ML20126L873
| ML20126L873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1981 |
| From: | Gallagher E, Hood D, Kane J, Rinaldi F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126L803 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8106090709 | |
| Download: ML20126L873 (50) | |
Text
--
.o .
I
$ j i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL i
) 50-330 OM & OL l CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF DARL HOOD, JOSEPH KANE, 1 FRANK RINALDI AND EUGENE GALLAGHER ON STAMIRIS CONTENTION 2 J Q 1. Please state your names and positions with the NRC.
A. My name is Darl Hood. I am a Senior Project Manager in the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
My name is Joseph Kane. I am a Principal Geotechnical Engineer within the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I i I >
My name is Frank Rinaldi. I am a Senior Structural Engi- l l
neer in the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l r8106090 %
.. T 1
1 My name is Eugene Gallagher. I am a civil engineer with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since February 1981, I l have been assigned to the Reactor Engineering Branch, Division of 1
. Resident and Regional Reactor Inspection, Office of Inspection and )
Enforcement. Prior to February 1981, I was a reactor inspector assigned to the Region III, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch, Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Q.2. Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications?
A. Yes. Copies of these statements are found in Attachment 1. I Q.3. Please state the duration and nature of your responsibilities with respect to the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2?
A. I, Darl Hood, am the Project Manager for the Midland Plant application for operating licenses. I have served in that position from August 29, 1977, when the application for operating licenses was tendered to the NRC for acceptance review, up to the present time. My responsibilities include management of the Staff's environmental and radiological safety reviews. I am responsible for the responses to Stamiris Contention 2(a), (d), (e) and supple-mentary Items 1, 6, 10 and 12.
I I, Eugene Gallagher, was assigned to the Midland Plant (among others) from October 1978 until January 1981. Since October
~
i A 1
I of 1978, I have spent approximately 1 year of effort performing inspections, reviewing quality control records and procedures, observing work activities, reviewing Consumers Power Company's (hereafter CPC or Applicant) response to 50.54(f) questions 1 and 23, and attending meetings and presentations by CPC and Bechtel regarding the soll settlement matter of the Midland Plant. I am responsible for the response to Stamiris Contention 2(c).
I, Joseph Xane, have served since November 1979 as the technical monitor for the Midland portion of an interagency contractual agreement between the NRC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (hereafter the Corps). By this contract the Corps has been assisting the NRC Staff in the safety review of the Midland Project in the field of geotechnical engineering. In addition to, and as a consequence of, my serving as contract tech-nical monitor, I have become directly involved in the assessment of the adequacy of the remedial measures which have been proposed by CPC to correct the plant fill settlement problem. I am responsible for the responses to Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2.
I, Frank Rinaldi, have served since February 1980 as the technical monitor for the Midland portion of an interagency con-tractual agreement between the NRC and the Naval Service Weapons Center (hereafterNSWC). By this contract the NSWC has been j assisting the NRC Staff in the safety review of the Midland Project l l
s- % l l
l l
l I
in the field of structural engineering. In addition to, and as a consequence of, my serving as contract technical monitor, I have become directly involved in the assessment of the adequacy of the remedial measures which have been proposed by CPC to correct the plant fill- settlement problem. I am responsible for the response to Item 4 of Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2.
Q.4. Please state the purpose of this testimony.
A. The purpose of this testimony is to address Stamiris
' Contention 2 as stated in the Appendix to "Prehearing Conference Order Ruling on Contentions and on Consolidation of Proceedings ;
(October 24,1980)," and as supplemented by Mc. Stamiris in "Intervenor Answer to Applicant's Interrogatories, 4/20/81."
This testimony does not address Stamiris Contention 2(b) since the parties agreed that discussion of Contention 2(b) would be postponed to the August portion of the hearing.
Stamiris Contention 2 reads as follows:
! Consumers Power Company's financial and time schedule
- pressures have directly and adversely affected resolu-
' tion of soil settlement issues, which constitutes a com-promise of applicable health and safety regulations as demonstrated by:
I a) the admission (in response to $50.54(f) question #1 requesting identification of deficiencies which contributed to soil settlement problems) that the FSAR was submitted early due to forecasted OL intervention, before some of the material required to be included was available; l
l
, , , , .. _.._ _ . . . , , ._ . . , - - _ - . _ ~ . _ . . _ . . . - _ - . - - , . . , . . - . _ . . . _ . - . . . . . _ . . . _ , . _ . , - - . . .
g 3 ?
. . .i t
l b). the choice of remed' ial actions being based in part on' expediency, as noted'in Consumers Power Company
. consultant R..B. Peck's. statement'of 8-10-79; c) the practice of. substituting materials for those originally specified for " commercial reasons"- (NCR QF203) or expediency, as in the use of. concrete in-
' electrical ' duct banks (p.' 23 ~Keppler Report)*;
~
d)' ' continued work on the' diesel generator building while unresolved safety issues existed, which precluded thorough ~ consideration.of Option 2 - Removal and i Replacement Plan; and _
. e) the failure to freely comply.with NRC testing requests ~ to further evaluate soil settlements remediation, . inasmuch as such programs are not allowed time for in the new completion schedule presented July 29, 1980.
April 20,-19'1' 8 Supplement to Contention 2' Further examples of the effect of financial and time pressures on
- soil.. settlement issues:
Examples Effect on soil settlement issues l'.11/7/78 Bechtel action 1. Root.causes not.adeq. investigated.
' item:" proceed with prepara- Organizational deficiencies not
-tions for preload as rapidly' -eliminated-prior to proceeding
- as possible" with remediation
- 2. 11/7/78 decision to fill 2. Affected piezometric measurements l- pond "immediately, because the during preload amount'of river water avail-able for filling'is restricted" l .3. 11/7/78 ."5 month period 3. The surcharge was removed at the l is available in the schedule end of this 5 months despite l' for preloading" lack of NRC satisfaction that secondary consolidation was assured l
l
- March 22, 1979 Xeppler Investigation Report conducted by Region III, Dec. 78-Jan. 79.
! . _. ..._ . .__._ . _ _. _ .._ _._._._.._ _ _ _._ .,_. _ ... _ .,,_. .-. ..._. _ ,-... _ _._,_,-..._. _ _ , _ _ a
.e. .g:
e _.
g h-i .
- .p 1 - ..
- 4. Failure' to grout. gaps 4. Resulted in additional stresses pr,ior'to cutting of duct to DGB which could have been banks,-failure to. cut. con- avoided
-densate lines when first suggested, failure to break up mudmat at OG8
- 5. Choice to continue- 5. Eliminated practical consideration '
construction of OG8- of Removal &' Replacement Option i.
- 6. Early FSAR submittal 6. Precluded early detection of and inadequate review . inconsistencies which could have of FSAR <
prevented some of the s.s. problems 7.' Failure to reconstruct . 7. Varying degrees of caution and geometry of area prior to conservatism were foregone in-
- fill placement, failure to favor of cost and schedule await NRC approval before advantages, proceeding with Preload,-
selection of "least costly feasible alternative" for DGB.
i
- 8. Failure to excavate' loose 8. Contributed to' inadequacy sands as committed to in PSAR of subsoils
- 9. . Installation of preload
- 9. Expenditures for preload instrumentation was ' subject instrumentation (CJD11/1/78 to. time pressure assoc. with memo) prior to fonnal adoption frost protection considerations of preload = premature commitment 10. Appeals to NRC to consider 10. If granted, would affect financial plight and schedule - sei smic--soil 'settl emen t
. deadlines as'in Seismic standards l Deferral Motion 11., Depth and breadth of 11. Afforded less than optimum surcharge limited by practical conditions for surcharge consideration of OGB, Turbine B.
structures
- 12. Changes to. design (DGB foun- 12. Contributed to settlement or dation), material, or proceedural stress problems and allowed specifications without proper conflicts to go unnoticed as approval preventative indicators Q.5 What is the NRC Staff response to Stamiris Contention 2(a)?
)s
, , b . ~.. m-~.-.-.---....-,4L.--,,.-.,~-w-m,~- e ,. e . .r ,- , . . - . e ,.--- - -.-4,,, .,., ,,-- w-,-- ,%, n.,r,, v.ne.,,,e..--
4
/-
A. First, the statement which Contention 2(a) calls an "admis- l sion" is found in the third paragraph of CPC's response to 50.54(f)
Request 1, Part b (page 1-2 of Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill). That full paragraph which is a part of the Applicant's I explanation regarding contradictions between the PSAR and the FSAR .
reads as follows:
The Midland FSAR was submitted to the NRC at an earlier point in the project schedule than would have normally occurred in order to provide additional time for the operating license hearings due to the forecasted intervention. Consequently, some of the materf al required to be included in the FSAR was not available at the time of its initial submittal, or was supplied based upon preliminary design information. As the design and construction continued, the appropriate sections of the FSAR were revised or updated to include the necessary information.
Second, a portion of the application for operating licenses, namely the FSAR, was tendered by CPC on August 29, 1977. The NRC performed an acceptance review pursuant to Section 2.101 of 10 CFR Part 2, and by letter dated November 11, 1977 advised the Applicant that the tendered FSAR was sufficiently complete based upon all of the information filed, taken as a whole. The Midland FSAR was docketed on November 18, 1977. The remainder of the application, namely the Environmental Report, was tendered March 1,1978 and docketed April 14, 1978.
l Third, the original schedule approved by NRC in December 1977 was based upon a projected fuel load date of October 1,1980 for i 1
Unit 2. The major licensing milestones scheduled for the FSAR review !
were:
l
. _ . . . ~ . _, _ . _ . . . , _ . _ _ , _ . , _
5/10/79 Supplement to SER issued 7/13/79 Start OL hearing 8/13/79 End OL hearing 7/15/80 Decision 10/1/80 It is not unusual for the Staff to initiate review of an FSAR 4 without inclusion of all the material which will ultimately be required for completion of that review. Moreover, the difficulty J associated with certain statements made in the FSAR was got a matter of i'nformation excluded .fran the early versions of the FSAR, but rather a matter of their accuracy.
\
A decision by the NRC'to docket an FSAR and the establishment of review schedules are administrative matters for which the NRC's
'- goal is to provide for completion of the licensing review consistent-s with the construction schedule. With respect to the Applicant's statement that "some of the material required to be included in the l FSAR....was supplied based upon preliminary design information," the l
j i obligation of the Applicant to provide accurate information under i cath or affirmation pursuant to Section 50.30 to 10 CFR Part 50 is L
by no means waived by these administrative matters, regardless of when they occur. Similarly, the quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 which are applicable to the FSAR apply irrepective of any time table.
t ET
, . _ , , . _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ , . , _ , _ . , , . . _ . _ _ . . _ , ~ , . - . - . . _ _ . . . , . - . - _ . . . . . _ . _ . . . _ . - _
-y. __
, A t
it For these reasons, the early' submittal of the FSAR provides no l l
justification for the deficiencies associated with soll settlement l problems, nor does it constitute a compromise of applicable health l and safety r'egulations. l 0.6. What is the NRC Staff response to Stamiris Contention 2(c)?
A. NCR QF 203 (Attachment 2) identifies three instances where user test reports for granular soil material did not meet specification gradation limits.
, (1)' User Test Report 0630: the acceptance gradation limits for material passing the " sieve were 75-90%; the user test report showed 94% passing. This deviation was " accepted as is" based on engineering review of the actual gradation of the material supplied.
(2) User Test Report 1036: the acceptance gradation limits for material passing the t" sieve were 75-90%; the user test showed 91%. This deviation was rejected based on an engineering review and material was not permitted to be used in "Q" areas, but the material was permitted to be used in non "Q" areas.
