g 790408 (SUBSTITUTED MARKER) ,%,,*g 790914 (SUBSTITUTED MARKER) 0.600- '790906 (SUBSTITUTED MARKER) 790914 (MARKER) CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 1 SETTLEMENT ALONG SOUTH WALL s FIGURE 3 D4ESEL GE. EMATOR BUILDNG SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS S/6/82

~..

4 i i 1979 1979 11 1212 12 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 8 5 5 8 8 7 7 3 8 9 9 9 10 11 1 24 23 22 5 19 1 23 9 22 30 20 3 10 31 15 29 13 27 to 24 4 14 28 27 9 1 Ii t l START READING It t READING SCREE START READING FROelMARKER I FROM SueSTITUTED I FROM MARKER i g [ i l M ARMER, e RAEZZANINE g EL 034* O i e FLOOR EL 883- !l c l e.1 i ll i 1 8 N 11 11 II Il e u w ii

i o

i II I I II II f. E k 1I I' u l i ! l N !A l l C-II g fl U l I l Q i lI 0 fW l x l1 1 I x jj m eg s ~ 3 1I I I ii i. l CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 ~ SETTLEMENT-TIME CURVES FOR SOUTH WALL FIGURE da 6 MIDLAND UNITS I AND 2 evrers crurn4 TOR RIM DING RFTTIFMENT DATA ANALYSIS 5/6/62 n-2506-04

s ,t e 1978 1979 19 12 12 12 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 S S 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 18 11 24 2 8 22 5 19 1 23 9 22 30 20 3 18 31 15 29 13 27 10 24 8 14 28 27 9 ll 'l I ll ll o 1 o ll ! ll O l 3 o. I I ll Io {- I l lI o I I l m x k N I i \\. Ti- - Y 'L.-- l N W _- ,_jj-l lk -r t Ij h

1. j I

I I I l-I I I lI i u I; I g I i I I Il

j i.

i. l h i i CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 i SETTLEMENT-TIME CURVES FOR NORTH WALL uotano unirs i ANo 2 FIGURE 4b twRFI CJ NF HATOR DutDING SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS 5/6/82

.L~ ~~ . z L... '^ -L~. .a.... e r2 000120S0 1 22 21 20 3 .8 5" I l I _L.gSD__, ESC j l ESA NA s. DBC I l 1 I l l e ( BASED ON THE TERMS DEFINED IN THE FIGURE: ESD = ESB + (ESB - ESA) DBD = [(ESB - ESD)2 + SPAN jw 2 DBC = [(ESB - ESC)2 + SPAN jw 2 DCD = l ESC - ESDl a FROM THE TRIANGLE RELATIONSHIP A a2=b 2 2 + c - 2bc cos A c 4 cos A = (DBD2 + DsC2 - DCD )/(2DBC x DBD) 2 l A = cos'1 (cos A) 1 .i

• IF ESC > ESD, ANGLE = 180* - A

+ IF ESC $ ESD, ANGLE = 180* + A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 J ANALYSIS OF ANGLE VARIATION FIGURE 5 MIDUudD UNITS 1 AND 2 DESEL GENERATOR SUILDodG SETTLEMDff DATA ANALYS$ 5/6/02 g,2506-03 m =.= -

= .. -. -... -. - =. 4 00072090 l DATEI [ fj / M - DATEJ N t P AC = (A + C)/2 A N 4 t D DP = AC + (AC - B) V DIFD DIFD* = D - DP

1. \\

} B \\ C \\ \\ 4' a IF SURVEY IS 100% ACCURATE, I DIFD" SHOULD: (1) KEEP INCREASING j, (2) KEEP DECREASING STRUCTURE UNDERGOING TWISTING (3) KEEP CONSTANT - RIGID BODY MOTION

• DIFD is the deviation of the corner from a plane which induces warping.

"I DIFD is the accumulated valve of DIFD. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 WARPAGE ANALYSIS ? FIGURE 6 - m, Ano, DESEL GENERATOR SULDING SUTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS 8/8/82 = ~ - -.. _ _ _. _, _ - _ - _ - _ _ _. -...., -

,= 11 12 12 12 1 2 2 3 3 4. E 7 1 3 .7 I.l .e _=,.n .. i a

===3 i. 3, n i. = n It t i t jMAcceGFFOGI t 'j dChiaE START REAcese l FRoss SueSilTUTfD i SSAMER EL $34' STARY REA0000 ' i FROGA ISAMER i MApetER e RAEZZAIGNEE g g FLOOR EL 3 3' s i j i o i e l l1 o Il A I, ii o 4 i1 A* lI ll s u -N .ll E e-l t i ll i i l ll 5 I i a, I l N. .i li ( li l l i e ii i i iI i i 1-i, i g .i i i l i !I l! t CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 MODIFIED SETTLEMENT -TIME CURVES FOR SOUTH WALL FIGURE 7a uiotuso us TS i ANo 2 DESEL GENEFIATOft BUILDING SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS 5/6/82 G-2so.o r

'"' u. u i.i 1 1. i. i i ii s n.. i n

===3 2.

i. = n n i...= n u

I C' I

I I l; c >

1 C ) l l! !g - i I lI r ) g I i c i r I l + Ni I I! ) g r o yi Ij U E I 'l A NR I! i I. ql .o g I; i i !I I! l y u i 1 I gi 7 lll l I g. l ! .I !l t CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY i. UNITS 1 AND 2 .i i MODIFIED SETTLEMENT- . TIME CURVES FOR NORTH WAl.L m AnoturSiAnor FIGURE 7b DIESEL GENERATOR BUED.80 SETTLEMENT DATA ANALYSIS 6/6/92

~ - 0007209g g g g = i j j 4/20179 AND 6/29179 I I RELATIVE TO MARKER 22 I I I I (b) *%s ~ i s s N I s 3122179 RELATIVE TO N l s MARKER 22 1/12179 RELATIVE TO I N MARKER 22 THE DIFFERENCE FROM 1112179/ TO 3/22179 l l (c) / \\ 's i i 3122/79 RELATIVE 4/20179 AND 6129179 I I N l TO MARKER 22 RELATIVE TO s MARKER 22 N l ,g N l g N-THE DIFFERENCE FROM 3/22179 /- TO 6129179 l CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION "E$"aa"wadr'oUu*to.c samrueur oA7A AuAtysis sesier ' FIGURE 8 o o.2 sos 42 .u =.-

~ ~ --;... :c

>

~.. =... :

J 4 00072050 4 2 ATTACHMENT Ir2 TO TECHNICAL REPORT STRUCTURAL STRESSES INDUCED BY DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING O 4 d t I a n m

.x. 00072000 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 ANALYSIS OF DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING FOR ZERO SPRING CONDITION ANALYSIS CONTENTS 1.0 -BACKGROUND 1 2.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 1

3.0 CONCLUSION

S 2 i l TABLES 1 Rebar Stress Values for the Diesel Generator Building for Zero Spring Condition FIGURES 1 Diesel Generator Building Finite-Element Model for Zero Spring Condition 2 Comparison of 40-yr Estimated Settlement Values With Settlement Values Resulting From A Finite-Element Analysis of the Zero Spring Condition f p i a. A h r ( ii h-

+ v-d MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 0 p g g r DIrSon GeNzRAroR BUILDING ZERO SPRING CONDITION ANALYSIS

L. 0 BACKGROUND.

7 During the February 23 through 26, 1982, meeting with the NRC, it was requested that a finite-element analysis of -the diesel generator building (DGB) be performed for the 40-year,- dead load case, modified with zero and near-zero soil spring constants in areas to represent potential bridging. The primary purpose of this analysis would be to investigate the structure's ability to span any soft soil condition. It was subsequently decided that, in an attempt to approximate the predicted 40-year settlement profile of the south wall (as proposed by Dr. Affifi on February 23, 1982), a soil spring 3 value of zero would be used at the junction of the south wall ~ and east center wall. Soil spring values would then be linearly varied so that springs returned to their original 40-year values within a distance of approximately 15 feet from the 23ro spring (see Figure 1). 2.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE A finite-element analysis of the DGB was therefore performed using 40-year soil spring values, modified along the south wall and east center interior partition wall as described i above. Several analysis iterations were necessary to arrive at a settlement profile that approximated the desired "best i fit" settlement profile (as obtained from a statistical analysis of Dr. Affifi's estimated 40-year settlement values). Figure 2 gives an isometric presentation of Dr. Affifi's 40-year settlement values and also the settlement values re-sulting from the finite-element analysis of the DGB for the zero spring condition. Subsequent to the final analysis iteration, maximum rebar stress values were calculated for the dead load plus settle-ment case (i.e., " modified case"). These values were com-4 pared with the dead'1oad plus settlement case previously calculated for the " unmodified" 40-year settlement case (see Table 1). Such a comparison shows that, except for an increase in the south wall, the footings, the box missile 4 shield, and the south shield wall, the maximum rebar stress values remained essentially unchanged. Typically, stress level increases were limited to approximately 5 kai except in the south shield wall, where the modeling technique causes the rebar stress value to increase 18 ksi, and in the 1 footings where the nature of the analysis causes the rebar L stress value to increase approximately 20 ksi. 4 i 1 .2 .--...-~ r : - _r ^~,. i~~~:L_..-. - _.-.-.~_...-

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Diesel Generator Building 00072000 zero Spring Condition Analysis As a result of this favorable comparison, it is apparent that it would be unnecessary to combine the " modified" 40-year settlement case with other load cases to form the load combinations of the FSAR and the response to Question 15 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill. For comparative purposes, the last column of Table 1 also presents maximum rebar stress values for the governing load combinations of the FSAR and Question 15. A review of this table indicates that settlement stress is typically only a small portion.of the overall maximum rebar stress values associated with the required load combinations (FSAR and Question 15). Furthermore, because the maximum settlement stresses and maximum service load stresses generally do not occur at the same location, the component of settlement stress that actually exists in a maximum rebar stress value would typi-cally be less than the values of Table 1.