(3) User Test Report 0836: the acceptance gradation limits for material passing the #200 sieve were 12% - 20%; the user test showed 11%. The reason given for the 12% - 20% acceptance
!~
. , , , , = , . , , - - - , .-. . - ~ . , , , - , . . . , , . , .-n,----.. , - , , , , - - - - . , . ~ , - . , , - , . . , . . - - - , - , . . . -
q
. 4 t
criteria was- for "commerical reasons" since the supplier could supply material within these limits. The specification, however, permitted material to be within 7 - 20%. Therefore, the acceptance criteria or the user test report was more restrictive than the specification requirements.
-In all three cases the in-process corrective action was acceptable based on a review of the facts. These three noncon-fonning conditions did not adversely or directly affect resolution of the soil settlement issue.
Regarding the use of concrete for " expediency" in the electri-cal. duct banks area the following should be considered. Based on the IE investigation the lean concrete material in itself was not a matter of concern. The matter of concern was that -the design controls did not verify if the substitution of concrete in this area would affect the design basis of the structure (i.e. interface between the electrical duct banks and the Diesel Generator Building settlement). The IE investigation found that the design interface and consideration between electrical and civil was not adequate to assure the necessary tolerance between the duct banks and the i
structure to provide free movements when settlements occurred.
The question of expediency was not the issue in IE investigation report 78-20, but rather the issue was the adequacy of the design coordination.
_ - _ . _ . . , _ _ . . _ _ - _ . . _ . _ . . . _ _ - . . . . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ , . . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ . - - . _ . . _ . _ ~ ..
a a s.
- 11 .
Q.7 What is the NRC Staff' response to Stamiris Contention 2(d)?
A. The Staff does not agree that continued work on the Diesel Generator Building foreclosed consideration of the removal and
. replacement option as a viable alternative. Indeed, that option remains viable today should that option prove necessary. As noted in thelApplicant's response to 50.54(f) Request 21, the continuation hp of building construction would contribute to the additional costs for implementing. the removal and replacement option in the event the
' elected preload ' plan should fail to provide acceptable results.
Such financial matters undertaken at the Applicant's own risk would not deter the NRC frcm requiring an acceptable solution in the event of unacceptable results from the option. implemented.
J
.Q.8. What is the NRC Staff. response to Stamiris' Contention 2(e)?
A. The "new completion schedule" referred to in Contention 2(e) was presented by CPC during the meeting of the NRC's Caseload Fore-cast Panel in Midland, Michigan on July 29, 1980, to assess the construction completion schedule for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The new estimate for completion of Unit 2 was July 1983, and for Unit 1 was December 1983. The corresponding dates for commercial operation were December 1983 and July 1984 (steam operation),
respectively, s
- .wew.e--
, s J I
The Staff assumes that the "NRC testing requests" stated in Contention 2(e) refer to the June 30. 1980, Staff request
'(Request 37) for additional borings and laboratory analyses.
The NRC Staff knows of no basis for Stamiris' statement that the new completion schedule does not allow time for testing programs to further evaluate soil settlement remediation. Furthermore, it cannot recall any such statement by the Applicant at the l July 29, 6
1980, meeting nor at any other time. Rather, it is the Staff's understanding that the results of laboratory analyses of the borings as requested by NRC and the Corps, will be provided beginning in mid-June 1981. This timetable is compatible with the completion schedule as presented July 29, 1980.
t lQ.9. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 1 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2?
A. . The "11/7/78 Bechtel action item" cited in Item 1 of
, Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2 refers to " Meeting Notes No. 882" of Mr. 8. C. McConnel of Bechtel for a November 7,1978 meeting between CPC, Bechtel and Bechtel's consultants. The meeting notes l are located at Tab-12, Volume 4 of " Responses to NRC Requests Regard-l ing Plant Fill" ( Attachment 3). The action item appears to result from the discussion at page 2 of the meeting notes indicating that a 5-month period was available in the schedule, and that Dr. Peck l
l l
..x, !
o l
l 1
I
(
recommended proceeding with the instrumentation and preload as l J
rapidly as possible. l 1
Ms. Stamiris is correct that matters of relevance to the quality assurance program, which include _ investigations as to the root causes of the soil settlement and reviews of organizational l structures for potential deficiencies, were not completed as of November 7,1978, nor prior to proceeding with the preload program l
for the Diesel Generator Building. The Staff had expressed a l similar concern during the meeting of December 4,1978, as noted at the end of the " Summary of December 4,1978, Meeting on Structural Settlement," January 12, 1979:
The staff also stated that while attention to remedial action is important, detennination of the exact cause is also quite important for verifying the adequacy of the remedial action, assessing the extent of the matter relative to other structures, and in precluding repetition of such matters in the future.
The Staff's 50-54(f) Request 1 which was issued March 21, 1979, also noted the Staff's concern that such quality assurance reviews be performed. This was followed by 50.54(f) Request 23 on Septem-
- ber 11, 1979. The Staff's concern for quality assurance was a j l
significant factor in the NRC's decision to issue the December 6, l
1979 Order Modifying Construction Permits.
Q.10. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 2 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2?
i
i 4 s A. The Staff agrees with Stamiris Contention 2, Item 2, to the extent that CPC's decision to fill the cooling pond "immediately, because of the amount of river water available for filling is restricted," did affect the piezometric measurements during pre-loading. This statement was made in the November 7,1978, Meeting Notes referred to in the preceding response. (Attachment 3). The coincident effects on piezometric monitoring caused by seepage still developing from the raised pond and also due to th'e development of excess pore water pressures under the surcharge loading were identi-fied by the Staff (Attachment 4) and its consultants, the Corps, as being an important reason for not being able to fully accept CPC's conclusion on the effectiveness of the surcharge program. To overcome this problem, the NRC has attempted to have the effectiveness of the l
surcharge program verified by requiring the additional borings and
! laboratory testing for the Diesel Generator Building foundation soils.
l l
The Staff would agree that time schedule pressures did compel CPC to accept less than the best sequence in the pond raising-surcharge L placement operations and therefore, these pressures may have adversely affected resolution of the soil settlement issues.
Q.11. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 3 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 27 l
l l- - . . . __ . ._ .. _ _ _ _ _ . _ __.
4 i A. The Staff agrees with Stamiris that the minutes of the meeting. held November 7,1978, between CPC, Bechtel and Bechtel's consultants does indicate "a 5-month period is available in the
' schedule' for preloading." The Staff also agrees with the Stamiris contention that the surcharge was removed without NRC being satisfied that secondary consolidation was assured. The Staff acknowledges, however, that CPC did notify the NRC of its intention to remove the surcharge fill prior to actually removing it.
The reasons the Staff was not satisfied with the effectiveness of the surcharge program can be traced to CPC's former practice of not identifying the criteria that would be acceptable to the NRC l
I Staff in advance of conipleting the remedial action. CPC's practice and the resulting difficulty that it presented to the Staff is
%trated in the following paragraph taken from the " Summary of July 18, 1979, Meeting on Soil Deficiencies at the Midland Plant Site" (Attachment 5):
1 l
I The staff noted that the response to its 10 CFR 50.54 requests for acceptance criteria for remedial actions (e.g.,
questions 4, 6, etc.) had not resulted in identification
, of criteria in advance of the remedial action. Rather the I repl. notes that the criteria will be determined during or aftet the remedial action. The staff stated that this approach by the applicant does not provide for timely staff feedback at the outset, but rather the staff must await results of the program to Jetermine what acceptance criteria were used and' if they are acceptable. Thus, the remedial action is being conducted entirely at the applicant's own risk.
- ._ , - . _ ._. .. _ .~ _ _.._. _ ..-._ _ .
1 1
The Staff's conclusions as to whether secondary consolidation had been reached due to the surcharge program and as to the effec-tiveness of the surcharge program awaits receipt and review of the results of additional borings and laboratory testing as discussed in response to Question 10.
Q.12. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 4 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 27 A. The matters of grouting gaps prior to cutting duct banks and breaking up the mudmat were considered at a meeting between CPC, f
Bechtel and Bechtel's consultants as reflected in " Meeting Notes l
No. 882." (Attachment 3) These notes at page 3, paragraph 6, I state:
The duct banks which appear to be restraining the building settlement should be isolated from the building as necessary.
The building construction should continue, thereby providing more weight on the foundations. Any gaps between the footing and the mudmat would require grouting. The grouting would i
not be necessary prior to preload. It was pointed out that
- from a safety and a building distress point of view, it would I be advisable to grout existing gaps prior to releasing duct i banks. It was also suggested that the mudmat be broken up prior to preload.
Similarly, in the trip report by CPC (Attachment 6) for this same 1
1 November 7,1978, meeting, the following account of the above discussion is given at page 3:
The question of grouting the gaps between the footing and the soil was discussed. Or, Peck and Dr. Hendron did not feel the grouting of the gap between the foot-ing and soil was necessary prior to preload. However, discussion continued and it was concluded that Bechtel would grout any gaps between the footing and soil after the preload had been removed. It was suggested by the consultants that the mudmat be broken up prior to pre-load application and that early grouting may also be beneficial in relieving some building stress.
With respect to the condensate lines, the Staff was advised by 50.55(e) Interim Report #4 to Management Corrective Action Report 24 dated February 16, 1979, and forwarded by cover letter dated February 23, 1979, of the preloading progress and that the two condensate lines had been cut. Interim Report #4, at page 5, stated:
- 2. Preload Operation Preloading of the Diesel Generator Building is continuing.
As of February 2,1979, the granular fill material for the preload has been placed to the elevations shown in Figure 41,
- 3. Cutting of the Condensate Pipelines The two 20-inch condensate lines and two 6-inch condensate lines shown in Figures 9 and 10 have been cut outside the turbine building wall to prevent potential overstressing of the pipes during preload. Continued surveillar,ce will be provided on the cut pipelines and further evaluation will be provided in subsequent reports."
The Staff is unable to conclude that grouting the gaps prior to isolating the duct banks would have been the better approach to preloading. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with either decision--to grout or not to grout. The decision not to grout likely allowed some immediate stress relief in bay areas 3
and 4 when the. duct banks were released. On the other hand, it is uncertain as to the extent that beneficial reduction in additional stresses to other portions of the Diesal Generator Building would have resulted had grouting been performed prior to cutting away the duct bank.
With the benefit of hindsight, it would appear that initially not grouting and a more gradual lowering of the structure after release from the duct banks would have been preferable, rather than the actual abrupt release of the structure. Such an approach would have permitted a more gradual redistribution of loading to the Diesal Generator Building's foundation. Grouting then might still have been necessary following the initial relief of stresses in order to result in more uniform future settlement and to avoid the inducement of possible additional stresses in other portions of the Diesal Generator Building.
l l
It is the Staff's understanding that the condensate lines were actually cut. Therefore, these unconnected lines were apparently not a cause of additional stresses to the Diesel Generator Building.
With regard to not breaking up the mudmat beneath the Diesel Generator Building, it is likely this decision lessened the stresses imposed during surcharging since the structure foundation was stiffer
! and better able to span any soft soil areas that may have existed.
There is a trade off, h0 wever, in that not breaking up the mudmat l
l l
- . - , - - . ~ . . - , - . . ,-
reduced the effectiveness of the surcharge in consolidating the softer foundation soils which were being bridged by the structures foundation and mudmat. If in the future during plant operation, new or extended cracking of the wall footings and mudmat were to occur, redistribution of loading pressures could result and possibly lead to additional settlement.
The Staff therefore concludes that CPC's failure to act listed in Item 4 did not adversely effect resolution of the soil settlement issues.
Q.13. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 5 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 27 A. This Contention is essentially the same as Stamiris Con-tention 2(d) addressed in response to Question 7 of this testimony.
In summary, CPC's decision to continue construction of the Diesel Generator Building does make it more difficult and costly to select the removal and replacement option, but it does not eliminate this
! option. The Staff views this decision by CPC as evidence of its willingness to proceed at its own risk; it does not view CPC's decision as having an adverse effect on resolution of the soil settlement problem.
l Q.14. What is the NRC staff response to Item 6 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2?
I
, -- . - - , _ - , . , - - , . - _ __ . . . . . ~ __. - ~ - - . _ . - . - _ - - - - .
Q t A. Had the FSAR been tendered as late as August 1978 instead of August 1977, little or no detection of inconsistencies would have occurred during this interval with respect to soil settlement problems. The basis for this position is the following statement by the Applicer.t in response to 50.54(f) Request 1, page 1-3 of
" Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill," Volume 1:
Through the above procedures.and actions, the FSAR'and project design documents are constantly being reviewed and compared against each other. When inconsistencies are identified, they are corrected. However, there are some sections of the FSAR that are essentially inactive (e.g., the FSAR section relates to items for which the design, procurement, and construction phases have been completed and there have been no recent document changes or NRC questions to prompt a review of the section).
Prior to the identification and investigation of the
- Diesel Generator Building settlement starting in August 1978, FSAR Section 2.5 and Subsection 3.8.5 (which were the arads of contradictions in the PSAR and FSAR as describeo by I&E during the meetings of February 23 and March 6,1979) were censidered inactive. All of the major plant backfill operations were completed, no sig-nificant revisions to the related civil specifications or calculations were made, and only two NRC questions were received at that time. These two NRC questions were related- to Section 2.5 and dealt with the seis-l micity of the Michigan region.
l Q.15. What is the NRC Staff response to Items 7, 9 and 11 of Stamiris' supplement to Contention 27 l A. The Staff is uncertain as to the meaning of " reconstruct t
l geometry of area" in the beginning of Item 7 and therefore the Staff cannot respond to this aspect of the Contention. The Staff views I
4.
e- m y e- == g gy_
- - y--. -ip-.- , p. --wv---e. -w,--yf-,g-,.- -w wy-ww--m
the intent of supplemental Items 7, 9, and 11 of Stamiris Conten-tion 2 as questions on the adequacy and conservativeness of the selected preloading solution to remedy the plant fill settlement problem of the Diesel Generator Building. The Staff recognizes that decisions and actions by CpC are naturally affected by cost and schedule considerations. The Staff does not feel that these competing concerns are irreconcilable, but rather the Staff attempts to r.ecognize the needs of applicants while exercising its regulatory
" responsibility through firmly insisting upon acceptable margins of safety and assurances that provide for protection of the health and safety of the public. The Staff therefore concludes that the examples listed in Items 7, 9 and 11 have' not adversely affected resolution of the soil settlement issue.
Further, with respect to supplemental Item 11 which claims that the depth and breadth of surcharge was limited by practical consideration of the Diesel Generator Building and Turbine Building and that this afforded less than optimum conditions for surcharge, the Staff believes the significant issue here should be, not whether optimum conditions existed, but whether accepted results were achieved by the surcharge program as executed. In this regard, the results of additional borings and laboratory testing requested by the Staff and the Corps are to be provided for review in the near future. The assessment of these results by the Staff and the l Corps will be the subject of later testimony in this hearing.
l-l -
l l
j
I Q. 16. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 8 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2?
A. In February 1978 the NRC in its review of the Midland FSAR
-forwarded Request 362.2 which sought documentation of the method CPC used to remove the loose natural sands (sands with less than 75%
relative density) from the foundations of safety related structures as CPC committed to do in the PSAR. In subsequent submittals in response to NRC Request 362.2, CPC provided the results of boring explorations 'which had been drilled in August and September of 1978 and additional explorations in 1979. The date when these borings were drilled occur after the site area fill had been placed. These late results and evaluation of the boring information which CPC has documented did not indicate the presence of . loose natural sands beneath safety.related structures. Based on these facts, the Staff is unable to conclude that CPC failed to excavate loose natural
. sands as committed to in the PSAR or that this failure contributed to the inadequacy of the subsoils.
Q.17. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 10 in Stamiris' supplement to Contention 2?
A. The resolution of the " Seismic Deferral Motion" was achieved consistent with the NRC Staff's needs as expressed at the prehearing conference of April 27, 1981. No compromise of applicable health and safety regulations is associated with this resolution.
i B e l
l Q.18. What is the NRC Staff response to Item 12 in Staniris' supplement !
l to Contention 27 A. Ms. Steniris is correct that these manifestations of the 1
breakdown in quality assurance existed prior to December 6,1979.
Such matters were the subject of the NRC Staff Motion for Summary Disposition on the Issue of Quality Assurance Implementation Prior
^
to December 6, 1979. However, as other Staff testimony demon-strates, the quality assurance program now satisfies all required NRC criteria; further, as a result of revisions in the quality assurance program, the improved implementation of the program, and other factors discussed in testimony subnitted by James G. Keppler, the NRC now has reasonable assurance that quality assurance and quality control programs will be appropriately implemented with respect to future soils construction activities including remedial l
actions taken as a result of inadequate soil placement.
l 4 1
l
)
l ,
i
Attachment 1 4
DARL S. HOOD l.
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
! ~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO1 ,
s PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am a Senior Project Manager in the Division of Licensing Office:of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. I am responsible for nanaging licensing activities by the Commission with respect to Midland Plant, Units 1 and l 2.
I have served in the position of Project Manager with the Comission since August 1976. This position provides for the managing of radiological safety reviews of applications for licenses and authorization .to construct or operate light water nuclear power plants.
As of April 1980, the position also provides for the nanaging of the '
environmental reviews of such applications. I assuned responsibility for- -
. tiidland. Plant, Units 1 and 2, when the application for operating licenses !
was. tendered in. August 1977. Other nuclear plants for which I- have previously served in this capacity are the standardization design of Westinghouse which is designated RESAR-414 (Docket STN50-572), Catawaba
(- Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Dockets 50-413 and 50-414), and River -
Bend Station, Units 1 and.2 (Dockets 50-458 and 50-459).
l Between June 1969 and August 1976 I held two sequential positions within l the Nuclear Power Systems Division of Combustion Engineering, Inc.
- (C-E) at Windsor, Connecticut. After flarch, 1973, I was Assistant Project !!anager for the Duke Power Project. . This position provided assistance.in directing all efforts by C-E to design,. fabricate, purchase and license the nuclear steam supply systens, reactor core, and _
associated auxiliary systems for Cherokee Units 1, 2 & 3 and Thomas L.
Perkins Units 1, 2 & 3. The position assured that all aspe:ts of the contracts were met and that safe and reliable systens were provided to the required schedule and at a reasonable profit to C-E. I assisted Duke !
Power in preparing the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and provided for all C-E licensing support for these units. I also provided coordination of all other nuclear plants referencing the C-E Standard ,
Safety Analysis. Report to assure compatibility with C-E standard {
reference design. Until tiarch,1973 I was a Project Engineer in C-E's o ~ Safety and Licensing Departnent and was responsible for licensing of nuclear-power plants. I coordinated the preparation of the tiillstone Unit 2 PSAR and FSAR and the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 & 2 FSAR and interfaced.with URC, the utility, architect engineer and all C-E
- functional-departments on licensing support matters. I ensured that NRC criteria, standards, and guides were incorporated into the nuclear steam supply system ' design.
C c-ee p w r rw- , ,p r -s w m v' e me , y yy * + e w, , # se v%-& y gwy,,*e-,e-s,-e..w.--- ee' e = i- f r-ese v---e-ve,cw,.-+-w--r-e---we,+we-w e-v-wre w.www.ov-w--w e e we-r-ev-we**w
[ .. . ,
i 6
, l Setween August 1966 and June 1969, I was a Nuclear Safety and Radiation Analysis Engineer in the Nuclear Safety Unit, fluclear Division of the Martin Marietta Corporation at Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of this position was to perfom hazard evaluations for nuclear power sources -
)
l applied in space missions. My primary duty was to detemine public I exposure to radiation for malfunctions occurring during the intended mission. I also detemined means by which the hazard potential for nuclear space systems could be mitigated to the extent that nuclear safety criteria were met. I conducted research with regards to the development of suitable criteria for permissable exposure levels and their probabilities, taking into a'ccount the dependence of acceptable risk'on the benefit to be derived, tiy primar SNAP 29 (Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power)y assignment project. was with theof My evaluations this nuclear power source included the fomulation and application of computerized models for the transport of fuel released at high altitudes, in deep ocean and in shallow waters. I derived models for these release areas to incorporate the activity into human food chains and determined the expected ingestion dose, the number of people involved and the exposure probabilities. Inhalation dose was determined for radioactive fallout from the high-altitude release.
Cetween February 1965 and August 1966 I was a Nuclear Quality Control Engineer within the Electric Boat Division of General Dynanics at Groton, Connecticut. The purpose of this position was to provide control of quality for naval reactor systems, components, and shielding during the
( construction or overhaul of submarines by this shipyard. My primary area of responsibility was shielding. Duties included establishing procedures for the inspection of fabrication and installation of lead and polyethylene shielding, and resolving problems in complying with these or other shielding procedures. The position required a knowledge of nuclear theory, SSW systens design, Bureau of Ships contract and design requirements, non-destructive testing techniques, and quality control requirements.
Between November 1963 and February 1965, I was an Aeronautical Engineer for Nuclear Propulsion and Power at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Huntsville, Alabama. I perfomed investigations of the nature and nagnitude of the i
nuclear radiation environment, shielding systens and safety systens associated with proposed nuclear space vehicles for candidate space missions.
Between Novenber 1963 and college graduation in 1962, I held various positions including chief of a missile electronics training unit at 1 Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; student at the U.S. Amy Signal Officer's Orientation Course at Fort Gordon, Georgia; and liarine Engineer for ordinance and special weapons within the Design Division of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia.
(
I
. . 3-I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering from North Carolina State University in 1962. I am a menber of the Health Physics Society.
e f
/
C d
l O
i
.a v . -._ w
, - - - - , _ - - . . - . _ . ~
- g. '4 l
l
( PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS'AND EXPERIENCE NAME: Joseph D. Kane-ADDRESS: 7421 Miller Fall Road Derwood, MD 20855 EDUCATION: B.S. Civil Engineering 1961 Villanova University M.S. Civil' Engineering 1973 Villanova University Post-degree studies, Soils and Foundation Engineering University of California .
1972 University of Maryland 1978 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION:
Registered Professional Engineer (1966) - Pennsylvania 12032E PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY:
(; American Society of Civil Engineers EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS:
February 1980 - Present Principal Geotechnical Engineer l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 1977 - February 1980 Geotechnical Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 1975 - May 1977 Soils Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission August 1973 - October 1975 Supervisory Civil Engineer Chief. Soils Design Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District
(-
L January 1963 - August 1973 Civil Engineer '
Soils Design Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i
Philadelphia District l
January 1962 - January 1963 Design Engineer McCormick - Taylor Associates Philadelphia, Pa.
{
1 -
l t
--- .n. .. . ._ ,
1
. . _ ~ , . - , . __ _ _ . _ . _ - -
o .