3.0 CONCLUSION

S As a result of the analysis performed, it can therefore be concluded that the DGB can successfully span the assumed soft soil spot introduced into the analysis without significantly increasing the rebar stress levels. 1 4 6 L l 2 l .7

Midicnd Plcnt Unito 1 F.nd 2 Diesel Generator Building Zero Spring Condition Analysis 000720S0 TABLE 1 REBAR STRESS VALUES FOR THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING FOR ZERO SPRING CONDITION Category Tensile Rebar Stress values (allowable = 54 ksi) (D + T) (D + T) Max Rebar for for Stresses Unmodified Modified for'FSAR 40-Year Case 40-Year Case and Q 15* W3st wall 2.15 2.78 25.03 South wall 6.82 10.98 44.04 Slab at el 664' 16.94** 16.97** 39.15 Roof at el 680'-0" 5.61 6.19 36.06 South missile shield 10.79 28.82 42.79 Interior missile shield 5.51 5.30 28.06 North missile shield 2.71 2.72 13.85 Lcst wall 2.24 2.80 23.64 North wall 3.85 4.26 21.90 Interior partition wall 3.71 4.01 16.66 Box missile shield 4.50 9.33 8.02 Footings 14.35 37.14 20.95 (longitudinal bending) Consists of FSAR load combinations and load combinations contained in response to Question 15 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill A large portion of this value is attributable to the dead load component. 4 ^ ^ ~ '

• * " ' ~

~ Is-EM l 00072090 l gjj il e sg i h 5E E E \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\\\ $j hi a\\\\\\ si \\ i s t-

• te

\\\\\\ h $g we g eje \\ \\ $' c 8 \\L f -5 v ///\\ ,\\ \\ \\\\a 533 wee z , \\ \\\\ \\\\ \\ \\L \\ eSE ~ M \\ \\\\ \\\\ \\ \\~ ~5h t

W; 80

\\ \\ V :n E" h i\\ \\\\ E b / \\ \\'M '\\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\'N 5 - \\ \\\\ \\ \\\\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\'N 5 b \\ \\\\ \\ \\ t_ \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\V. \\ \\ \\ A N e \\ \\L h / / e '\\ \\ \\ \\_ e r; 5 / / // / / / ///////~~" E E I f / / // / //""" / / // / // """"" / / // / //"WVf c e E E =i N a ff -l' -l,l_ $;E / // / 23 / 5, .,, ~. >o 2.1 'm S k s? 6< En E o e= \\ s ;i8 \\ 5 v._ 5 ji 6 o<=e r -e

9i e' MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DIESEL GENERATORS BUILDING ANALYSIS FOR ZERO SPRING CONDITION j i i rREFERENCE SURFACE / O NORTH o a d I.15 1.19 1.18 1.29 N i + PLAN OF g-lla 1 i.23 [L26] tta0j l /1.33 DGB l / a FOOTING / BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 .l i!' ._2_____2 69._ w -- - - 4 ' 8' i 1.6 g 1.62. ~'- [L64.J lt.J_O] n.nl } { 1.98 E i CALCULATED SETTLEMENTS (inches) ACTUAL MEASURED SETTLEMENTS FROM SEPT.14,1979 TO DEC. 31,1981 PLUS l O" ESTIMATED SECONDARY COMPRESSION SETTLEMENT FROM DEC.31,1981 i, TO DEC.31,2025 ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE. COMPARISON OF 40-YEAR ESTIMATED SETTLEMENT VALUES WITH SETTLEMENT VALUES RESULTING FROM A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE ZERO SPRING CONDITION FIGURE 2 i*

k b c,- -le): m c. it g- + DISTRIBUTION: W,Y 2 J E ? Docket Nos. 50-329/330 OM, OL NRC PDR Local PDR ABrauner, NRR Docket I:os: 50-329 OM, OL NSIC BPCotter, ASLBP and 50-330 OM, OL Adensam ACRS D6)

DHood, CMiles, OPA MDuncan Mr. J. W. Cook RTedesco Vice President Consumers Power Con 5any DEisnehut/RPurple

~~- JRutberg, OELD 1945 Hest Parnall Road JSaltzman, AIG Jackson, litchigan 49201 I&E Attorney, OELD

Subject:

Completion of Soils Remedial Activities Review In several meetings and discussions held during the months of April and May 1 ycu were informd by the staff of the approach to be used for the review of the soils recedial activities at Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2. This approach is intended to make the review process raore consistent with that followed by the staff for license applications and iniprove the efficiency of the staff review. Specifically, the previous staff practice of approving each individual construc-discontinued by the staff.tiun step for each remedial measure as the review pro The staff intends to complete the entire review of the soils remedial activities and related matters as an integrated package and then proceed with ACHS reetings and hearing sessions in the normal fashion. Although no activities directed to renedial actions for the soils deficiencies those for which staff review was substantially completed as are, however, approved. These are discussed below. Un the basis of the staff technical review of docwents listed in Enclosure 1, the staff concurs with your plan to proceed with Phase 2 underpinning activities (which involve excavation under the feedwater isolation valve pit gnd the turbine building) subject to the successful coapletion of conditions listed in Enclosure 2. Accouplishr.ent of these conditions should be docur.ented and Region III noti-fied. provides a definition' of Phase 2 on which the staff's approval is based, and further discusses the staff's understanding of approved quality assurance plans for this and other soils work. l We are further respo'nding to your letter of tiay 10, 1982, which addresses certain l soils construction work you believe had staff approval prior to the Licensing i Board's llenorandum and Orcer of April'30,1982. on Paragrephs I and II are provided in Enclosure 4. Staff coaments and con ~clusions p a n f*: ~v 3'+w&g w g, ......................t. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Md f 4 013d2 cmce > -... - ~. - ~ ~ ~ - - -.- ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~"~"~ summe >.................. .. ~... -.... ~.. ~ .. - ~ ~. - ~. ~.. . ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~*~~* ~~~~~"~" emy ..... -.... ~.......... .... ~ ~ ~... ~ ~ ~ .. ~ - ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~*~~~~~ v;c rom sta po-m tmeu c24o. OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.~. ~ ). J. Hr. J. W. Cook With respect to your Paragraph III you note you are continuing with certain soils remedial work with full awareness a,nd concurrence of the staff for which explicit written approval had not been obtained. You also noted that this work has been stopped in accordance with the Order and requested that the staff verify its con-currence so that the work can be reactivated. in this category are: The three work items you identified ~ (1) installation of deep-seated benchmarks, (2) installation and operation of construction dewatering wells that were not previously operating, a~nd (3) installation of monitoring system instruments and mounting. Items (1) and (2) are. conditionally approved as' addressed by Eoclosure 5 and,6, ~ respectively. With respect to item (3), your letter notes that work on the mont-toring system instruments and mounting for the auxiliary building is presently stopped because Region III concurrence has not been obtained. We are advised that Region III will provide explicit written confirmation of !{RC approval fol-lowing resolution of existing QA deficiencies. Your letter of May 10, 1982, also forwarded Drawing 7220-C-45 for purposes of defining which soils at the Midland site are safety related (i.e., are considered to be under and around safety-related structures and systems). During a May 5, 1982, conference telephone cali with the Licensing Board and hearing parties, Consumers proposed to use this drawing to define the bounds for the term "around" in Sections VI(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Board's April 30, 1982, tienorandum and Order. The Board's subsequent Memorandum and Order of liay 7,1982, requested the staff to advise the Board of the results of its review of Drawing 7220-C-45. The results of our review are presented.in Enclosure 7; and, on the basis of your cor-mitments to modify the drawing, we find this drawing to be acceptable for the pur-pose of defining areas around safety!related structures and systems. In addition, Enclosure 8 lists the information required by the st'aff to conclude .its review of the soils remedial work. This list is based upon staff review of information provided by your letter of March 31, 1982, and earlier submittals. Certain of the information needs may already have been transnitted by you. You are requested to' provide your response schedule within seven (7) days of receipt of this letter. Once your schedule is received, the staff will develop the review corpletion schedule for this effort. i ~ i cmes) ....... ~........ ..-~~ -.-- ~ ~. ~. - - ~ ~ --~~~~~~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~ - - surmwn > .... ~.. - ~. - -. ~. - - - ~~~~ ~~ ;- ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. onc> . ~. - ~ ~. ~.. ~. - ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. - ~ ~ ~ ~~~~.-~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - r ac reau sts poq ueu ore OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

s v. M Hr. J. W. Cook The reporting and/or recordkeeping requireme ect 96-511. _ Sincerely, 'Driginal signe$?p' I)arrall G. Itsechg Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing.

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page s s 1 f .< +s -4f 7 d o +.3 <,,,m >.at.:.ts...r.a t6.:.9L.:.t,s.r.4...at ( .e.a....... a t..... ...o2. o............ q......s!6 .oacodenciB.).1iy 1Lsam..g.a om>.sz.ifza2........sdot'r c n....... n 1 / A.. az e sco_......os... .s a..........s/.,f.Saa............safza2....... .. 5@......gf;w.l.Cd..!2i:y4 u e rea u sis co.nar.ncu e:4o OFFICIAL R FCOD n m"" ~

4 MIDLAND Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Cogany 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Michael I. Miller, Esq. cc: Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq. Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief ~~ Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq. Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 P.O. Box 33035 1 First National Plaza Lans,ing, Michigan 48909

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Will.iam J. Scanlon, Esq.

2034.Pau11ne Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq. Consumers Power Company Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 ~ 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris Stewart H. Freeman 5795 N. River Assistant Attorney General Freeland, Michigan 48623 State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary 720 Law Buf1 ding Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Mr. Walt Apley c/o'Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL) 'Battelle Blvd. Mr. Roger W. Huston Suite 220 SIGMA IV Building 7910 Woodmont Avenue Richland, Washington 99352 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager Mr. R. B. Borsum. NRC Assistance Project Nuclear Power Generation Division Argonne National L~aboratory Babcock & Wilcox 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Beth cda, Maryland 20814 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Cherry & Flynn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Suite 3700 Region III Three First National Plaza 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Chicago, Illinois 60602 ~- 1-Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue' ~~~ St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-i r.

1 u-' Mr. J. W. Cook ' Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center cc: ATTN: P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr..L. J. Auge, Manager ~ Facility Design Engineering" Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304 Mr. Heil Gehring U.S. Corps of.Engi.neers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroi,t, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Ralph S. Decker + Atomic Safety & Licensing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 s. e 3 e

1 s i LISTING OF ENCLOSURES " Basis for Staff Concurrence for Start of Phase 2" "Conditio'ns for Staff Acceptance of Phase 2" 4 " Definition of Phase 2 Underpinning Activities and Quality Assurance Plans for Soils Activities" " Staff Corraents on Continuing or Planned Soils Activities Previously Approved by the Staff" " Installation of Deep' Seated Benc5 marts" T " Construction Dewatering Wells" Staff Evaluation' of Drawing 7220-C-45" " Additional Inforration Required to Complete Staff Review of Soils Reredial Work" s I C FFICE > s.ruaus) ca r e >...................... i g: w u m norarmeuano OFFICIAL RECORn mov i

m m. ENCLOSURE'I ~ BASIS FOR STAFF CONCURRENCE FOR START OF PHASE 2 1. Letter to R. Vollmer from R. T. Hamilton, dated July 8,19'75, transmi.tting ~ Bechtel quality assurance topical SQ-TOP-1, Revision 1A 2. Letter to H. R. Denton from J. W. Cook, dated September 30, 1981 Submitting the Auxiliary Building Dynamic Model Technical Report on Underpinning the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits o 3. Letter to H. R. Denton from J. W. Cook, dated November 16 1981, on Response t the NRC Staff Request for Additional Information Pertaining to the Proposed Un pinning of.the. Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits .4. Hearing testimony by CPC witnesses (Johnson, Burke, Gould, Corley and Sozen)'o remedial underpinning work for the Hidland Auxiliary Building, November 19,19 5.' Hearing' testinony of D. Hood, J. Kane and H. Singh concerning the Remedial Und pinning of the Auxiliary Building Area, dated 11/20/81 6. Hearing testirony of F. Rinaldi, dated 11/20/U1 7. Letter to H. R. Denton from J. W. Cook, dated 11/24/81 on Test Results, Aux 111 Building, Part 2 Soil Boring and Testing Progran 8. Letter.to H. R. Denton from J. W. Cook, dated Dececber 3,1981, with Addendum

• Technical Report On Underpinning tho Auxiliary Building and Feedvater Isoloati Valve Pits 9.

Letter to H. R. Denton from J. H. Cook, dated January 6,1982, on Auxiliary Building Underpinning - Freezewall; Effects of Freezewall on Utilities and Stn tures

10. Letter to H. Denton and J. Keppler from J. W. Cook, dated January 7,1982, trai nitting general Quality Plan for underpinning activities and Quality Plans and 0-Listed activitics for SUPS and Auxiliary Building Underpinning

11. Design audits of January 13-20,1932 (Suxury dated March 10,1982); Feburary :

1982; Harch 16-19,1982; and meeting of February 23-26,1982, (Surnary dated March 12,1982)

12. Letter to H. R. Denton from d. W. Cook, dated February 4,1982, on Auxiliary Building Access Shaft - Augering Muthod for Soldier Pile Holes I

w i. i-OFFICE) .*..a..a........u.

• • ........a.***

..o...***.....a ..a..*****....a.. ...~........a..a. fl $URMAME) .. ~. .......a....aa. .......... ~....... .a...a.~......... ...a............. OATE ) .a.a..aaa a a***********a* .a a* * **** * * *a a

• • • a.aa aan aa aaaa.a a.a.a.....

.a...... aa..a aa a. .aa. OF FIC IA L R ECO R D CO PY l Nac roau m oo espacu a 48 ~.

~:. s 2-EliCLOSURE 1 13. Letter to J Concurrence. W. Cook frora R. L. Tedesco, dated February for Activation of Freezewall 12, 1982, on Staff 14. Letter to H. R. Denton from J. W. Cook, dated March of Excavation Face - Aux 111ary Buf1 ding Underpinning Shaft 10, 1982, on Protection " ~ 15. Summary of March 8,1982 Telephone Conversation Regarding S nesses for Auxiliary Building Underpinning and Phase II Constructio pring Stiff-March 11, 1982 , dated.

• 16.

Letter to H. R. Denton from J. W. Cook, dated March 31 the liRC Staff Request for Additional Information Required for C,19 Staff review of Phases 2 and 3 'of the Underpinning of the Auxili ompletion of ~ and Fee & tater Isolation Valve Pits ary Buf1 ding 17. Assurance for Remedf al Foundation WorkLetter to J. Kep , describing Quality 10. Letter to H. Denton frou J. W. Cook, dated April quality assurance topical CPC-1-A, Revision 12 26, 1982, transmitting t ~ 's l t cme:S s m te> e n y.................... e :ausispom macueno _ _O.FFICIAL R ECO p h N "" ~ '~~

-,, ~~ _ -.- ~ - w. a -~

• N

( n CONDITIONS FOR STAFF ACCEPTANCE 0F PHASE 2 1. Deep-seated bench marks DSB-AS1 and DSB-AS2. DSB-AS1 and DSB-AS2 shall be installed at a distance not to exceed 5-feet from the wall of the main building which is founded at Elevation 562. Actual locations of these installe ! bench marks and any modifications in tolerance criteria required on Drawing C-1493(Q) due to changes from the original DSB-AS locations shall be documente i 2. Monitoring instrumentation required to be installed. The following deep seated r' benchmarks and relative-absolute measurenent devices identified on audited drawings shall be properly. inst.alled and

• operating for ati least 7 days prior to

'drif ting under the turbine building or Feedwater Isolation Yalve Pit (FIVP): Deep-Seated Benchmarks Relative-Absolute Measurement Devices DSE-lu DSS-ASI DMD-1W I DSU-1E DSB-AS2 DitD-1E DSB-2W DSB-AN DMD-11 DSB-2E Dr.D-12 DSB-3W DHD-13 DSB-3E 3. Strain cauce installation. Revisions shall be made to the proposed instrumenta v tion shown in drawing C-1495, " Instrumentation - Elevation 695 - 0 5/16" for V, W E Building Settlement Monitoring". On the sectional view at the wall at Coluun Lines 7.4 and 7.8 change the orientation of proposed lower strain gauges betwe. V Elevations 584 to 614 to be perpendicular to the orientation shown on Drawing C-1495, Figure 3 in the March 31, 1982 subnittal. On this sane sectional view, add an additional strain gauge between Elevations 646 to 659 at an inclination similar to the above recomended orientation. Also, correct theslabeling of column lines H*and G uhich is reversed on the copy of the sectional view sub-nitted to the staff. 4. Pier load test procedures. The following modifications and additions shall be nace to tne pier load test procedures provided by the April 22, 1982 submittal y' fron J. Cook to H. Denton, " Response to the NRC Staff Request for Additional t' Information Required for Co@letion of Staff Review of the Borated Water Storage f Tank and Underpinning of the S.ervice Water Pump Structure." (Consur.ers Power Co@any (CPCo) stated that, although the procedures were submitted for under- [ pinning work for the service water pump structure, the procedures are applicabl( L to the pier load test to be conducted during Phase 2 underpinning work for the auxiliary building.) I ) ( omet) 5 sua=4=e > I can > { _pacggsangeir y n r " " * ' " W -- - - - - ~ ~ ~ - -

_2 ~~~ ~~ ~ ENCLOSURE 2 The maxinum required test load.should be equal to 1.3 times the maximum a. anticipated design load. As an alternative, should there be structural difficulties in developing the required reaction load for the prior test, the staff would accept a procedure where the maximum test load for the pier load test was equal to 90 percent the maximum anticipated design load and a plate load test (ASTM D1194) was performed to a maxicum test., load equal to 130 percent of the maximm anticipated design load. (See Page 12 of submittal). b. Significant modifications to the specified ASTM D1143-81 test procedures, as may be appropriate, require advanced notification and approval of the Region III Office. - (See Page 12 of submittal.) The rate of se'ttisent shall 'not " exceed 0.005 inch per hour when control-c. ling the length of time that the 90f, t'est load increment is to be cain-tained. (See Page 12 of submittal). d. In order to provide a more positive reduction of skin friction, plywood sheeting coated with 1/8-inch thick bitumen (or equivalent) shall be installed on all test pier sides prior to performing the pier load test as a replacement for the plastic sheeting propcsed by CPCo. (Seepage 12ofsubutttal). To permit correlation with the previously approved measures proposed by e. CPCo to demonstrate the adequate foundation capacity of the other installed piers, a minimum of two in situ density tests and five cone penetrometer tt.sts shall be performed on the soil at the bottom of the pier selected for test loading. 5. Construction dewaterina. During underpinning of the auxiliary building area, tne upper phreatic surface shall be maintained a minirum of 2 feet in depth below the bottom of any underpinning excavation at any given t4me. .The final plan for the dewatering system shall be established and implemen(ed TOldvance N of'drif ting under the turbine building or FIVP. I The dewatering plan shoald include the locations and depths of the. dewatering wells and piezoneters (observation wells). Criteria for conitoring loss of' soil particles due to pumping shall b.e the saac as those previously approved by the staff for the construction deuatering of the service water pump structure (R. Tedesco letter of April 2,1982) or for the permanent dewatering wells (R. Tedesco letters of June 18. September 2, and October 22,1981). 'k. Monitoring movement of FIVPs. l - 6 Jackflig of the FIVP back to its original position 4 shall be required if the relative settlement between the reactor containnent and ,{ the FIVP reaches a total settlenent of 3/8-inches since the time piping connec-tions were made. cmcip SURN

• Ma )................

c u s )........................ TC F;mM 3tt H0 805 Nmcu m J'~'*"***

• • ^^~~ " -'

~ w c, 4 ENCLOSURE 3 DEFINITION OF PHASE 2 UNDERPINNING ACTIVIT FOR SOILS ACTIVITIES Phase,2 construction activities for the Midland auxiliary. building defined by Bechtel drawing C-1418-1(Q) Revision A. " Auxiliary B re Construction Sequence", and associated plan and logic drawing C-14 t both issued for information 3/19/82 and provided to the staff d , Revision A, on that date. With respect to quality assurance requirements. for Phase 2 work H. Denton/J. Keppler dated January 7 1982, transmitted a genera CPCo's lette ~ underpinning activities along with quality plans for the service water pum l Quality Plan for ture underpinning system and for the auxiliary building underpinning syste FIVPs. These plans describe the basic QA program controls to be applied to and and activities associated with the soils remedial work. CpC-1A and Bochtel's QA Topical Report SQ-TO We find these plans, remedial work. However, a condition for his finding is that these quality assur-ance plans and prograns are to apply to ) 1982, and:2) all of the to-go und the ASLB !!ccorandua and Order of April ~ ' . pinning Q-listed and non Q-listed work described in y'6ur April 5,1982 lett J. Keppler, except that work stated in attachment 1 of that letter. these plans and progran to rean that the 11tdland Project Quality Ass We interpret e cent will be actively involved in reviewing contractor's, sub-contractor's consultant's quality assurance capabilities and assuring thorough revie o , and cedures and verifications that hardware is built and work is perforr.ed in ac ance with design, specification, and procedural requirements. conclude that the above referenced Quality Plan is acceptable for implem Accordingly, we as described above. Since the foregoing conforms to the April Order, any deviations must be reported to the staff. 30, 1962 Board ~ l O cine:S sunuwe > cATE).......................................... MC FIM.t 314 (10 4M McM,3243_ Q3* 3' ' ' *

• T^^7

'~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ l l

w a -. q, ? r 1 1 ENCLOSURE 4 i STAFF COPP.ENTS ON CONTINUING OR PLANNED SOILS ACTIVITIE APPROVED BY THE STAFF The following coments are provided to clarify the staff's prior approvals of renecial soils activities at the Midland Plant. Each listed item in paragraphs I and II of CPCo's May 10, 1982, letter is presented and addre,ssed. "I.a. Phase I Work (Auxiliary Building Underpinnino)" The specific activities for Phase I work referred to in our letter of concurrence (Reference 5) for installation.of the vertical access shafts were those defined by Consumer's Drawing "Un.derpinning Auxiliary Building Construction Sequency Logic" dated January 20, 1982. "I.b. Access Shaft (Auxiliary Building Underpinning)" J This item is included in the staff's definition of " Phase I work" and is discussed under paragraph I.a. above. "I.c. Freezewall Installation, Underground Utility Protection, Soil Renoval Cribo'ing and nelated Work in Suocort of the Freezewall Installation, .Freezewall rionitorina and Freezewall activation" References 5 and 7 provided staff concurrences for freezevall installation and activation, respectively. to eliminate the inducement of stresses to the conduits and piping of heaving by excavating the soil directly beneath affected utilities within the projected area of influence of the freezewall before ground freezing begins. The approvals also recognized your comitments (1) to demonstrate to the staff's satisfaction that' recompression of the foundation soils beneath the piping or ducts has been coc91eted before backfilling the excavation, and o notify Region III personnel prior tb drillina near seisr.ic Categ I un ecsruuna utilities and structures. Tt pe a.tovaT Was of 'tfie implementation Trocedures Tor excavation and m The information which provided the basis for staff review and approval was provided by CPCo's letters of November 16 and 24,1981, and by hearing testinony of your consultant, J. P. Gould.and' January 6,1982, Consequently, the staff agrees that prior explicit concurrence for the activities listed by paragraph I.c. of CPCo's letter, May 10,1982 had been obtained frou the staff prior to the April 30, 1982 Order, except for the artiguous phase you included "and related work in support'of...". Therefore, the staff did not approve "related work" in its letters of concurrence or oth,er records. l CFFICE ) ...~.........a........ ...a......".a..a.. .aa...aaa.a.a a.a.a a u.a****. .***anana.aaa. a aa.aa a a**.a muuare) ..........~.a......... a.............. .........a.... c a r e >........................ ......... ~....... ge res.m nuwei.i ma._ n**'e'^'-"""~~~""

, 4: ; a, '. +- e.* m .,l d' e i ENCLOSURE 4 9 3 "I.d. Installation and Operation of the Permanent Site Dewatering System" 1 The identity and location of the 65 permanent dewatering wells approved by the staff are given in References (1), (2) *and (4).. Installation and

~

monitoring aspects of the permanent site dewatering system, exculding seismic aspects, was to be performed as Q-listed activities following staff review and approval,of associated quality assurance and quality

• control documents.