Professional Qualifications and Experience Joseph D. Kane -
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIEt1CE
SUMMARY
1975 to Present In NRC Division of Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Section, Mr. Kane has specialized in soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Experiences in this position have included the following:
- a. Evaluation of the foundation adequacy of proposed sites for nuclear facilities with respect to design and operational safety. This work has included evaluation of geotechnical, soils and rock mechanics, foundation and earthquake engineering related aspects.
The results of this review effort are summarized in a safety evaluation report for each of the proposed facilities which have included nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel reprocessing plants and uranium mill tailings waste systems.
f
- b. Serving as a technical adviser for soil and foundation engineering related aspects in the development of regulatory guides, acceptance and perfomance criteria
( that are intended to assure construction and operational safety of nuclear facilities.
- c. Serving as a technical representative for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on the NRC Advisory Group concerned with federal dam safety.
- d. Serving as an instructor for the Office of State L Programs in the training of state personnel who l
are responsible for construction and operational inspections of uranium mill tailings embankment retention systems.
l 1963 to 1975 During this period Mr. Kane was employed with the U.S.
, Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District and i
attained the position, Chief, Soils Design Section, Foundations and Materials Branch, in 1973. Professional experiences with the Corps of Engineers have included the following:
- a. The embankment and foundation design of four large multi-purpose earth and rockfill dams with appurtenant structures (spillways, inlet and outlet structures, control towers, flood protection facilities, etc.).
Responsibilities ranged from the initial planning of
, s
l 1
. Professional Qualifications l and Experience !
C. Joseph o xane subsurface investigations to select the most _
feasible sites through all design stages which were cuhninated in the final preparation of corstruction plans and specifications. This work incisded planning and evaluation of laboratory testing programs, studies on slope stability, seepage control and dewatering systems, settlement, bearing capacity, liquefaction 3 embankment safety instrumentation and slope protection.
- b. Served as a technical consultant to field offices charged with construction inspections for assuring completion of structures in compliance with design analysis and contract specifications. Participated in the development of needed modifications during construction whenever significant changed site conditions were uncovered.
- c. Directed the efforts of engineers in the Soils Design Section in other fields of civil work projects that included the embankment and foundation design of levees, waterfront pile supported structures and b'. disposal basins for the retention of hydraulic dredge waste.
1962 to 1963 Served as design and project engineer for private consulting firm. This work included the design of large federally funded highways, a race track and various structures constructed to provide a Pennsylvania State park marina.
t l
1 l
l l
O O
~
.- - L.. ::? - . * . -. . _ -,. - ,
, .? "
Frank Rinaldi, P.E.
Structural Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office,0f Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commission tiy name is Frank Rinaldi. I presently reside at 5506 Beech Ridge Drive, Fairfax, Virginia, 22030 and I am employed as a Senior Structural Engineer in. the Structural Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., 20555.
Professional Qualifications I received a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the City College of New York (1966) and a M.S. degree in Civil Engineering from fiaryland University (1974).
I am a registered Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia (1972).
I am a member of the Main Committee of the ACI-ASME Committee on Concrete Pressure Components for Nuclear Service (Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments).
I have been employed by the NRC, Structural Engineering Branch since 1974 as a Senior Structural Engineer. My duties include development of design criteria for nuclear structures and participation in the formulation of safety criteria. Duties also involve safety-related review of structural and seismic design criteria-(Safety Analysis Report & Topical Reports) for power systems and the evaluation of nuclear containment structures, reactor vessels and other structures and components.
The following is a summary of my previous professional experience:
1971-1974 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Fuel Fabrication and Transportation Branch (Structural Engineer) l 1970-1971 Naval Facilities Engineering Command-Division of Research l Development and Testing and Evaluation (General Engineer).
1968-1971 Naval Facilities Engineering Command-Electronics Facilities Support Branch (Structural Engineer).
1966-1968 Naval Facilities Engineering Command-Chesapeake Division (Civil Engineer).
l L
i
l 1
. 1
)
EUGENE J. GALLAGHER '
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ^ ~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am a Civil Engineer i.) the Division of Resident and Regional Reactor l Inspection, Reactor Engineering Sranch, Office of Inspection and l Enforcement. -
"I received a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Civil Engineering from Villanova University in 1973 and a Master of Science Degree in Civil / Structural Engineering from Polytechnical Institute of New York in 1974. I am a registered Professional Engineer in the States of Illinois (#37828), Florida (#29114) and Louisiana (#16376)._ I an a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Concrete Institute and Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honor Society.
In my present work at the NRC, I provide technical assistance in the area of civil engineering to Regional offices and resident inspectors with particular enphasis on the design and construction of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, foundations, structural steel buildings and in structural testing and surveillance. In addition I provide
(-x technical input for the development and interpretation of industry codes, standards and regulatory requirements relating to inspection activities.
From 1973 to 1931 I was a nember of the NRC Region 3 inspection staff responsible for the inspections of civil engineering aspects of plants under construction and in operation. This included the Inspection of laboratory and field testing of concrete, steel and soils materials, earth embankments and dams, material sources, piping systems and reinforced and prestressed concrete structures. In addition, a review of management control; and quality assurance programs were performed at plants under construction. I participated in approximately 90 inspections of reactor facilities.
! Prior to joining the NRC Staff I was employed by E8ASCO Services, Inc. in New York City from 1973 to 1978. I performed designs of reinforced concrete and steel structures, design of hydraulic and water supply systems and preparation of specifications for construction. From 1976 to 1978, I was the civil resident engineer at the Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant I site responsible for providing technical assistance to construction.
During 1972 and 1973 I was employed by Valley Forge Laboratory in ?evon, PA performing inspection and testing on concrete, steel and soil
- j. materials.
l .
l l -
- 2-
\
A00!TIONAL NRC TRAINING Fundamentals of Inspection, NRC, February 1973 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />) ,
BWR Fundamentals Course, NRC, March 1973 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />)
Concrete Technology and Codes, Portland Cement Assoc. , May 1978 (80-hours)
Quality Assurance Course, NRC, August 1978 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />)
Nondestructive Examination and Codes, Rockwell Int'l., August 1978(120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br />)
PWR Fundamentals Course, NRC, November 1973 (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />)
Welding Metallurgy, Ohio State University, September 1980 (80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />) 4 O
b e
9 f
e e I
O y
. ,, -n~, - e 2.v-- - , - , ,- , , . ,w,.,-n...,a. ,,-,m, ,,v,4,,.. ,-,,.-,..<e,,, , , , , ,
iL' s '
i .
, )
, Attachment 2 I gl "' ' Route To D.is Cecy for File 16.3.4 & 16.3.6 fI"Cr'
{ g lay ooku Issue Da a Project November 72. lo77 Midland ) 6 2
' Ei"i"
, og n C0KM Mur File Title NCR's on Eechtel o yecconfom -ce %"* *"Cd "'*nd 0"*'A'* * *'
,gn gn n- Repe.M No 0F-203 S
2.is Nonconfe:dE=c'e e h'eport is Issued To: Prepe. red ByN ,#,/ C @ w Date !I .' ;1. ~7 '
Approved By Y N 4 D Drte /.! s /, -
G. L. Richardson p .- x Bechtel Lead'QAE Written Reply Requested.;3y Date 12/16/'
Cc=ective Action Regested By race 12/30/'
vho is restensible fer cenective action. ~
Nenconfc.- .ance Description and Supportir.g Deta.ils:
See attachment.
. . ~ . ' ~ "-' AEC Repertable Yes C No @ See Procedure 9 (Fer miclea Projects only)
~Z.G ~ Step k'[rk Necessary Yes [ No v See Procedure 16 - Step Werk'No No Hold Tags Applied l Recc:= ended Cc=ective Action See attachment.
I Cerective Action Taken:
l See attachment.
L
/erification of Corrective Action F.esti. red Yes @ No C h.ethedofVerification:
Reviewed letters GLR-12-77-517, GLR-1-78-001 and GLR-01-78-040 from G. L. Richardsc-to J. L. Corley; letters 216FQA77 and 6FQA78 from J. L. Corley to G. L. Richardson; l letters 0-1621 and 0-1651 from J. Newgen to G. Richardson; Bechtel QC Training l 3ession QCFM-4250; and NCR's 1055 and 1094. 1
- =.
hionconfc=.ar.ca Closure Ccnfir:ed By A
'w Date " - 1 ~7 W ICI?.h*~ 1 To be ec=pleted at ti=e cf closure 'cy Cens=.ers Pever QA Se.~. ices.
l l
? age 1 of 4 l l
l s
'. Th I
' ' 16.3.4 & 16.3.6 Issue Date Novsmber 22, 1977 Proj ec t Midland 1 & 2.
=. File Titile NCR's on Bechtel
.E- Construction and Quality Control
- 57' Attachment to NCR No QF-203 Nonconformance Description and Supporting Details:
Project!' Quality' Control Instruction R-1.00, . " Material Receiving Instruction" .,
Section'5.2.of Revision 3 and Section 5.1 of Rev1sion 5 states in part, " Require-ments f or the ' sampling 'and testing and the acceptance criteria reference documents l shall .be .noted on the applicable. IR" and Section 5.4 of Revision 3 and 5.3 of Revi-sion 5 states. " Review any required user's test data reports to verify.that they ,
have been satisfactorily completed". l Part A ,
QCIR. No. R-1.00-1560 for Zone 4A Fine' Backfill references User's Test Report No.
0630 and the acceptance criteria as:
-Sieve Size % Passing
-1" 100 i
3/4"90-100
_ . . 1/2" 75-90 EE 3/8" 60-85 ' ' '
7 #200 7- 15
-(.'
' Contrary to the above, User's Test Report No. 0630 references 75-100% passing as the acceptance criteria. for the'.1/2" sieve, consequently 94% passed the 1/2" sieve and_ it was accepted when actually it failed.
Part B .
i QCIR No. R-1.00-2105- for Zone 4A Fine Backfill references User's Test Report No.
1036 and the acceptance criteria as:
Steve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4"90-100 l 1/2" 75-90 3 / 8
. 60-85
- 200 7-15 Contrary to the above, User's Test Report No. 1036 indicated 81% passing the 1/2" sieve and accepted, this should have indicated. 91% passing the 1/2" sieve and f ailed.
- ==.
. h~~
.= '
1 Page 2 of 4
/
h ,
) F h Issus Dats Novsmbar 22, 1977 16.3.4 & 16.3.6
. Proj ect Midlend 1 & 2
. 1- File Title NCR's en Bechtel Construction and Quality Control Attachment to NCR No QF-203
-Nonconformance Description and Supporting Details: (Contd)
~
Part C QCIR No. R-1.00-1836 for Zone 4A Fine Backfill references User's Test Report No.
0836 and the acceptance criteria as:
Steve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4"90-100 1/2" 75-90 3/8" ,_66 81
- 200 12-20
)
Contrary to the above, User's Test Report No. 0836 hgd 11% passing the #200 sieve and it was accepted.
Recommended Corrective Action:
~;EEP Parc A & B
- 1. Present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering so Project Engineering can determine what additional tests, reviews, etc. are needed to justify the material these tests represent. Have Project Engineering determine the accept-ability of the material these f ailing tests represent.
- 2. Determine the underlying cause(s) for these discrepancies and take corrective action to preclude repetition in other areas.
Part C
- 1. . An evaluation of this material is not needed because the acceptance criteria as given on QCIR No. R-1.00-1836 was 12-20% passing the No. 200 sieve. It should have been 7-20%, therefore, the test result of 11% is passing.