"I.e. Operation of Existing Construction Dewatering Wells" F-The only construction dewatering wells approved by the staff are those identified by Refert.nces (6) and (10)..This item is further discussed in Enclosure 6.. As noted therein, however, construction w and monitored.to procedures equivalent to thosETor perma ells installe,d nent wells may be considered acceptable. "I.f., FIVP Proof Load Test" s The staff has no record or recollection of concurrence for a FIVP proof load test. Therefore, this test is not approved. "II.e. Installation and Activation of Dewatering System for 'the Service Water Puno Structure" Staff approval was indicated by Reference (10), subject to certain com-mitted changes specified therein. 1' "II.b. The Repair of Cracks in the Borated Water Storage Tank Ring Wall" Staff approval was indicated by Reference (9), which noted your coa-mitment to pressure grout at least all cracks with widths in excess of 10 mils. This activity follows the completion of the valv'e pit'sur-charge progracs which were also the subjects of prior staff approvals. (References (3) and (8)). In sur.cary, ambiguity associated with CPCo's use of the terms " Phase I work" and "related [ freeze wall] work" preclude confirmation of specific prior approval of these activities. Similarly, failure by CPCo to identify the particular existing construction deuatering wells precludes us from determining whether, previous staff concurrence had been indicated. No description er discussion is provided for a "FIVP proof load test" and no record of prior staff approval can be located. Con'- ,secuently, continudtion of these activities in'conformance with the foregoing staf f coments wi.11 be in accordance with the Board llenorandum and Order of April 30,1982. Any deviations r.ust be reported and approved by the staff. O.O** oPFICE) ...........a ma a a n . ~~ ~ ~aa m *** aaaaaa.~~.a~

• ~.aaaam maa.

wam am a.~.m a .ama.a-oaaaa

• • • o.a sum an)

.....ma.. .... ~.... ~... .... ~ ~. ~.... a.................. om).................. .............. ~..... .a-.~....~.. .. ~........... ~.... i I NACFogustettMa pcuoHo.. . -. -, -. -.. -..O FFICI A I R FCO R n. r'_n ov.. - -. - -. _. - - -. I

S, .=.u ~ a. ~-=..a. - a. 3.. x - 3'- ENCLOSURE 4

References:

(1) R. Tedesco letter of June Installation of Twelve Backup Dewaterin18,1981, " Staff Concur (2) R. Tedesco letter of September 2,1981,'g Wells" " Staff Concurrence - on Inst ~ 11ation of Eight Backup Dewatering Wells" a (3) R. Tedesco letter of September 25,1981, " Staff Concurrence on Surchargin Foundations" g of Valve Pits for Borated. Water Storage Tank (4) R. Tedesco letter on October 22,1981, " Staff Concurrence on Installation of Permanent Dewatering Wells and Request ~ for Additional Information" / 45) R. Tedesco letter of November for Construction of. Access Shafts and Freezewall in Pre- .paration for Underpinning the Auxiliary Buildfng and Feed- ~ water Isolation Valve Pits" (6) R. Tedesco letter of December c 2 for Five Temporary Dewatering Wells"28,1981, " Staff Concurrence J7) R. Tedesco letter of February 12,1982, " Staff Concurrence for Activation of Freezewall" (8) R. Tedesco letter of February 26,1982, " Staff Concurrence on Removal of Surcharge from Borated Water Storage Tank l Valve Pits" L (9) R. Tedesco letter of March 26,1982, " Staff Concurrence for Grouting of Cracks in Concrete Foundations of Borated Water Storage Tanks" (10) R. Tedesco letter of April 2,1982, " Staff Concurrence for Observation Wells for the Service Water Pum j 4 'n L i1 I. ~ i l 1,l L i-g D g cmen ... - ~............ ~ ~. sua=4wo -.-~~.-~..-..~..- ~.- - - - d ca n >.................. 1 nac r:cu m oo.an nacu om _ -. - -OFFICIAL RECORrgov _ _ _, __, _ _ __ 1

N D ENCLOSURE 5 STAFF CONCURRENCE ON INSTALLATION OF DEEP SEATED BENCHMARXS ~ CPCo's letter of Hay 10, 1982 states that installation of deep-seated benchmarks is being carried out by Woodward Clyde Consultants, which is subject to its own quality assurance program and procedures approved by Consumers and previously subject to staff inspections. We are advised that these NRC inspections have resulted in a finding that these activities are being conducted to an acceptable quality assurance program. CPCo has also provided the staff with information on the installation of deep-seated ber,chmarks and relative-absolute instrumentation beginning with the design audit of January 18-19, 1982 and continuing through the submittal of March 31,1982 (Letter from J. Cook to H. Denton, Response to the NRC Staff ' Request for Additional Information Required for Corpletion of Staff Review of Phases 2 a.nd 3 of the Underpinning of the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits). The information for the auxiliary building underpinning work which has been provided includes locations, depths, elevations, instru-nentation accuracy and typical installation details of the proposed instru-nents. This information is contained in the following docunentation: Technical Specification for Monitoring Instrumentation for Underpinning a. Construction, Specification 7220-C-198(Q), January 18, 1982 Rev. 0 (Provided at the February 3,1982 Design Audit) b. Drawings C-1490(Q) and C-1491(Q), Auxiliary Building Instrumentation Location for Underpinning, January 20, 1982; Revision 1 (Provided at the February 3,1982 Design Audit) Drawing C-1493(Q), Auxiliary Building and F.I.V.P., Instruce,ntation c. System and lionitoring Hatrix, May 29, 1982, Rev. A (Provided by applicant's letter of March 31,1982) d. Sketches of Carlson Stress Meter and Telltale Installations, Hidland Plant Instruments for Pier Measurements, January 15, 1982 On the basis of,the technical review by the Staff and its consultants of the infor nation in the above documents, including the quality assurance prograa, the staff concurs with Consumer's proceeding with the installation of the deep-seated bench-marks and relative-ahsolute instrumentation for nonitoring the auxiliary building underpinning work. ~ OFFICE) ...au. .a ....a~.~~**= ~~~~.~a"..~ a~~~~aaaaaa ~ ~ ~a a.aaa aa. ~~~~~aamam aa.~ SURNAMEh ....a. a......a. an. a ama.a ~.. ...a........a..... .................~a aa-- DATE) ~ ~.a = ~ a= ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * * = aa aa***~~

• aaaaaaaan.aa aaaaaaaaaaaa "aaaaa"aaaa"

""aa tac rem ata no a:macu cteo OFFICIAL RECORD cnPV

~.. .-~ " " ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ln 4 3 0 ENCLOSURE 6 i CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING WELLS 'In the past Consumer's position with respect to has been that this work was not permanent, it was being conducted to ena ance of construction activities and, therefore, the work did not require staff approval. design and installation and did not seek staff approval for th More recently the staff has concluded that certain aspects of construction dew ing activities related to underpinning the service water pump structure (S auxiliary building could potentially affect the foundation stability of these ne 1 corpleted structures. The staff has actively revijwed the tecporary construction , dewatering plan for the SWPS and has. reached agreement with CPCo on an 4 plan (April 2,1982 letter with enclosures from R. Tedesco to J. Cook, Staff Con-Wells for the Service Water Pump Structure).currence for Installatio The staff has not presently obtained underpinning but has specified conditions for Phase 2 t It is the staff's position, with respect to the remaining construction dewaterin wells that are already installed and operating, that these wells be monitored for loss of soil particles due to pumping similar to the requirements agreed upon i t recorded in Enclosure 3 to the April 2,1982 letter. The specifications for a construction dewatering well are dependent upon the ( application. Consequently, approval for typical field practices, on other than a case-by-case basis is not meaningful. Therefore, for the future, the design and installation details of construction. dewatering wells that have not yet been op or installed should be addressed on a case-by-case basis following appropriate n [ cation of the staff by the CPCo. safety significance of the proposed well.This procedure Gill pemit an assessment of the i However, any construction well for which to.those previously approved for permanent dewatering i a staff approved quality assurance plan) may be considered acceptable, provided also . vation or as otherwise approved in advance by Region III.that th I t ,1-cmce)..i..................... summare) L c a r e ).................... !mc r:m sie p.m Nacu se*o OFFICIAL. R Eco a r) mav

.a = / ' -- - ~ 4* ~ ~ . N., y [ l, ENCt.050RE 7 -l m i - STAFF EVALUATION OF DRAWING 7220-C-45 Staff requirements for this drawing were provided by the' staff on May 7,1982, to Messrs J. Mooney, J. Schaub and others of CPCo. These were: i (1) The seismic Category I retaining wall to the east of the service water pur.ip structure is shown to be located in.the non-Q zone. f CPCo should revise the drawing to provide for Q-listed control in the vicinity of this wall. s (2) Tte drawing should be revised to provide for Q control of soils sctivities for the emergency cooling water reservoir (ECWR), the / concrete service water discharge lines, and the perimeter and baffle dikes adjacent to the ECWR. (3) CPCo should implement Q. controls for certain aspects of work out-5 side the Q zone of Drawing 7220-C-45 which could impact safety . related structures and systems. Exagles ine.lude potential i removal of fines by dewatering wells, inproper location of borings near the Q boundary, and soll excavations at the boundary involving both Q and non-Q areas. i (4) CPCo should re-confirm that no seismic Category I underground utilities extend beyond the Q area bounds of the drawing. CPCo's letter of May 10, 1982 notes the intent to revise the crawing to address the ECWR components and other appropriate areas. CPCo has also identified during the Hay 7 telephone discussiots additional measures being implemented to assure prop.er location for drillings. On the basis of CPCo's connitnent to extend the controls of soils activities to I incorporate these staff requirements, the staff approves the uge of Urawing 7220-C-45 for defining the areas around safety-related structures ard systems i within which the restrictions and requirements of the April 30, 1982, tiemorandum i and Order shall apply. g i 1 I D r r g ( b OFFICE) a. a..a.. ~ u-~ * ~ ~. * * ~ ~. ~ ~

• .~...u.a a.*-a

~ ~ ~.a.~ ~ -.* ""~".aa" P son =4=s >................. ~ ~..~..~. ~.. ~. -... ~. ~~~~.~ can >.. ~. ~........... ........... ~..... ~... ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-~~~~~~ ~~~~.- t _ y:re m pa e n w:wea4e._ N IC3A' WORDE" - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~

~~ , ' ~ ' ~ a j ENCLOSURE 8 -l ADDITION _INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE STAFF REVIEW 0F SOILS REMEDIAL WORK ,.a 1. Provide the following information regarding the Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits: ~ 1.1 redesign of stiffened bulkhead against earth pressures' during drift excavation to install needle beam assembly 1.2 revise report on crack evaluation to include consideration of the effects of multiple cracks 1.3 analysis of the construction condition.using a subgrade modulus of 70 KCF and provide results 1.4 allowable differential settlements for. Phase 3 (based on 1.3 above), 4 ~ 1.5 horizontal movement acceptance criteria for Phase 3 for instruments at top of EPAs and control tower 1.6 as-built report with confirmatory detail on underpinning in FSAR upon cocpletion of construction 1.7 acceptance criteria for strain monitors for Phase 3 1.8 acceptability of 1.5 FSAR SSE versus SSRS as bounding design L 1.9 l method to be followed for transfer of jacking load into permanent wall-1.10 cor.plete design analyses of permanent underpinning wall 1.11 updated construction sequence for Phases 3 and 4 1.12 settlement monitoring program to be required during plant operation with action levels and remedial reasures identified (Tech. Spec.). Include RBA', EPA and Control Tower l 1.13 plans and details for permanently backfilling underpinning excava-tions including conpaction specifications for granular fill under i FIVP 1.14 procedure to be required for detectirig extent of planar openings uncovered in drift excavations and controls to minimize their [ effects. v 2. Provide the following information regarding the Service Water Pump Structure: 2.1 acceptability of 1.5 FSAR SSE versus SSRS as bounding design 2.2 sliding calculation using site-specific response spectra (SSRS) seisnic loads and provide results with basis for assumed soil i L input parameters [ 2.3 stress condition for existing parts of strveture: L a Maximum stresses. L b Critical combinations p c Identify true critical elements based on actual rebar h cmcs) sunwawa) ...........g.. l OATE )..................... Nac ronu aie pomoeacu se.o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ,____.__m__ us:

..u,------ ~~ l' L.. ENCLOSURE 8

2. 4,

calculation for determining lateral earth pressures under dynamic loading ~ 2.5 settlement monitoring program to be requir!ed during plant operation ~ with action levels and remedial measures identified (Tech. Spec.) 2.6 as-built report with confirmatory data on underpinning in FSAR upon ~ completici of construction 2.7; of. multiple cracks. report on crack evaluation to include consideration of the i 3 Provide the following information regardirg the Borated Water Storage Tank 3.1 adequacy of governing load combination used in design ?, 3.2 - acceptab'ility of 1.5 FSAR SSE versus SSRS as bounding design ~ 3.3 settlement monitoring program to be required during plant operation with action levels and remedial measures identified (Tech. Spec.) 3.4 as-built report with confirmatory data in FSAR on completed con-struction 4. Provide the following information regarding underground pipes: 4.1 basis for modeling of the piping inside the building in the terminal end analyses 4.2 controls to be required during plant operation to pervent placement of heavy loads over buried piping and conduits 4.3 as-built report with confirmatory data in FSAR on completed construc-tion 4.4 justification why the BWST lines are not to be rebedded from the tank farm dike to the auxiliary butiding ~ 4.5 Revise and submit your pipe monitoring program to measurements of rattelspace for plant operating life. Provide justiff-cation for all exceptions. 4.7 justificat16n for the high (beyond limits) r2 ported sett$ement ste'sses 5. Provide the following information regarding the Diesel Generator Building: 5.1 a structural reanalysis considering: a).Presurcharge conditions b) Conditions during the surcharge (c) 40-year settlement effects (d) The combined effects of (c) through (c) above .5.2 a structual reanalysis assuming reduction in soil spring stiffnesses betw6en bays 3 and 4 on the south side and beneath adjacent cross wall 5.3 a statistical evaluation of' settlements to evaluate impact of survey inaccuracies versus actual differential settlements which have be experienced * \\. omes > ...t............. ~a l j DATE ) ' h re w m m wi sacu oua ... ~........... E._ _ OFFICIAL R ECORD COPY - , - - - _ ~

T = ~ 2 ENCL.05URE 8 i 5.4 acceptability of 1.5 X SSE (FSAR) versus SSRS for bounding dcsign 5.5 criteria relating crack width and spacing to reinforcing steel stress 5.6 settlement monitoring program to be required during plant operation with action levels and remedial measures identified (Tech. Spec.) 5.7 evaluation of effect of past and future differential settlements to. ~~- ~ diesel lines from the day tank to the diesels. 6 Provide a settlement monitoring program to be required during plant operation .:. u with action levels and remedial measures identified (Tech. Spec.) for the - -underground Diesel Fuel 011 Storage Tanks., 7. Provide the following information regarding the permanent dewatering system: 7.1 results of the dewatering recharge tests 7.2 technical specification requirements on the permanent dewatering system. 7.3 a summary dicussion of your contingency plans which would be implemented in the event groundwater levels at critical locations exceed limits in the technical specifications. 8. Provide a settlement nonitoring program o be required for structures founded on natural soils and plant fill which have not been identified above with action levels and remedial measures identified. (Tech. Spec.) N I I 7 1 r CFFICE)........... . SURNAZE) e4n)............................ j me ronums po.aos uncu ano OFFICIAL _ RECORD _ COPY... _ ~ '~-

t M g neh UNITED STATES 8 k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ REGION til

• g 5

799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137 ng ta pl MEMORANDUM FOR: E. Adensam, Chief, Licensing Branch 4 NRR s FROM: C. E. Norelius, Director, Division of Engineering and Technical Programs

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF THE ASLB ORDERS AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE (MIDLAND) In keeping with our discussions concluding on May 13, 1982, our comments ^ on the subject documents are attached for your use in responding to the applicant. Attachment 1 sets forth our comments on the ASLB orders. is our understanding regarding the NRR approval status of pertinent construction activities. Attachment 3 sets forth our comments on the Applicant's May 10, 1982 letter responding to the ASLB orders. Please call Ross Landsman or me if you have questions. 4'-Y lhd% C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs Attachments: As Stated cc w/ attachments: D. Boyd 1-!' I l & % ri7 TleO n L I U'-

s.. l l ATTACHMENT 1 Comments on tee ASLB orders: T 1. We understand that any geotechnical work defined on drawing C-45 rcquires prior NRC approval with the exception of those already approved, as discussed in Attachment 2. 2. We further understand that any geotechnical work defined on drawing C-45 must be controlled by a staff-approved QA plan. The QA plan approved by Mr. Gilray (January 7,1982, CPCo submittal) only addresses the " underpinning" activities. To comply with the Order, the licensee now needs to develop a fully comprehensive geotechnical QA plan which covers the broader range of remedial work. 3. We recommend that it be made clear in our reply to the applicant j 'that the use of drawing C-45 to show the boundary of "Q" work does not necessarily limit the general applicability of the applicant's QA/QC programs to other areas that are determined i to have safety significance. 4. CPCo's submittal, dated April 5, 1982 to Mr. Keppler, states that, "... the non-Q classification of the permanent dewatering system, except for the installation of wells and the monitoring of fines, had been specifically resolved previously with the NRR staff". We consider their conclusion to be not fully responsive in view of the Order. We contend that the total permanent dewatering system should be under the QA program. 4 i l I' L l =

.w I ATTACHMENT II The following represents Region III's understanding of the approval status of the various activities and issues at the site. 1. Activities previously approved by NRC and in progress: Freeze-wall installation (activation is subject to Regio'n III a. concurrence that four monitoring pits over safety-related utilities and monitoring instrumentation have been installed adequately). March 24, 1981, February 24, 1982. b. Auxiliary building access shafts to El. 609. November 24, 1981 and March 12, 1982 Permanent dewatering ' ells (See comment under Attachment 1). c. w June 18, 1981, September 2, 1981, October 22, 1981, and December 28, 1981. d. Surcharge of BWST valve pits and subsequent removal. September 25, 1981, and February 26, 1982. 2. Activities previously approved by NRR, but not in progress: a. SWPS construction dewatering. April 2, 1982. b. Grouting of cracks in BWST foundation. March 26, 1982. l 3. Activities not explicitly approved in writing, but in progress: ] a. Instrumentation monitoring system for auxiliary building L underpinning (Region III has a confirmatory action letter p from the licensee on this item and uill restart activities l only upon Region III approval). 1 f' b. Deep-seated benchmarks in auxiliary building (10 already K installed, 2 more to go). c. Auxiliary building construction dewatering wells (these G were not covered by the QA/QC program and Region III cannot verify their adequacy). l: 9 4. Activities not explicitly approved in writing nor in progress-a. Crack mapping of FIVP and auxiliary building. 9 ____ll^_ ___.___Tl_~_'*"$_-'_--_ - *~ " ' * ~ ' ^ ^~"

.. = - ~ ATTACHMENT III Comments on CPCo's May 10, 1982 response to the ASLB order of April 30, 1982 are set forth below. Items which have been covered in the proceeding two attachments vill not be addressed again. 1. In Item I.f. (on page 2), we do not understand what a FIVP proof load test is or where it has been approved. 2. We do not concur with their statement in pa garaph one on page 3, "The construction dewatering wells were installed to an acceptance criteria agreed upon by the staff." We are not aware of any accep-tance criteria for the construction dewatering wells. Region III has not inspected any of the temporary construction dewatering wells because they were not on the Q-list. F l w

• wo mm-m

e, .~: I#.y 17 IE2 PRIT:CTrAL STAFF Docket fics: 50-329 Ori, OL arn

1. 35; and 50-330 06, UL D/D pjg A/n l

!c n I DF6?I APPLICAliT: Consumers Power Company L (E&T_ lyibfMlI) FACILITY: tiidland Plant, Units 1 and 2 DEP&OS Tile hj

SUBJECT:

5dlVIARY OF tiAY 7,1982, C0fiFEREiiCE TELEPH0fiE CALL Of( PHASE 2 ISSUES FOR AUXILIARY BUILDING Ul4DERPIfirilflG i k On liay 7,1982, the flRC Staff participated in a conference telephone call with Consumers Power Corvany (the applicant), and Bechtel to discuss issues associated with Phase 2 of the construction activities for the Auxiliary Building underpinnino. ' is a summary of this tele, shone conversation. Darl S. Ilood, Project tianager Licensing Branch rio. 4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page M 7 x CWlvo n i -- MAY 191882 5 ...DL;.LB..ip.... 4.. cmcr > ...DHoobc.(. -... E sam.. suanua > ,,,j/ f,48,2,,,,, . 5.l.1.4.482,,,,,, 4 eury we roau sie oo. son wcu oua OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam ieu-337

io MIDLAND Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Coceany 1945 West Parnall Road ~ Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq. Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq. Department of Public Health Ishan, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza

Chicago, Illinois 60603 William J. Scanlon, Esq.

2034 Pauline Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan.48623 Assistant Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division Consumers Power Conpany 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL) Battelle Blvd. Mr. Roger W. Huston SIGMA IV Building Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project Mr. R. B. Borsum Argonne National Laboratory Nuclear Power Generation Division 9700 South Cass Avenue Babcock & Wilcox Argonne, Illinois 60439 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, i Cherry & Flynn Region III Suite 3700 799 Roosevelt Road Three First ':ational Plaza Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 l

- -r. Vo. II Mr. J. W. Cook, I l L' cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN: P. C. Huang White Cak Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge. Manager Facility 9esign Engineering Enargy Te:r.nol:;y Engineering Center P.O. Sex 1**9 Canoga Park, California 91304 c Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Evenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 D i; r 7 m m 9 w

c 1 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION DATE: May 11,1982,1:00 pm-PROJECT: Midland RECORDED BY: Joseph D. Kane CLIENT: TALKED WITH: CPC Bechtel NRC J. Schaub N. Swanberg F. Rinaldi J. !!ooney J.' Anderson D. Hood C. Russell J. Kane B. Dhar M. Paris ROUTE T0: J. Knight H. Singh G. Lear S. Poulos L. Heller R. Landsman, Region III D. Hood J. Kane F. Rinaldi MAIN SUBJECT OF CALL: To discuss Phase 2 Issues - Auxiliary Building Underpinning ITEMS DISCUSSED: Consumers arranged this conference call to discuss review items related to Auxiliary Building underpinning. These items had been identified in a brief call on May 7,1982 by J. Kane to J. Schaub where the NRC Staff had expressed their recommendations on the following items: 1. Location of deep seated benchmarks DSB-AS1 and DSB-AS2. The current hold on construction and field installation of monuments prevents the actual locations from being established. Consumers will provide actual locations when these benchmarks are installed and recognize these monuments are to be installed at a distance not to exceed 5 feet from the wall of the Main Auxiliary Building which is founded at Elevation 562. 2. Strain gage installation. The NRC Staff's comments for correction of drawing C-1495 were accepted and the drawing will be revised. (Lower strain gages at Elev. 584 to 614 on Sectional View-Wall at Col. Lines 7.4 and 7.8 are to be reorientated 90 degrees and column lines H and G will becorrected). Bechtel will check why strain gage at Elev. 646 to 659 range was not proposed for Wall at Col. lines 7.4 and 7.8 and will get back to Staff. The vertica alignment of strain gage on Col. Lines 5.3 and 5.6 at Elevation range 646 to 659 is being controlled by the need to avoid equipment obstructions on the wall. Consumers will make an analytical correction for the vertical alignment when evaluating strain gage readings. a

2 3. Pier test procedures. Consumers indicated the dead load available in the existing structure for the reaction load in the pier load test is approximately 90 percent of the maximum design load. Consumers wished to further consider the Staff's recommendation to perform a plate load test where the maximum test load would be equal to 130 percent of the maximum design load and a pier load test at 90 percent of the maximum design load. Consumers accepted the Staff's recomendation for performing two in situ density tests and a minimum of five cone penetrometer tests on the soil at the bottom of the pier selected for load testing. Consumers also agreed to use bituminous coated plywood sheeting for reducing the effects of skin friction during the pier load test. Consumers wished to further consider the Staff's recommendation for requiring a rate of settlement that would not exceed 0.005 inch per hour when controlling the length of time that the 90 percent test load increment would be maintained. To better explain what the Applicant intended when it indicated that it would make modifications to ASTM 01143 as deemed appropriate, Consumers will provide the Staff with.the pier load test procedures that identify the proposed modifications. 4. Construction dewatering. The Applicant indicated its plan for constructior dewatering during underpinning is nearly complete and will be provided to the Staff within a week. Most of the dewatering wells are already installed but additional wells are planned. The additional wells are to be installed with Q/A procedures that are similar to the permanent dewatering wells which were previously approved by the NRC Staff. Monitoring for loss of soil particles due to pumping will be conducted according to the agreements reached for construction dewatering of the SWPS. (April 2,1982 letter with enclosures, R. Tedesco to J. Cook). Consultants to Consumers indicated the already installed construction dewatering wells extend to the natural clay layer at approximately El 585. The Staff indicated that the anticipated plan for construction dewatering to be provided by Consumers should address the problem of handling seepage on the sides and bottom of pier excavations which extend below the bottom of the already installed wells. 5. Movement of Feedwater Isolation Valve Pit (FIVp).' Consumers indicated its intent to assure transfer of the FIVP loading to the Turbine Building and Buttress Access Shafts by jacking the installed support system. It is not the intent of this jacking to restore the FIVP to its original r 3ition but l l l l

rather assure transfer of the load. The procedure for future jacking which Consumers indicated they would follow at the February 1-5, 1982 design audit and which was found acceptable by the NRC Staff requires jacking of the FIVP back to its original position if the relative settlement between the Reactor Containment and the FIVP reaches a total settlement of 3/8-inches since the date that the piping connections were made. 4 1 't e \\

e- -

..... ~

. i MEETING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTIOs Cf317 202 ^ ' Docket Nos: 50-329/330 OM, OL NRC/PDR Local PDR TIC /NSIC/ TERA LB #4 r/f Attorney, OELD OIE E. Adensam Project Manager D. Hood Licensing Assistant M. Duncan NRC

Participants:

FRinaldi DHood JKane RGonzales RLandsman RIII bec: Applicant & Service List h . ~. ,~nn ..~n-e ~~, --~ ~ -~ ~.~ -

... -. -. ~ - ~- yi y"m k knesW M t's %,e pe f %ilsyse,ef Vice President - Projects. Engsneersng and Construction Generet offless: 1945 West Parnell Moess. Jackson. MI 492o1 e (517) 78&Q453 b-b._.)_," - May 3, 1982 }.:..._. h_ / s i ' '? 5.... i o i g'pf cf.d B i l - Y.". ~l : L. i Harold R Denton, Director J -~ ~ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation [_.; Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 MIDLAND PROJECT MIDLAND DOCKET NO 50-329, 50-330 UNDERGROUND PIPING INFORMATION REQUESTED DURING APRIL 16, 1982 MEETING FILE: 0485.16 SERIAL: 16881

REFERENCES:

(1) J W COOK LETTER TO H R DENTON, SERIAL 16269, DATED MARCH 16, 1982 (2) J W COOK LETTER TO H R DENTON, SERIAL 16638, DATED APRIL 15, 1982 ENCLOSURES: (1) TABLE 1.0 MONITORING STATION OVALITY AND CORRESPONDING STATION (2) BURIED CATEGORY 1 LINES AND TANKS (3) ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION The purpose of this letter is to provide confirmatory information regarding several issues discussed during a meeting between the NRC Staff and Consumers Power Company. The meeting was held in Bethesda on April 16, 1982. is an expansion of the table previously submitted by our letter, Serial 16638, dated April 15, 1982. Additional information is provided specifying the future allowable strain based on an acceptance criteria and technical specification limit of 0.48% strain. The nu.nber of strain gages has also been specified in the table. The number of gages were determined by reviewing the pipe elevation profiles for abrupt inflection points and critical buckling zones. The strain gages are to be mounted one pipe diameter apart at a given monitoring station. At the April 16 meeting a concern arose about the accuracy of the vibrating wire strain gages. In a telephone conference with the Irad Gage Company, tney indicated the instrument is accurate to 10 (4 finch / inch) as a worst case condition for any type of vibrating wire gage. This 12cludes accounting fa r inaccuracies in installation and calibrations. This rccuracy is an order of magnitude greater than the accuracy required for the strain measurements to be taken (.0001 in/in vs.00001 in/in). t oc0482-0084a100 A_ n " (.') ) J 6 MAY 10 Ua2 & -) J U_

f[. - m a* L A clarification cut the technical specification limits and requirements . proposed in the pipe monitoring program submitted March 16, 1982 is necessary. 10ur intention is to use the 4% ovality (equivalent.0048 inch / inch strain). which includes appropriate safety factors as the technical specification unless we can justify a higher value at a later date. If the specified limit is reached we would immediately notify the NRC Staff and increrse the monitoring frequency to one month intervals. In parallel with the Staff notification an engineering evaluation of the situation would be performed. This evaluation would consider the remedial action necessary to restore the safety function and reliability of the service water system to overall plant operations. The actions necessary may very well include excavation of the piping in the affected zone for visual examination and possible replacement or sleeving. The NRC Staff asked Consumers Power Company to verify that no other buried Category 1 pipes remain unidentified. Enclosure 2 is a current table of all the buried seismic Category I lines and tanks. The pressurization lines and tanks have been added to the list of buried Category I piping. The control room pressurization lines and tanks were installed during the summer 1981, and j therefore not subjected to the soils settlement problems. The penetration pressurization lines and tanks have not been installed; however appropriate procedures for soil settlement will be followed. The list does not include the 48-inch diameter (48-OHBC-2) discussed in Enclosure 3 of our letter, Serial 16638, dated April 15, 1982. The NRC Staff expressed a concern regarding the margins for future settlement at the wall penetration of pipeline 26-OHBC-15. Our investigations indicate that there is a 90* elbow fitting in this line immediately upon exiting the building. Any bending moment developed due to soils settlement will be transformed to an equal torque value. This load transformation causes the vertical deflection due to settlement to change to an angle of twist on the pipe at the penetration. This angle of twist has no effect on the annulus / clearance of the wall penetration and therefore the only real clearance we [ need to assure is the seismic rattlespace (0.3693 inch). The margin we presently have is 0.6307 inches which is a factor of 1.7 times the [ conservative estimate of seismic rattlespace. The NRC Geotechinical Branch requested information concerning soils and its relation to buried utilities. Enclosure 3 addresses the concerns expressed i about the prediction of maximum future settlement for plant life (3.0 inches) 3 and the isolated sand pocket near the diesel fuel tanks. A concern was also 4 expressed about the soil properties used in estimating the soil forces required to deform condensate line (20-1HCD-169) into ics present / configuration. We have responded by seperately providing the Structural T Mechanics Assoiciates calculations estimating the soil capacity at Midland. b, i i != oc0482-0084a100 T ,,,,e ,n e er-vn,- n .p------ ,ee vm .m. --m., m, w, ,w n,p-mm,

3 We believe the information supplied satisfies the concerns the NRC Staff expressed during the.recent April meeting. Sl ot J A Mooney Executive Manager Midland Project Office For J W Cook JWC/WJC/mkh CC ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, w/o -CBechhoefer, ASLB, w/o PChen, ETEC, w/a FCherney, NRC, w/a MMCherry, Esq, w/o FPCowan, ASLB, w/o RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector, w/o RSDecker, ASLB,' w/o SGadler, w/o JHarbour, ASLB, w/o DSHood, NRC, w/a (2) JDKane, NRC, w/a FJKelley, Esq, w/o RBLandsman, NRC Region III, w/a WHMarshall, w/o VDDaton, Esq, w/o BStamiris, w/o f 1 oc0482-0084a100 t l ,. ~, -.,

L _, :. Y ~~ ~~ TABLE 1.0 Monitoring Station Ovality and Corresponding Strain Me:sured 'bridione1 Future No of Station

• Ovality (5)

Strain (%). A11ovable Strain (%) Strain Ganas Line: 26-0 ESC 15

Reference:

Figure 1 Allovable Strain =.h8% 1 2.3h 0.35 0.13 2 2 1.88 0.32 0.16 3 3 2.3h 0.35 0.13 2 h 2.3h 0.35 0.13 2 5 1.2h 0.25 0.23 2 Line: 26-0E3C.16

Reference:

Figure 2 1 2.18 0.3h 0.1k 3 2 2.18 0.3h 0.1h 2 3 2.3h 0.35 0.13 3 h 2.18 0.3h 0.14 2 5 1.12 0.23 0.25 2 Ilne: 26-OH3C 53 Feference: Figure 3 1 1.k0 0.27 0.21 2 2 2.96 0.h0 0.08 2 3 2.18 0.3h 0.1h 3 h 2.18 0.3h 0.14 2 Line: 26-OHBC Sh

Reference:

Figure h 1 2.50 0.36 0.12 2 2 2.50 0.36 0.12 3 3 2.18 0.3h 0.1h 2 h 2.03 0.32 0.16 2 5 2.50 0.36 0.12 3 6 2.03 0.32 0.16 2 Line: 26-OitBC 55

Reference:

Figure 5 1 2.03 0.32 0.16 2 2 1.47 0.27 0.21 2 3 1.56 0.28 0.20 2 h 1.56 0.28 0.20 2 .~+.w.m.m.

• M""'

.s _2 2 l.fencured Meridional Future No of Station' Ovality (F) Strain (5) Allovable Strain (5) Strain Caces Line: 26-CHBC 56

Reference:

Figure 5 1 1.09 0.22 0.26 2 2 1.87 0.31 0.17 2 3 0.90 0.21 0.27 2 h 2.h9 0.36 0.12 2 Line: 26-CH3C 19

Reference:

Figure 6 1 1.87 0.31 0.17 2 2 1.87 0.31 0.17 3 3 1.87 0.31 0.17 2 4 0.89 0.21 0.27 2 Line: 26-CEBC 20

Reference:

Figure 6 1-1.87 0.31 0.17 2 2 1.87 0.31 0.17 2 3 1.87 0.31 0.17 3 h 1 79 0.30 0.18 2

• The station numbers are numbered from left to right from the given reference figures transmitted bhrch 16, 1982.