- 2. Determine the underlying cause(s) for QC not rejecting the Zone 4A Fine Back-fill per the QCIR No. R-1.00-1836 acceptance criteria of 12-20% passing the No. 200 sieve. Review the interface between the material receiving QCE's and the test lab QCE's to determine if there is a breakdown in com=unicating the inspection criteria for materials being received. Take corrective action to preclude repetition.
= j.
55E.
i iis7 i
Page 3 of 4 l .,- ...- , .- , .-. .-
j ggg - File 10.J.4 6 lo.J.O
.f Issue acs Novembsr 22,~1977 -
- Projcet budiend 1 & 2
/.j/'
.=_ File Title NCR's on Bechtel
-~-- '
Construction and Quality' Control R5=
~
Attachment to NCR 'No QF-203 )
)
-1 Corrective Action Taken:
Part A & B 1
1
- 1. NCR-1094 was written to identify the nonconforming material in Part A. Project l Engineering dispositioned this material "Use-As-Is". NCR-1055 was written to j identify the nonconforming caterial in Part B. Field Engineering has disposi-tiened this' caterial " Reject For Q-Use". This material was only used in Non-Q Areas.
- 2. ,Iha dr.de dying cause of tbae- ::.di:ir-- uns imoroper review of the test'rean-**
~
by Quality Control._' To prevent this condition from recurring, a training session
~was held witn cognizant individuals in attendance.
Part C
- 1. Based on response given in Part A of. letter 0-1621 from J. Newgen to G. Richardson, it was necessary for Field Engineering to justify the more stringent requirements and the. use of this material when it did not. meet these requirements. The
- M!:. ' justification was given by Field Engineering.
~$7 2. The underlying cause of this condition was that the Civil QC Engineer identified the different gradation requirements on the QCIR and failed to bring it to the attention of the QC Receiving Engineer. To preclude repetition, the cognizant QC engineers in both disciplines were reminded that close interfacing is a necessity.
==
EE55
- 7--
Page 4 of 4
6 0
.=_ 00NsVMER3 POWER COMPANY 8echtel Power Corporation b D E 3['$ [ '
c i Post Office Box 2167 '
_ FE81 1978 ._d uieano, u;enis.n 4884o W
~ FlELD QUAUTY ASSURANCc l MIDLAND, MICHIGAN January 31, '978 Consumers Power Company P. O. Box 1963 .. . ;
- \
Midland, MI 48640 ipg Attention: J . L . Corl ey [
Job 7220 Midland Project CPCo NCR QF-203 Final if
{,, .9, ./
GLR-01 040
Dear Mr. Corley:
Ref: 1) Letter J. Corley to G. Richardson, 216FQA77, dated 12/23/77
. The following is in response to the above subject nonconformance
"@E. report which identified problems on user tests for backfill material .
=~ For the material identified in Part A of the subject finding, NCR-1094 l
was written. This NCR has been dispositioned by Project Engineering as Use-As-Is, and is now closed. ,
For the material identified in Part B of the subject finding, NCR-1055 was written. This NCR is closed as previously addressed in letter GLR-01 001.
For the material identified in Part C of the subject finding the field has provided justification as to why FMRs had stricter requirements than those given by Project Engineering. In letter lC21, dated 1/17/78 Field Engireering stated in part: 0-/g5/ p g g The reason for specifying a 12-20% range of aggregate passing through a !200 sieve, when Specification C-210, Rev. 5 and Owg. C-130, Rev. 6 allowed a range of 7-20%, was strictly for commercial reasons. The vendor said he had a supply of "12-20%
material". When this material actually turned out to be 11%, it was still acceptable for use in accordance with our specification and drawing.
This concludes our action on the subject nonconformance report. Should you desire additional information, do not hesitate to bring it to my l -= attention.
_..Z[ Very truly yours ,
.[
G. L. Richardson LEAD QUALITY ASSURANCE ENGINEER GLR /JGH/sw
" . U e -
~
". Sechtel Power Corpcration
- =~ . .
Interoffice Memoranddm
" r m-G. L. Richardson .
.....: Ocb 7220 Midland Project 3., January 17, 1973 Y:R ?rapr. ration 0-l 63l , y,n d. F. i'aw ;en s
Construction -
c-
,...- Midland, MI -
c::..m -
, , j. ,, -
.. y. .
- F.c'f erences : 1) Ltr. Poichardson to ilewgen, GLR-12 77'-532, dated 12-23-77 (I 8840) 2). Ltr. Ccriey to Richardson, 216FQA77, dated 12-23-77,
~
This memo is in response to referenca 1 and is nu.: bared similarly.
. = -
z.m_.. 1. -Cur reason for specifying a 12-205 range of aggreget9 passing thecugh a nuinbar 200 sicyo, when Specification C-?.l0, P,ev. 5 clic !ad a, ian:;a
. of 7-?.0.5, was strictly for comercia.1 -reasons. The vendor,ccid he had I a supply. of "12-203 caterial". When this material actually t.:rnd cut to be 11,4,. it was still acceptable for use in acccedance with cur 3paci fication. The only. "crror" was in dispositioning ?!C?, QF-203 by revising the FM?., rathur. than noting to "use as . is".
- 2. The'intant of cur previcus response to blank signatura block: en F:R's CY-3171, p.w's 1 ? 2, was to poi.it out the following:
.n. F.0Visicns ~to ??R's for cc n:vrcial purposes de not fr.il under tha Q.2. prograin.
- b. Paragraph 2.10.2 of the IJI-1, P.ev. I limits the r.acessity cf the approval prac ss of FM?, revisions to these which address spicification changes.
- c. Cccercial changes to FM.i's are not. governed by F7G-3.CCO.
es e+ee4=
B SWha= 9 ee998@
- emeam gs eemme.
es g.g .
.e , y -,.w- .,--,c -,--y,c-wm** r r w- --- =- **-ae-*
- et-.+ -e .-www- + +e .*e e. -w~-e ++-warr,--*+=--ww-wee-.-----
-. . 7* ,
, FiQ,Proparation 88Cntel Power Corpora! ion
. a- m al . .
ikg 2 2 -
==- .
- 3. !:a disagree that a generic probica: currently exists in the apprsr.ini cowPleteness of FHR's. The PFE and APFE's have indicated the fr.muanc~v of dignatura c. mission is naciegible on "Q" FMR's. Thosewhichh.:de lacked signatures were returned when discovered.
- 4. The PFE and. APFE's have int.7nsified their survdillence of "Q" l':a's to assure the requironents of FPG-8.000 cre impleniented.
0,44 $
. .,. 't .'l- e';
.> g,. : ; o,
.,- '* ; /t.' .7. . s.
. d:,< GM!cwc)en
. . ... / '
/ *
. JF;YLFS/re y
.g.'" '
I f
, e. .
- i. , s . -
. . , , i f
- e e O
e
- *eese a u a e
- se - - . ,
e .
) ,
e m_S, S g e
9 e
6 6
4 4
e
,.9.4b.em..
e
,-.w... , _ - - , , . . _,,_,.,-,,_,,.,,,,..ry, . - - , ,m.,4.v..,,c,,,,,, y,%,_,.%w..,,,., ,w,,,- , . , ,,,-_,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,....w. -, ,.w-y-- . , . 2-y-.,.,.,y.-u_,v4-,,m.
o
(
. Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation m East Egenhower Parkway Ana Arbor. Mech gan Attachment 3 u,,use,si P O 0o: 1000. Ann A' Dor. %chigan 431t' 1 MEETING NOTES NO.,882 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 CONSUMERS PO'n'ER COMPANY I
BECHTEL JOB 7220 )
DATE: Tuesday, November 7, l'978 PLACE: Cha:npaign, Illinois
SUBJECT:
Settlement of the Midland Diesel Generator Building FILE: 0279, C-280, C-2640, C-2645 ATTENDEES: CONSULTANTS CPCo BECHTEL J. Dunnicliff T.C. Cooke S. Afifi
.Dr. A. Hendron, Jr. C.A. Hunt q. Betts Dr. R. Peck D.E. Horn S. Blue R.M. Wheeler W.R. Ferris D.E. Sibbald Y.K. Lim A. Marshall
- P.A. Martiner B.C. McConnel M.O. Rothwell N.W. Swanberg PURPOSE: To obtain formal recon endations from the consultants.
ITEMS DISCUSSED:
- 1. Background Information Bechtel presented settlement data for the diesel generator building.
The data indicated no si Cnificant change in the previous trends except for the eastern most diesel generator pedestal which experienced significant additional settlements during the past month of (approx-imately 1 inch at the N-W corner, 3/4 inch at the N-E corner and
.0.4.iInches at the other two corners). It was noccd that the soil cust pit uns dug in L-his bay and some of the differential settlement could be attributed to the pit. 'Ihe remaining boring data was consistent with previous boring information. The possible corrective actions previously discussed were reiterated:
- a. No corrective action taken except grouting under footings.
- b. Modify the present strip foundations for the walls to a continuous mat foundation for the entire building.
a'
- n ....e ...., .. . , ]
Pago 2
- c. Preload and consolidats cho soil under the building. l
- d. A conbination of Items b and c above.
- e. l Underpin.the building to transmit loads directly to the undis-turbed soil layer.
- f. Remove and replace fill.-
- 2. Recommentations I i
I Soil boring data s,ubstantiated the jobsite observations by Dr. Peck that the fill is settling under its own weight. There are only twe ]
suitable options to correct the situation: ^
- a. Rem'ove fill and replace with denser material.
- b. Densify exi, sting material in place.
Therefore, the preload option is suggested to consolidate the material'in p] ace. The soil data indicate a nonhomogenous fill.
'Therefore exact amount of preload and the consolidation duration cannot be estimated from the laboratory tests. To predict the i amount and duration of the preload, instrumentation of the soil i movement is needed.
It was indicated that a 5-month period is available in the schedule !
for preloading. Dr. Peck stated that itislikely\that the settlement will occur rapidly once the preload.is placed, but that the additional settlement could not be predicted with any accuracy at.this time.
A range of 6 to 18 inches was considered to be quite pessimistic. -l Dr. Peck recom. mended proceeding with the insturcentation and preload as rapidly as possible.
- 3. Other Options The other options were briefly discussed. Options a and b would not stop the differential settlement and there would still be l settlement of the underground utilities. The effects of the settictent may show up after several years, causing problems during plant ,
operation. Underpinning (Option e) woult' ,nly be necessary in case of structural. distress after the preload had been completed.
Underpinning prior to preload would not help the settlement of the soil under its own weight. It was not felt to be an adequate solution.
- 4. Fond Fill i Tbc consultants suCgested that the best sequence would be to place the preload and then raise quickly the cooling pond water level to '
its operating level. This sequence would allow the consolidation to occur as rapidly ac possibic. Otherwise, the additional vater entering the soil voids will have to be forced back out, extending the consolidation duration. However, after further discussion it was agreed to by the consultants to prneced with filling of the pond immediate3y, because the amount of river water available for filling is restricted.
Masting Notas No. 882
' ~
Pego 3
- 5. Bsaring Capacity The consensus was that there is no bearing capacity probicm, static or dynamic. However, if justification, in addition to the monitoring data during preload, is required by the NRC, test pits may be dug
- to determine actual bearing capacity. Additional samples from
.bo' rings af ter the preload are not recommended.
- 6. Suggested Activities .
The. highest priority is to install the soil monitoring devices.