-=

• ~ ~ ~ ~

+ Y

I BURIED SEISMIC CATEGORY I LINES AND TANKS A. Service Water Lines 8"-1HBC-310 26"-OHBC-53 8*-2HBC-81 26"-OHBC-54 8"-1HBC-81 26"-OHBC-55 8"-2HBC-310 26"-OHBC-56 8"-1HBC-311 26"-OHBC-15 8"-2HBC-82 26"-OHBC-16 8"-1HBC 82 26"-OHBC-19 8"-2HBC-311 26"-OHBC-20 10"-OHBC-27 36"-OHBC-15 10"-OHBC-28 36"-OHBC-16 36"-OHBC-19 36"-OHBC-20 B. Diesel Fuel Oil Lines and Tanks 1-1/2"-1HBC-3 2"-1HBC-497 1T-77A 1-1/2"-1HBC-4 2"-1HBC-498 1T-77B l-1/2"-2HBC-3 2"-2HBC-497 2T-77A 1-1/2"-2HBC-4 2"-2HBC-498 2T-77B C. Borated Water Lines 18"-1HCB-1 18"-1HCB-2 18"-2HCB-1 18"-2HCB-2 D. Control Room Pressurization Lines and Tanks 4"-0DBC-1 OVT 68A 1"-0CCC-1 OVT 68B E. Penetration Pressurization Lines and Tanks 1"-1CCB-45 IT-114 1"-2CCB-45 2T-114 4/26/82 L l 5Wtt'(I ?? A.t[)1.Cd.LLCL dM'N% C! (4y Y [V,}f.

...... ~, -.. -. - ~ .. - - - ~ ~ K 8eORfM 894 " ' COLLAR suPPOmf SLAs STitL ACCESS WAY

1. stOJtCTE DI -t PROJECTEDI g y y

094, g

FROJ tPROJ T o t* av e]s y enOJ PROJ 9 8 q 4 ,s ?,'g *.,t, M I,'.' #.", 4, #.'.* U I I, ',A * *,'. "l ,b

• t[::.'.hi$

? L'U1:OYAE &.* CD.,': ~)

• U,4 J WIM ',.* 8* '.**', 'J,.$l'.1~ ~.

NN t ?.i[ ..r ,.,4 m, ; c. a 1 - UJL m 23 a 3 23 g.= n Irk E f,r\\.in d N/ 8 ~5..,:.a "w,.m m ' y zil $10 w^ 23 4 13 r

• II

'fli.ar l5 gy .5f tt l ro ,T. os n' [.I

y a[,.

[ 3,8'j' 284' n q, = 32 ijg ? I 23 ?' I [ d 33 31 48 40. Sa0 32 4 'I F TA 3 yT,3 'I F T4. ,2f 47J' "I* rw ,e fb (A e# 8=l E p i. e ... - - ~ ---.n-

i K* SOUTN EXPL AN ATION - 650 T4.C. TOP OF Cor4RLTE F.F.G. FINAL FOOTING GR AOt 2T 74A T ANK IDENTIP sCATION NuuSE R OF4 sonar.0 Nuutf A _g 6J15' GROuNO SURF ACE f LEVATION 084 OlL@ PO4?O4A (PROJ Oitt ANCk ANO DIRECTION Of SM# 434 # 634 # PLANT GRADE 483 % ) SORING TO SECTION LINI PROJ (PROJ . FROJ EL.634# I ST $HEL9Y TUSE SAMPLE ,I 03 OSTERSE RG $ AMPLE 21 - 630 28 ST ANO4RO PE NETR ATION gy SLO

• COUNT (SLOWS #00TI io 41.p TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET

] us i. 9 11 { LEGEND ~ ] g '8 8 2 <s e h $ANOYGnavtLF LL g' CLAYICL) CLAY 5tLL SALTY SANO (5M) 18 2SS k SAND FILt. !C $ANO ($M 53 CONCRETE NO SAMPLt$ }j 32 4 to U. 34

• 0#

1.D. BeOTE S: 41.5' 690

1. Fee es launca et inne gemecuan ese F= pare 2hl7.

2. sonne 074 w no SPT wa= awn.

600 570 0 S 10 20 30 SCALE IN FEET pie-4 6 ^

• P

%. Sr(' __= r 8 *l. h iu.........,.. x x 2sq -.s g ,,,.,, t e-z. D A <ct eur. as c . N.Vvh-WM o.3.y. g w.e, ....... -...... ~, -.- =- Lt-Y: ~ ,, U* D-- BECH.T..E.L .r. ..N Tese O Pir u e4 pp

• MIDLAND POWER PLANT w

%s "~o" sA ,,r., Dit5EL GTNERATs A F4eL su.su,I,AC,CNo m C.oN.4-08&. SfddAfef CMKI OitstL FutL OIL STORAGE TANKS 7220 FIGURE 2+nN I sa o. sis

I ENCIOSURE 3.0 ADDITIONAL GE0 TECHNICAL HERVATION { i l I e l l ~. g

,i, Prediction of Maximum Future Settlement For Buried Utilities To predict the maximum future settlement for buried utilities, settlement monitoring within the fill has been utilized in our analysis. There are nine (9) locations in the vicinity of buried utilities where Borros anchors have been installed and have not been influenced by surcharge loadings. Settlement readings for anchors that have been established at a depth of 7 feet to 12 feet below the ~ surface were used in the analysis, since these depths are representative of the depth of most buried utilities. - Soils conditions at the locations of the Borrcs anchors -is also representative of the variable soil conditions encountered throughout the fill. Borros anchors BA-13, BA-lk, and M -34 were installed in December 1978 and have over three years of data. Settlement plots for these anchors are shown on Figure 1.0. Borros anchors M-100 through BA-106 were installed in September 1979 4 and have over two years of data. Settlement data from anchors BA-100 through BA-106 project less future settlement then shown for BA-34. The los of time versus settlement plots projected for most of these anchors predict on the order a maximum total 2.0 to 2.5 inches of additional settlement to occur over the next 40 years of buried utility life. Settlement projections for BA-34 are considered to provide a conservative estimate of the future maximum *ettlement +s expected beneath any buried utilities in the site fill. A total maximum future settlement during plant life has been estimated not to exceed 3 inches and includes settlement due to dewatering and seismic shakedown. 4 a 4 ~ w w ww.4

• -w.

ea-- ---s---

f l g M. G THM C

1. E A-t S CYCLES 3E 80 DaveTtDNS PEB3 INCH 4..a r

f j R [ f) I 4 I I l'! plj ll ![,l Q l lll ! ( I !f UE"9 I II I IIIIIlllllMIIIIENWilllll!I% " i

g so l

(I h g j.. r l MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT LI 'onm a ! U I l H r j TYPICAL SETTLEMENT II i g% i i inl _t: A -1 6 q x ' EW I;ll 4 q 7.. BORROS ANCIIORS It FILL J', h. l F i i i M j !l h.l .f l mlll. !l0 @ >ll l lhl-l 8 1 C

p a t WW. on.n

>r 4 p c ,i, h)M l'" i k l i ini ^ [ I; o q n k w 4 a w a ww w a a I. t 'E q l \\ [ lIf ]I f dy L ! k;i l- { j j "g I gi m um !g g E.1 f t j 1 p qll [ I I l j: !.,.( 1 5,' f w i t 3 y i E d ^ l2 t i l j ,1 i i g 0 I l p i ,.i [ 'j i i c 4 d! J .v i

b i

i l g h l l .ll l h d i Ih li F. 1 i i i r l f 4 l~~ .i d Til' i ll' 2 l l i O i j q pt i n 4 s h L l 3 d, [ ] d W l @:Mjd @i l$ i d W j ! = ll l l l ' h l !h M.

o. m f

a i (q h a ' i 5 l j' 'l"l I i l 1 l i i L 5 19 ! ! ! ! 9 l t i 'l T s i ^ t I H i a i .y I i f j N E J.k

.c r

y 3 y 4 o : i l s h !,lmll lj f i; n 7' b b N l . l l i H

. i i

I i o i l u to too 1000 100 o 0 TIME (DAYS) 1 f,,,, j l

- - -- ~ ? ~ =- q. td* 1 4 1 DIESEL RJEL TANK SEISMIC STABILITY REIATED TO LIQUEFACTION OF ISOIATED SAND POCKET i l Figure 2.5-22H is a cross-section through the DOFI showing fill and natural soil H conditions. The section includes 4 borings (B-1 through B 4) drilled in July 1977 before the excavation was made in the original plant fill to construct the tanks. The location plot and logs of these borings are also attached. It i ' is seen from available infomation that the loose sand pocket in boring DF5 near elevation 600 is limited in extent and therefore considered confined by clay fill. An analysis was made of the diesel fuel oil tanks assuming liquefiction does occur in a postulated thin layer of sand below the entire area of the tanks. N Since the tanks are anchored down and have adequate resistance to flotation, any movement 'of the tanks under these postulated conditions would be resisted by the passive resistance of the fill' surrounding the tanks. The safety factor against sliding of these tanks under these conditions was calculated to' be at least 17 This analysis indicates that the tanks will be stable even if liquefaction of the loose sand pocket does occur. Iateral movement estimated under these q conditionsislessthan1/2 inch. The1-1/2to2inchdiameterdieselfuel piping lines and tank connections have sufficient flexibility to accomodate this differential movement. I 5 P J

- - ~ r. s _..,f...'..

.s OTECH gen anson i

n ' DISTRisOTION c Disc I Acf UNFCI WIA $L g 9 Lf 1 I ,.n ,, ?~ m .Q e .) .ij r73, . :;..= </ om ljf,/ -l.i/., [autuw L o i Vf. 9% ,\\ !l; t t l/l a s , / y w, 1 -;! 'l-li a : i /: / / 'd i - VrN 7 .O m .'a. 24r. m y. i,;.,, ,,.. i ag !.os / RECD " __ &.G ^

l. ';

' l ,. j,j, / -Q

,;p_

it -l: '.:. .e

• /.j '

.l .UfgrarNfWdlA33 Z. y-l/l / /..: j j.., f/ZL AAEA'PtOPdSED, l;,yy..l n..: l.,. ,,; i,i/,/. y. Jj aiam.*:e .i .c:.4 sc q > :,; gwc. - - e j -! ,g. g~ j .,..~~..t --r g.< ././... mi. ;,., ~ / -. '. y-g v.

7..

,,,1' Lv / /,,. 'l l / o. ,1. 3 fa 0' 6 ' * * .' ~ i i j.. .i -Q. / / g 't.:!.j]!*/

n.

i.f.. j,. jlf,/ / t. .p a. f. i' Lpdyty. ~ v,.. 5;.

4..

'tj

y.,:. i

t /..?