The soil anchors at several depths should go in first starting with
,-- the SE corner of the building and then the piez'ometers could be placed. 'The duct banks which appear to be restraining the building settlement should be isolated f rom the building as necessary. The building construction should continue, thereby providing more weight on the foundations. Any gaps betwee t the footing and the mud cat would require grouting. The grouting would not be nec'ssary
^
e
' prior to preload. It was pointed out that from a sofaty and a'
' building . distress point of view, it would be advisable to grout j
existing gaps. prior to releasing duct banks. It was also suggested . ;
that t.hc mud est be broken up prior to preload. ,
- 7. Preload Details The preload height should be about 20'-0", approximately equal to the' depth of the material to be consolidated. Physical limits restrict the proload depth to approximately 23 f act. The preload rate is not critical and even distribution would be adequate. The preload should be stopped at 10 feet for about a week to watch the monitoring, and then increased to 15 and 20 feet as necessary. It was suggested that a 20-foot berm with a 30 dagree slope be used aroung the bulding where possible. Frost protection for the area to be preloaded was considered appropriate if required by weather conditions. ,
- 8. Possible Cause ;
Consumer's asked the consultants for the cause of the excessive uttlement. Dr. Hendron stated that there were in addition to nonuniform fill, erratic properties which may have been caused by I too much variation in lift thicknesses. Dr. Peck said that'the !
. exact answer may be extremely difficult to determine. He added that material placo'd dry of optimum would later, with the presence of moisture, tend to soften the materials. He also added that refilling of excasatione from existin; fills tends to be less adequate than thc: original fill. - He said large areas to be compacted are better than small arcas and gave the example of the dike versus
~
the Diesel Concrator foundation area.
Page 4
- 9. C oling Pond Dike The op' inion of the consultants was that it is not necessary to perform barings in the cooling pond dike. There is a possibility of hydraulic fracture. The monitoring information from the dike has -
shown no reason for concern. There has been no significant settlement since the 1-1/2-inch settlement in the southeast corner observed in ea'rly 1978. This is the best evidence that the dike is performing satisfactorily. There also has been a detailed visual inspection made on the dikes wh'ich indicates no evidence of problems.
- 10. Liquefaction , ,
There are nome sand materials under the north side of the diesel generator building.- The bori'ng blow counts in so=e isolated zones
! . indicate that the potential for liquef action would have to be
! evaluated. Vibrofloatation is a possible solution for liquefaction problems if they exist. ,
4
- 11. Proposed Instrumentation The proposed instrumentat' ion to be used to monitor the structure, soil, and utilities was discussed. The structure, including the ,
generator pedestals, would be nonitored by survey. Areas covered bypreloadwouldhaverodsencasedbysleevese'xtend\ngtoavisible '
point. Four of the existing cracks in the concrete structure will be monitored by electronic strain gages. The existing fill will be monitored by 50 borros anchors. The anchors will be placed at three levels within the fill'. There'will also be some anchors placed outside of the preloaded area as setti.ement control. ,The .
borres anchors should be initially monitored on a daily basis.
Settlement pl.atforms will be 'used through the , ceload to monitor the top'of ground. The pore water pressure will be monitored by 20 piezopeter at approximately the same three levels, except that the sand'ic ngth is to be shortened to approximately 2 f eet.
The utilities under the structure (condensate and service water pipes) would be monitored by drag through settlement devices. The
~
accuracy of data is anticipated to be i 1/4 inch and a series of readings would have to be made to develop a base If ne. 2nclinometers were proposed to monitor the lateral movement of soil and utilities
, but the soil consultants felt that they were not needed. .
- 12. . Slab at ti evation 634'-0" l
l The consultant sudgestedthatgratingbeusedinsidethebuilding instead of the compacted fill and slab to eliminate material placed above the foundation. The feasibility was to be investigated by Bechtel. .
6 1
4 r , e. , . . -e. ,-. , ,- a- ---
Heating Notes No. 8! '
Page 5 ,
- 13. Other Structures .
The other structures founded on plant fill will be discussed following .
the December 4, 1978, meeting with the NRC. '
- 14. Contact with Nnc -
^
A call v'sa pieced to Mr. Hood and Mr. Heller of the tiRC by Mr. ,
Cooks of CPCc; Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron, soils consultants; and Mr.
Terris of Bechtel informing them of our progress and to set up a jobsite visit on December 3,1978, with a discussion the following day..
ACTION ITEMS: .
Bechtel 1. Proceed with preparations for preload as rapidly as possible.
Bechtel 2. Evaluate the feasibility of using a grating floor at el'eva tion 634 '-0". .
Pechtel 3. Evaluate the potential for liquefaction. This item was resolved with the consultants at the Nove ber 18, 1978, meeting held in Urbana, Illinois. -
B.C. McConnel "2 -
7 *8 ~
9 i
4 .
l .
l 1
l
. - -- -- . . - . . . - . . .~
.. n I Attachment 4
/* k. ~
- ^ . UNITED sTA TES s ,
5W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 g
- l. *
. J wasmoros. o c. :osss
%, / 3yn a r. W l
...a
~ ,
Docket Nos.:= 50-329/330 Mr. J. W. Cook ?
Vice President Consumers Power Company .
.1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR A00!TIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PLANT FILL
.We have reYiewed your responses to our requests of Novembe- 19, 1979 regarding the quality of plant fill, effects and remedia ctions result- -
.ing therefrom. Our review is being performed with the assistance of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. We and they find that the results of
'( additional explorations and laboratory testing identified in Enclosure 1 (Request 37) are needed to. support required geotechnical engineering studies. Detail.s on the' extent of these studies will. be provided shortly by separate correspondence. Enclosure 1 is provided in order that you may initiate planning of the required explorations in a timely manner. How-ever we suggest you await receipt of these further details prior to physically beginning the explorations. Enclosure 1 (Footnote 4 of Table 37-1) also includes requests for advanced notification of' the availability of certain samples.
As noted in our Request 37 of Enclosure 1, your position in previous responses to Requests 5 and 35 not to complete additional explorations, sampling.and laboratory testing after preloading continues to be unaccept-able to us. So that you might better understand our position, we offer the following observations:
(1) The preload program as completed on the heterogereous materials which.were placed for the purpose of structural fill is not necessarily an improvement, nor does it necessaril.y produce founda-tion ' soils of more unifonn engineering properties, compared to the sofi performance which would have resulted if the material had been l . properly compacted to the original requirements established in the Midland PSAR. .
(2) To develop reasonable assurance of plant safety, the required studies L are needed to serve as an independent verification of the predictions I ( of future settlements and the conclusions of the preload program.
]
l
%% DF T5007ITD0%I
.o
~
Mr. J. W. Cook -
2- JUN 3 01930
(
(3) The required studies will permit an estimate of total and differential
- settlement for involved structures and systems following drawdown "with the proposed permanent dewate' ring system.
(4) Certain aspects of the preload program, such as the complication introduced by the simultaneous raising of the cooling pond reservoir, present difficulties in our full acceptance of your conclusion of the preload program.
Enclosure 1 also includes other requests for information which we and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers need to continue our review.
We would appreciate your response to Enclosure 1 at your earliest opportunity.
A partial reply based upon data already available should be submitted rather than to await the results of new' borings and tests contained in parts of Enclosure 1. Should you require clarifications of these requests and positions, please contact us.
Sincerely,?
. , l'eff/NG A. $chwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page f #
r l
, . , . - - . . - , , , , , . , . . . . , , , , - - _ , , . . . , . . - -yy ,_ -, , _ _- , , _ , - - . . .,.3.- --- my .r. ,.
+
D cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. .
Isham, Lincoln & Beale
. Suite 4200 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Judd L. Bacon,'Esq.
Managing Attorney .
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan- 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201~
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive .
Midland, Mich.igan 48640
( Frank J. Kelley, Esq.
Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Grant J. Merritt, Esq.
Thompson, Nielsen,-Klaverkamp & James 4444 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 l
. ~ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ . _ _ _ . . . , , .. . , _ . _ , . _ . . . - , - , _ _ , . _ . , . . . , . . . . . .
l
. y
. 3.-
( .
cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN: P. C. Huang G-402 White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager .
Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center .
P. 0. Box 1449 Canoga, Park, California 91304 Mr. William Lawhead U. S. Corpsoof Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 4
P O
e 0
t .
O rm ~ enwe.+--w--, , , -- - -- , me r r w w -,--a w ,wn w-+-- ,e--, *" -w - r a ,e - ev w
. x Enclosure 1
(- ADDITIONAL REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL d
- 36. We have reviewed your response to Request 24 and find that
. information from additional boring logs is needed.
. Provide the boring logs for the following explorations:
- a. Pull down holes PD-1 thru PD-27 (35 holes that include 8A, 20A, 208, 20C, 15A, 158, 15C and 27A)
- b. LOW-1 thru LOW-14 (14 holes)
- c. TW-1 thru TW-5 and PZ-1 thru PZ-48 (55 holes)
- d. 0W-1 thru OW-5 (5 holes).
- e. TEW-1 thru TEW-8 (8 holes)
The logs should include date and method of drilling, the type and location of samples attempted. Also provide the locations, boring logs and available test data of any exploration completed in 1979 and 1980 which has not yet been submitted.
- 37. Your position in previous responses to Requests 5 and 35 not to (RSP) complete additional explorations, sampling and laboratory testing following the preload program continues to be unacceptable. We require that you complete as a minimum, the exploration and test-ing program indicated by Table 37-1.
( 38. Discuss the foundation design for any seismic safety-related piping and conduit connected to or located under the Radwaste Building and
! Turbine Building where piping and conduit have been placed on plant fill. ,
I r
l h
^
Page 1 of 2 ^
1 Table 37 ', V Request for Additional Explorations, sampling and Testing ~
Location M Depth 2/ Sepjgng M Lab Testing N Anticipated Geotechnical 6/
Engineering Studies to be Required Classify samples for cohesive soils Bearing Capacity I Diesel Generator }Thrufillanda according to Settlement
, Building iminimum of 5' C-D.(ConsoTidated-Drained)
(6 holes along . into natural Unified Soils . C-U (Consolidated-Undrained) . Piping Distortion
- perimeter) glacial t111 soils Classification Consolidation S/ i System i j ; For sands j
Drained Direct Shear on
, both loose' & dense spect- ;
mens 1
I l l Relative Density l
$ i !
Auxiliary Building Same as above Same as above Same as above except Caisson Foundation
! (2 holes) add U-U (Unconsolidated- Design (Vertical and 1 i Undrained for cohesive Lateral Load Support) soils 4
i Service Water Pump i
! (1 holeh Same as above Same as above Same as above except con- Pile Foundation Design l solidation testing would
! StructureAand Re- I . (Vertical and Lateral Load toining Walls (2 holes) l be limited to samples in Support) retaining wall foundations. ' Retaining Wall stability &
l . Settlement.
Cooling Pond Eni- Extend thru fill For cohesive sofis ;
- bankments and a minimum of Same as above l (7 holes along S' into natural C-D (Consolidated-Drained) Slope Stability l perimeter) residual soils ex- C-U (Consolidated-Undrained) Fill cunpaction adequacy
- cept hole no. S U-U (Unconsolidated-Undrained) which should extend
! to bottnm elevation l of cooling pond.