1s.t ii i i.i .y5,37,y;p,,gp_, ; _= s E. _q ~, pgp377ydypysyygg .e.. . )Q .n - cg Q' ' * -l* ..Q :: ~ Tf3f*fM-PLXCC :: .L. ~. ?* 1 T., .=.- T . ;. CQMPACf/o)QdfMAf y. ~., n,.. v:.:. size. g.,y,cyjz.

y

/7bts00 ', ':).:.'... i '..' . prA..k/7.y;.a,<.M.. W.. '.y. ....s...,.., )...... :. %m,8....=.2roxwcs:m... a..i.t.ecAp...ou.s:s. f.. ss. wad.rew-e,s ~... ' < - :.. a-o . awm.. 2?~M.lfAbe*/AL.1-XK0W250K72GSE.T ^..'.3 HALL %3 O ' M' C f}. p wiyp: sp r-cr7z.2 o.- c.- 2 o a.w _.- _ ' ;.,j.f;.:f93 - p > - +. & *Q 3-J.EbfS 3/fAL L'3.4*XDMih//~bfFX?D']D"JCC0xDXNc2 !J/JlWN N9 ... g ' ~Ql/JL/]'YA63OKANCE[PK0GARM. 3Fe? C.e Z.220.=.G...22

- g.

s t. l r th \\- .A s.20.nz,sw.no cos;/wov:Ariosu

t. e.c.. ff7P ho M 'A (RI.c n

s }cnj - arves.o. av c ., gy . c aA,a l ;ap, l g:;g e,.a l com.o

o..,,

c=@~.- 'MiotAno PlAMf U ,,h gjpr a.ousuuna em.a.Hf 3 / f 2 >.d c. a. hes us. 7220.

s ps=.

'ENE4C.PWC'r' B/.P3 PL fup4 aW-! TAMM }A RR A N C 2-M f MT ' 2 P A -f e b y,5 cAtt M ce fK.:C-Sql 'I ) .m._..._.

c .s SERVICE CONTRACTS DIVISION l -) n y - 2/ -/ 9 77 TEST BORING DEPARTMENT g pg Date A,m J T. nis b lanin mibd. b Address Fixed Datum used is Ground Surface this boring is

• • • . o' 30- mio-. on soooa t.. w.

CLASSIFICATION se,aoie semow o-

s. c....ao A......

ryo. we. y, Gro s se f.ee O k '* $/* sal fist _ t". // /_ r c '9 4.Y.

• Trur Meca Ai ririf To

<. 3 o

/ 2 '6 *' 17 - /2 - /9 G'0H V~~ / 3 ) /C SodAtD 58 ~;L inch Jm 5' N(a R%' L ee S E" A r'eu, a rlNC %dAih GS. N '1 t'. c5' Y lG " il'b' L'U n V L o e S F c t/J Y /~l w Sr$: 4 /C b'N /- 1~l Sic 7v E,wn 77Aw er OLCMi t //'C I.t 'c " thNEen GnAV CL A YE1 fprv ms'. T 72*6' 5'-~ 1-3 In Wh" Info 5 m GA'A Y w'n V e LAY S K. C 15'c 2-

2. O 2

/7 b N 3- ~3 N 'l S 5, 7 I t'a" A* c-ire anA V.swA. n ce,4V SS - ' 2' La 's 'd~ # N 3-Kein t L.n M L G.C M. CE $6. 9 U $- S' 1 29e y erY siis ct:ny sta+ ciar S S. je m o y-7- 9 Surf SmAtl. Git se t,' SrS. // '15'b" ~ R* E' ~ .s.s. iz sev s-r-n GEOTECH ] 5.-C. I.% 4/$"if 7~ 9' ~ 12. d6M AH50fg DISTRIBUTION f 86. M 6"O h f-E' - /6 Y ._ oisc ACTiiNFC I W/A HUT) MGR I l / _sonLs1 h l)l l T h ^ EWP l } Y [ p \\' t\\()t /// - [ 4 %wr: j \\T ff f Ef 4 ts Engi l l d \\ v / AT/M Jos s e,. e j l I 3 + ro m eu c. n. n i Ground Surface to I'/ ' ft. used " casing. !Off N# 94. Water levelis 8 ft. below Ground surface / hrs, af ter completion. Foreman Water level is it. below Ground surfa:e hrs, af ter completion. b~~! -{ Boring stopped by Boring No.

i. g h

Y .se s se.esem.,

• D
• M-
• N*

v'-

• -e==--#w w ww --

pg,

' ~ ' " *

• MAYMUNU IN s cMi':A 8 IUN Al. ING.

SERVICE

• CONTRACTS DIVISION l

g;,, $ gly- :2 ~2 - /9 '/ 7, TEST BORING DEPARTMENT Job No. A \\ J$ Address / M I O E'8 ^#3 M#f/' 9 Fixed Datum used is Ground Surface this boring is Ct. ASS 1FICATION ser = same= N* 30" **** en sooon Lon w. 8T" se carefwa one Accurate Tve. No. 7, s,.. a. c 's ~ s:itiet.e t ni t - d 'T *' $$ " fn s-n /L R.< e c. o J 1:r At ~ <iLTY C l '1 '[e " l I'~ ll ~ 0% MMAD Ms 2 t'e

• l/9J,e..,2 d 'C >io d e e Ta' 14 rte ttsi F*s i E Tc

<~. L 3 ~1 '& * ' 'l ~ 'l E d ' ~ n'rn a da s";1w <'a 4D W'. s'

• l 2 'C /eeCt:

A.re ict. + Ci-a y n's,- 7 2. 4. Ie:n > /~ / N T~ r $r'L7~V SAs%'D ll'C ll.'d$~~ t E c r?A V.W L >'l 2'i A 9' E' iW." .C' ~ S'- C ~ . T. S. C lk. ~ 4- & ss lb 9 LWV fY! r.;.*/M V AJ /_ W $ [. Y /7$' T<= /te 17. /.,V < w n_- ANi ciratsi sus._ S/ I$. 4 ci _ iO 2c. m e=. ~ GEOTECH = ANM A A Ann DISTRIBUTION 0;;; "C* .r 0 ll/ 'MGR.I ACMafy 4._. 4 cpT SC1LS' J. 0;OL H&M , 2/.... Pro Mgr ^... C. i i JOS __JILE MhUU A m 0 5 !773 IfrtTl9*. 6~4'C. A 7' //e V & LL C c % Ground Surface to ft. used " casing. Water level is N'$ ft. below Ground surface b 8'UN b VO hrs. af ter completion. Foreman Water level is it. below Ground surface hrs, af ter completion. i Boring stopped by BorinhNo. A~ b l 4 58 13095

r ..-.a. ~ SERVICE CONTRACTS DIVISION h*

• Da'te "TUCV-21"/972 TEST BORING D2PARTMENT Job N).

1 M / A/ AA/ d M M //# Job. Address t Fimed Datum used is Ground Surface this boring is No 30" n'a=* on sooen ton w.o CLASSIFICATION sa rnoi. s.,n ea. ~ c.... pe ners in s= 2ne s= 3ro e-ca Se.s. 2 'r? L.C f $5 (t/ A_r ( /*y-p! $AA/ D r eee f 2 ' M, i:n,mleir, a,sva' r.bi= re n, t 2 'C p-4-- C-mn,L ' ii-w s.m <w 1 Kn ' ' 6-2, x b0 'I bebCE Ai.*o si,,*/A + /Jid [/ W $AAIO $ $. 5 1l(.r " 2 *: 1 l ,9 'n >%"Mfre m v any s%w em .s si 4/ /s '.s.a0-d-c- i SOME~ C.'n ML f/*r4t Lrt XS= 0~ D%";' l' /d -12 'o \\lM,Y x1*Ien C'r*.A,y th7 W 3,*A W lr.r, l' it'e ? - 15'- b2. Sr0ho Y [bkY $.1/A?" $N/ WME L ll N** 15

• l &

9 --l I) l $cSr [ .2a 'r' 9-GEOTECH A rj u it a ne n DISTRIBUTI' N O

r w

,,m ,m.,

• AGR, iAG:.HN irmar' scu.s

"'C'. H&H i l tra i j Pro Mgr ~~ u. !rJe PILE wau

.a,,,,,,

vv 4 (L*rYTD' r"XI e.. AT* f *9

• 4. A v6 st'-

Ground Surface to ft. used casing. ,, 'fVd bo 4A Water levelis d.k 5ft. below Ground surface Y hrs. after completion. Foreman l Water level is ft. below Ground surface hrs after completion. b~ Boring stopped by Boring No. amme. - 58 1909s .~ _ . - ~..

.-a...-. ....a.a. .. ~ a--_-.. i MAY MUNU IN I t:MNA l lVN AL. Int,. l* SERVICE COhlTRACTS DIVISION ga{,, fd L /s. 2,7-/ f 7 7 TEST BORING DEPARTMENT Job No. Job Address " ' I / D d #4'O ^ , AI/ Fixed Datum used is Ground Surface this boring is

• • • ' 30" **** *a s

.a t.n w. CLASSIFICATION

s. m. =

seme= ) o-c.... A.. 'a-1. in s-2asa=l3,as-m.m., = o,e se tes. l f. # /ME!}}fMe R <r d Kit's+.OAlb e l f, l.*a* MET >itin. ARe wAs' =il f KitEf m3 / 2 '4' [~ '7 ' 9 EAtiD' <* : C, ~L 5 'b V + ~7 - A /l'd /C t' ieeCE R _*ruAl 4-GL A.V i~ik *. %~ f .,7

• ) 'l

9--) / $ f'$.Y Y $ k k h & $f (YSM102* Y A W8 2 * Y /O'G' S-??st G/2A9 t's ap' c' t A V - '9-T* E i/W 1 iM's 'td! S~ Y $ /1] $ $ff ( f8'$ 9 3-r 7 I&%" 'n/b e r H"

5. r, rtb

If-P -- 7 GEpJ,ECM . OlSTRIBUII'ON .SdC m %, # varW W/A INIT MGR' ~ ACMlN f5 A F T SCILS i H&H l EWP ProsMsr [ -,0 3 ( 73 8 i { ric G'O "-F I L E_. _ _ b it.'A~Th' E12 o h *f' 5 Ground Surface to ft. used " casing. Water level is O ft. below Ground surface '7 - hrs, after completion. Foreman TA 0 f3 5 Water level is it. below Ground surface hrs af ter completion. l. g Boring stopped by Boring No. r l, 2

l. -

l 7- '_i y DOM

j.-.. l !l ~.p., t 4 MEMORANpUM t OF CALL [ w Toss O vou WtRE cAttro av-O You wtRc viS TEo av_ DA RRELL 00 OF (Organization) O P'r^ss c^u- + cOMiJT9' O rTs O WILL CALL AGAIN O IS WAITING TO SEE vou ] RETURNED YOUR CALL O wtSHES AN APPOINTMENT MESSAGE fodFeredC4 CALL 4}l$0dS4M4!'S g ):00 PA. $ YWW i RECEIVED BY DATE TIME /D.'R1 a- - a n. m " GPO 1981 0 - 241-529 (106) N N N 101-11.6 ,g e. Mn v; l' }W: 7y'~) 'd.t y.$ n'; ~

.q... J.> i . _. -. _fhe es/._l_ ma 3, t.ro cpc.,Aw,.m r .m.. e.. + * -... r-i /'

• g w-v[.

a :. S p 1M'l [.a'n' I ? 5 lbl2 5.I Ek..AoY .._.. _\\ h N ..?. Y ._.[..-.-.....-....-. _ Syn ns.ssldy -reh.h1.lewa-T WW..-.... h Y.yp _.. _. - -. Woo.. /? P 2- --y... ooo - _ -. )$ of ic ?.- l _.. ~ [ y d b s ' k J I d~f Q [ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ _c n. s e ~ ... = _ e. -4 .BufS L .y if.Y. Il [N.N. SMA .g ( E ~ K ; E teie) M ~~~- ~ ~ l '~ pus l> -.../._ _t f 2.b1.5i ..b # ' ' h I. f (BTWD~..._-. ...e. ew. e i i: .::L ~ ~~ :-~~' ~}}