' N01ES: See page 2
l Page 2 of 2 Table 37-1 (continued)
- NOTES:
1/ See attached Figs. 37-1 and 37-2 for approximate boring location. Holes.to be accurately located in the field to avoid obstructions, underground piping and conduits and slurry trench area.
y No boring is to be terminated in loose or soft soils.
y Contihuous split spoon sampling using SPT is required. Holes are to be held open using either casing or hollow stem auger. Additional borings to obtain representative undisturbed samples for detailed laboratory testing should be located at the completion and elevation of the split spoon sampling progra:n. The groundwater level should be recorded at.the completion of drilling in all borings once the level has stabilized.
,4f Nonnal classification (e.g., gradation, Atterberg Limits) unit weight and moisture content testing to be perfonned on representative samples from each significant foundation layer. This column pertains to lab testing in addition to the above mentioned tests. It is requested
- that at least one week notice be provided to the NRC before opening undisturbed samples to permit on site visual observation by Corps
., of Engineer representative.
(
5/ The naximum load should be great enough to establish the straight-line portion of the void ratio-pressure curve.
6/ Details on the extent of geotechnical engineering studies to be completed using the results of field and lab testing work will be provided in a separate letter, i
i 1
1 l
1 l
I e ,- .--e-- .,wa y e . --n-+ ,- - - + .--a , -- , - , . . , - . , -g - , - , - - - - e , + , . , , - ~, %
g g a g g s I ! 2 m
- . ! ! : : !.,. s : a
, , ,, g
- s l
p
.e.
m
(" -
,'m., + N ,.
m,1 _
- , m , ,y ;
- UJ / /
j i
O' /U /,/ ,
a2: + {fo ,/ _ /' -
f ;
..2
_. 0 _ .. , ;
- - --- n (BEEil) ,-
=,e
- - - + e ,_ a V r i !.
. ,3
/ b\ , -
J l
//
l Oh'P'C it I -
.+ 1Mo1 t
o m,
'. / 1 0
' 8
- ll m: +)@N I + k !. : ... . ,
.'d evW . I pkfI
. s l, ,
yl l.
to6 - 1 i m
' * +$ + {+ + + 'm
,rL 4 + g : ..
l l
+l.- !
1 i
s i a ""
J ,,,G w
r + + ;
-, g - .
{4 I k
n
+
l
'l .,i :-.
l I
N h _..__,e_ - Mp
[ "" i
.(sx j ..O tj;O i__
3 r
i a
E A
I A'
- 1. E s : . : }4l : ! sl 3 6
l
l ,e ... _
. , . . . ,3
~p WATER tTMENT
..e : T h.<MAREA e . -.. ) COOLING TOWER g f v'..._ a h _"*J 8 g.
(7
.. . -((.)f.-Q . ..(
- ~
) ..
+ ' '*- ***
- " " OtLY WASTE STORAGE ttYOROGEN
.... R ADWA$ 7E BLOG g ..- a .m AND TREATMEf4T TANKS
.. I ~ ~ ..
. . . , .: .:c.
..e AUXtLIARY ButLOING ***
5A PL OC A R e'dga e 8.. ...
m ~.. .%,ms g irUTURo x /- N . . .
' ~f UNt1 i UNa t 2 CONTAINLtENT ..s CO!JTAINfACNT) \
CAE 9-m44 . . .. .
i
. .. - J.
m ....
.4
.ycogus u ......
.j.... COE 1b 2,N ANo ERv,cE
~* .... , , . .:
- DtNG
. TUR8e4E ButLOeNG
" ,05 ...
V
- toeg C.0E9 CC E\O
. ,.. 'y ( -
f A 4l
, ... n. , .e.e.. . ....
5._..
. . l i i) I n I a L ?,'. e." ) ."L: t . g ..:~" Wj. .Qin + '"
..-...-.....,l, r r y "q r f" . ' , ' . . .
r Co E I5
- " "* "' \
I A MSEL .en-a SERVICE WATER
.~ .,
" A ":-* .M NERATOR *. . PUMP STRUCTURE t"GUARO HOOSE Coeti n "
m.d'
+ . s =ce CHLOR.
4 CC El 'i?.. ouitOiNG i
c o -. . h, CIRCUL ATING i
. OE R
- CONOENSATE STennGE -
.""' e WATER INTAKE TANK $ - .e.:
> f * -* C STRUCTURE
..... j..MC A'.,'$':
D d' M u ~O l4
.4....,,c- .-n% p/ ,
e-a . -e COOLING POND DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL
. Ott STORAGE TANKS figure .37-2 4 I I I I I l. I Ill l ITN - i
(
3 (
Attachment
/pe('o UNITED STATES 5
[ h , , q , ' ,.} . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555
%/ . t
.;o, .'If T jii /!
s, . - f .
Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 APPLICANT: Consumers Power Company
~
FACILITY: Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JULY 18, 1979 MEETING ON SOIL DEFICIENCIES AT THE M10 LAND PLANT SITE On July 18, 1979, the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland with Consumers Power Company and the Bechtel Corporation to discuss deficiencies in the fill used at the site .for Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2. Also present were
. representatives' of the ACRS staff. Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.
In response to NRC requests, the applicant has documented in detail the presentations given during this meeting. The presentations are contained in S. H. Howell's letter to J. G. Keppler dated August 10, 1979. In view of the August 10,1979 letter, no summary of the presentations is contained herein. Rather, additional discussion consisting of coar.ents and questions given during and following the presentations are summarized.
During the presentation regarding remedial work in progress or planned (item 3 of the presentations), the staff noted that underground piping from the berated water storage tanks and service water lines pass under railroad tracks, and that these and other piping are subject to leads due to construction cranes and other traffic. The staff requested the .
applicant to describe the design features and other measures which assure that'such piping is not subjected to excessive loads. The applicant will respond at a later date. .
The applicant ncted that it is performing laboratory investigations of the stainless steel piping removed from the condensate storage tank.
This underground piping was found to be heavily corroded. It was notri that the injection piping from BWST is of the same composition and is also unprotected from electro-chemical attack. The test-pits in the tank farm area which are being dug to investigate the effect of the air discharged from underground pneumatic lines was also described.
Results will be reported < shortly.
r 1
, 3dE OF l M/S/40/7S
~ .- . - . -
sf
'.. 1 I
Consumers Power Company - Cc~
" ' ' 61970' '
i.
The staff noted that the response to its 10.CFR 50.54 requests for acceptance criteria for remedial actions (e.g., questions 4, 6, etc.) had not resulted in identification of criteria in advance of the remedial action. Rather the
. reply notes that the criteif a will be determined during or after the remedial action. The staff stated that this approach by the applicant does not provide for timely staff feedback at the outset, but rather the staff must await
- results-of the program to determine what acceptance criteria were used and ,
if they. are acceptable. Thus, the remedial action is being conducted entirely at the applicant's own risk.
The applicant's presentation of the permanent site dewatering system (presen-tation item 3.8) noted that the system is not designed te seismic Category I riquirements, but that the monitoring aspects of the system are safety grade.. The NRC staff noted that acceptance criteria for the dewatering system are given in the' Standard Review plan (Section 2.4.13, Revision 1) and requestert that the applicant address Branch Technical Position HMS/GS31,
" Safety Related Permanent Oewatering Systems", Revision 1, attached thereto.
The applicant will respond in the near future. The quality assurance plan for implementing the dewatering system will also be provided in future reports.
Bechtel described the structural and seismic analytical investigations being t' performed or planned.for the affected structures (item 4 of the presentations).
The staff noted that further review of the acceleration (g) value used for site design has been impacted by staff manpower restructuring for the TMI-2 investigations fand that use of outside contractors for the Midland seismic review is presently being considered. The staff also noted that its present j review indicates. some areas of disagreement with the applicant's proposed t
loads ccabinations.and design criteria for SSE and differential settlement, and with the' treatment of cracks in structural walls. The staff will further
- l. document these and other positions at a later date.
l .
Bechtel reported (item 7 of the presentaticns) the results of its investi-gations into the cause of insufficient compaction of the plant area fill, and identified five causes considered to be the most probable. The applicant noted its agreement with the Sechtel findings. Bechtel noted that personnel were not included as a most probable cause because its review of qualifications and exper.ience of both Bechtel and US Testing personnel had shown presence of sufficient education, experience, and training to carry out the tasks assigned.
The NRC staff noted that it disagrees with Sechtel's finding that personnel !
qualification was not a probable cause, and stated that further review of the basis for this Bechtel finding will be needed.
l Staff coments regarding the QA/QC aspects (preMncation item 3) were based upon the. applicant's 10 CFR 50.54(f) responses to quest,1cn 1 by letter of April 24, 1979: '
i l'
._ . . _ , _ . ~ , _ _ . . . _ _ , _ _ . , , , . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ .
. _ ~ _ -
~-
. 1, ( (
Consumers Power Company E 10 E (1) The applicant's response in item 3.1 of Appendix I (page I-3) states its conclusien that '" Specifications C-210 and C-211 provide sufficient criteria by which to ensure that the fill is adequately placed to prevent excessive settlement." The staff noted its disagreement with this statement. The staff noted, for example, that its IAE investigations show that the specifications did not require qualification of equipment used to compact material, the lift thicknesses permitted were excessive for adequate compaction, the moisture control was unclear and the compactive effort to develop 95% of compaction was internally in conflict within Specification C-210.
(2) The applicant's response in item B.2 of Appendix I (page I-3) noted that letters, TWX's,-telecons,.and memoranda are often used to clarify the intent of the specifications, and that "it is possible" that in some situations the clarification provided through such methods may have modified the specification withcut formally changing the wording of the specifications. The staff corrtented that a more positive statement appears to be warranted basad apen the findings of I3E. Numerous examples where telecons and memoranda were used to change the requirements of the speci-fications without revising the controlled document itself was ,
cited in I&E Inspection Report No. 50-329/78-20 and 50-330/78-20.
I&E found that not only did these memoranda change the require-ments of,the specifications, but in some instances, conflicted' :
with previous engineering ' directives.
- (3) The staff noted that its . review of QA aspects was continuing and that funther requests for information would be issued.
1 L At the conclusion of the presentations, the NRC staff noted that the information presented was significant to the present review, and requested i
that' the applicant (ocument and submit its presentations, including copies of the viewgraph slides used. .
~
t ms.l.j' , . h-
, , g -
Darl Hood, pr7o ect Manager
. Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
- As stated cc: See next page ,
a e
- ..>c , e.,~~ .
- -.- , 9 %g.,- w-- p -r+=' -=eme *+c -ircg-- =**en a=+ e-3 'ai -g - - - - * = * --e -e. w - +-+-w
ll 4**. 8% ,
~h .
,f.. .
INCLOSURE 1 ATTENDEES -
July 18,1979 Consumers Power Comcany Bechtel*
G. S. Keeley
- T. E. Johnson (BPC)
D. E. Horn P. A. Martinez (BPC) i T. Thiruveneadam K.Wiedner(BPC)
- T. C. Cooke D. Riat (AA) .
l W. R. Ferris (SF) l H. Wahl (AA)
NRC:NRR A.B. Arnold (SF) -
B. Dhar (AA)
D. S. Hood F. J. Hsiu (AA)
D. M. Gillen S. S. Afifi (AA)
R. E. Lipinski G. Richardson (BPC)
J. Gilray A.-J. Boos (BPC)
F. Schauer J. R. Davie (G)
L. Heller L. S. Rubenstein Bechtel Consultants NRC:0 ELD R. B. Peck R. Loughney .
R. Hoefli.ng C. H. Gould
. NRC:!E .
! D. W. Hayes G. Gallagher J. B. Henderson 1
, ACRS -
D. Zuktr P. Tam -
- BPC = Bechtel Power Corporation l
AA = Ann Arbor, Michigan SF = 3an Francisco,. Calif.
l G= Gaithersburg,Hd. , ,
y S,.
~
l .
t t .
l
'.* l
~ '
l
. . . . . . 4.. w?g'l!
-y ,
F'
.- a To rite ; 1
?
e A Attachment 6 rnom TCCooke/RMWiml Consun18fs 04tc December 12, 1978. P0iVar kosecT MIDLAND PROJECT CWO 7020 - TRIP REPORT, CHAMPAIGN ILLINOIS - DIESEL GENERATOR SETTLEMENT g,,,, i File: B3.0.3 Serial: CSC-3674 co..cs,emoc=ce s
tt
^"## "** ^""" I CSKeeley Dehorn DBMiller The following represents a corrected set of CPCo notes from the November 7, 1978 meeting in Urbana, Illinois. The notes as written' reflect comments from Bechtel, and Serial 3593 is superceded by these notes. Please note same on Ser. 3593. 1 Neil Swanberg opened the meeting by stating that a call would have to be made to the NRC at 10:30. A discussion wocid proceed up to 10:30 and af ter the call to the NRC. Darl Hood would be contacted within the NRC. Darl would later contact Mr. Heller to try to get a meeting set up before Thanksgiving. Dr. Skip Hendron '
asked what the NRC has been told to date. A discussion bf Mr. Gene Callagher's visit was given. \
Chuck McConnell stated as of last Friday there have been no surprises and the trend is the same.on,,the settlements. The far east bay of the Diesel Generator Building where the test pit had been dug has indicated settlements of 1" for the northwest corner, 3/4" for the northeast corner, 4/10" for the sou'thwest and south-east corner of the pedestal during the last month. This area had received addit-l l ional loading. Neil Swanberg noted settlement appears to be decreasing, but a rate of settlement curve has not been drawn.
Austin Marshall presented ooring data to Dr. Peck.
- i j Chuck McConnell stated the correction action options considered.
l i
- 1. Use-as-is, with some grouting.
- 2. Continuous r:at foundation.
- 3. Preloading.
4, A combination of continuous mat and preloading.
- 5. Underpinning.
6: Remove aod replace fill.
Sherif Afifi stated that data had been made available to the consultants as it became available, summarized the conversations with the consultants since their field visits and stated that the consultants feel preloading is the most attractive l option.
l.
Discussion of preferred options followed. Dr. Peck opened by saying it is evident that the fill is loose. Settlement is due to its own weight. In Dr. Peck's opin- <
ion, there are only two options - preloading or remove and replace fill. Dr. Peck I felt we should get on with instrumentation and preloading. He stated we do not have adequate data with the boring program to determine the amount of preload and
- .- - . . . . - - . . ~ . . . . - - - .-
- T 21 c.
A m -
Pile: 53.0.31 Seriel: CSC-36 74 - '!
i r
.. the ' l eng th' of- preload. We should get data frem the preload, which will' provide a
. reliable estimate of.the time required for: preloading.
Dr. Hendron stated that. there was 'neither a homogeneous' engineered fill nor a uni f ormly compac't ed i fill . Chuck McConne11' asked why preload was more attractive than the others. Dr.. Peck stated'that the continuous mat foundation option would !
not stop'the. differential settlement and we would- still have settlement of duct .i banks.- Dr. Hendron' stated that five or ten years down the road construction would be of f J ehe' aite 'and the ' owner ~would have settlement problems. The consultants stated that preload should -(because'of the -type of material involved) provide us with rapid. and decisive answers as to the effectiveness of this action.: Stress ,
ma' y possibly be induced in the pipes below the building as a result of additional building settiement..
W Phi 14 Martinez' stated i that we'have five months ~in the schedule for preloading and asked if this.would be adequate time. 'Dr. Peck said that he 'did not know' at this
.(
time,' hobever, once preload did start we would know how long preload would be required.. -
t Also, he stated that settlement will occur fast after preloading has begun. The !
consultants..were also asked about bringing the pond up to elevation 627'. They -
stated that the preload'should be applied. prior to. filling the. pond to 627'. Due
' to .the- river water level restrictions, -it was determined g that there will be limit-ations.co pumping.so that pond fill should begin as soon as;possible. By not sat- ;
urating the soil,- the consolidation process would be accelerated due 'to the absence
~of' additional water'in the voids ,
, -- ~ I Neil Swanberg asked if construction could continue in the Diesel Cencrator Building,
~
j Dr. Hendron said he did 'not see any problem with continuing construction'and Dr .'
'. Peck agreed.- <
Dr..Hendron stated that ~ he was disappointed that Mr. Heller from the NRC and staf f had nut seen th'e test pits. Don Horn stated that C. Callagher from Region III, of ;
the NRC, hac taken pictures of the test pit located in:the Diesel Generator Building and separation of soil from'the footing.
Dr. Peck stated that underpinning may be required af ter, and only af ter, preloading.
Underpinning prior.to'preloading'was discussed. Dr. Peck seated'that preloading was t
necessary. Underpinning efforts should not commence until after preload because drag down loads would be applied to the piles during preload. Also, damage to the structure could occur during underpinning prior to preloading. Dr. Peck felt that
, preloading should'do the job.
Dr. Hendron added' that there was no bearing prob 1cm static or dynamic loaded. Bob Wheeler asked if bearing capa~ city justification would have to be given the NRC af ter preloading had occurred. The consultants felt justification would not be necessary, however, if' tests were required, test pits could be dug to determine the in situ bearing capacity of ' the soil. ' ;
Dr. Peck stated that if piling was to be used, in lieu of preload, there would
~
be less than 50% chance that this could be justified to the NRC and that he did .
not consider piling adequateLin his own mind. .
l
_ - , _ . , _ . _ . . _ . . . . . - , _ . _ , _ . _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . . . , - _ . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _
- .~
Page 3 ylle 1
File: E3.0.3 Serial: CSC-3674 I Dr. Hendron agreed that cutting the duct banks loose has to be done. Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron stated that settlement at various depths must be monitored be-neath and away f rom the structures. The high priority as they see it is instru-mentation and preload. Placement of p.iezometers can go in later.
Next.the height of the preload was discussed; Chuck McConnell stated that we have 23 feet to work with -because of the second floor of the Diesel Cenerator Building '
construction. The question of the rate of loading was asked. Dr. Peck stated that'any rate wculd be adequate but even distribution was necessary. Dr. Hendron stated that' preloading should be stopped at ten feet for about a week to monitor the effect of this preload. Discussions ensued and it was decided that fill would-i initially be placed 10' layer and a maximum of 20' with observations made during the placement. The consultants emphasized that it is very important to load the area between the north side of the Diesel Generator Building and the Turbine Buildir in order ~to effectively preload the area. Bechtel noted that further analysis and possible bracing of the Turbine Building wall will be required to support the addit-ional surcharge between the buildings.
Tom Cooke asked what additional settlement we could expect based on this preload.
Dr. Peck . stated 6-18" additional settlement with the 18" being very pessimistic.
Dr. Peck also stated that the height of the preload should be equal to the depth of the material to be consolidated and this would be approximately 20 feet. If excessive settlement is-observed, the bulk of the problem should be resolved.
The question of grouti,ng the gaps between the footing and the soil was discussed.
Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron did not feel the grouting of the gap between the footing and soil was necessary prior to preload. However, discussion cont'inued and it wa's concluded that'Bechtel would grout any gaps between the footing and soil af ter the preload had been removed. It was suggested by the consultants that 'the ciud mat be broken up prior to preload application and that early grouting may also be bene-ficial in relieving some building stress.
Tom Cooke asked the consultants for the cause of the excer.sive settlement. Dr.
Peck stated that there were in addition to non-uniform fill, erratic properties which may have been caused by too much variation in lift thicknesses. Dr. Peck added that material placed dry of optimum would later, with the presence of moisture tend to soften the materials. He,also added that refilling of excavations from existing fills tends to be less adequate than the original fill. Large areas to be compacted are better than small areas. An example of the dike versus the Diesel Cenerator foundation area was given. The exact answer may be extremely difficult to determine. He stated that the exact cause may never be fully determined.
Next a discussion of Ihe cooling pond dikes took place. The question of drilling holes in the dike was discussed. Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron stated that they did not feel that this was necessary. The dike b:s not indicated any problems. Jim Betts mentioned.that a settlement of 1 and 1/4" had been taken on a portion of the dike, however, this has not changed since that time and there is a possibility of this being an error in survey. No other areas have indicated settlement in the l cooling pond dikes. Also, Sherif Afifi has stated that visual inspections have I been made of the dike system and no problems seem to exist. The meeting adjourned 1
1
- - _ . - _- ._ . -_- _ . _ _ . . . - _. -. . - ~ _ . _ . - __
rsse w- e : +- Tile: ' B3. 0. 3 Sarial: CSC-3674 L
at(10:3b so .that Tom Cooke, Dr. Peck, Dr. Hendron, and k' alter Ferris could contact the NRC.: Darl Hood 'and Mr. Heller were' both contacted in' the same -
call. . A meeting at .the site is centatively scheduled for December 3 and 4 with:the NRC and consultants. A visit to the site would be made by the NRC on. December 3 and discussions.would follow on December 4 with the consultants. ,
ThelNRC did not seem to want to make two trips to the site; they felt one should '
, be adequate. ,
The meeting' continued with Chris Lin stating he had plots of blow counts on sand materials under the Diesel Cenerator Beilding north. The. plots indicated that some of the material may be questionable due to potential liquefaction of the-
' material. Dr. Peck looked at the plots and stated that this problem would have to'be evaluated. He stated that if there was a problem that vibroflotation could possibly be used.
John'Dunnicliff, the Instrumentation Consultant, described the-instrumentation '
that was proposed for use in the settlement evaluation. Five rods would be placed
~
on the Diesel Generator pedestals, one in each corner and one in the middle. Also, .'
, riser pipes would be placed on the outside of these rods to keep soil from affecting the. rods. - Fifty borros anchors would be placed at three different elevations to monitor soil movement. Settlement platforms would also be placed in the fill at three different elevations. Drag through settlement cages with accuracy approx-imately + 1/4" would be used to monitor pipe settlement.\ An average of the readings would be made to establish a baseline. Inclinometers were going to be installed.
Tour. electrical devices would be placed on the cracks to monitor movement. Tape l would be placed over.the cracks in the walls to keep material from moving-into L
-these areas. Dr. Peck and Dr. Hendron suggested that a 20' berm and 30 slope of.
preload be placed around the~ structure except for the north end where this would have to be modified due to the Turbine Building walls. Pore pressure monitoring would be done with 20 standpipe piezometers at three different elevations corres-ponding with the borros point anchors. It was mentioned that sand would be used as frost protection and Dr. Hendron stated that this was n good ides. Jim Detcr asked if a structural backfill was compacted inside the structure, could it remain The consultants suggested that material not be placed above the after preload.
. foundation and that grating be used in the place of soil and slab. Bechtel Engin-eering said that they would look into this. The question of how of ten readings be taken on the anchors was asked. Dr. Peck suggested that the readings be taken daily (initially).
Other areas of possible settlement would be discussed following the December 4 meeting with the NRC at the site. It was suggested that another meeting not be held until the December 4 meeting with the NRC and that a tentative date, January 16, 1978, meeting with the consultants would be adequate.
e 4
]- e*
. . -.--.,e . ,.~, _m._- ,_ - , , , _ , , . _ _ , . . _ . _ . . - . . , - . ~ . . . . . _ . _ _...._.- _.._ , _