ML20009D918

Testimony Re Stability of Dikes Adjacent to Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir,Per Stamiris Contention 4.B.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20009D918
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/23/1981
From:	Singh H ARMY, DEPT. OF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
To:
Shared Package
ML20009D903	List: ML20009D918
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8107240500
Download: ML20009D918 (10)

Text

,

s' o .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329-0M & OL 50-330-0M & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

TESTIMONY OF HARI HARAIN SINGH CONCERNING STABILITY OF THE DIKES ADJACENT TO THE EMERGENCY COOLING WATER RESERVOIR Q.1. Please state your name and position with the U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers.

A. My name is Hari N. Singh. I am a Civil Engineer in the Geotechnical Section of the Technical Branch, Engineering Division, Detroit District of the U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers.

4.2. How did the U.S. Arqy Corps of Engineers get involved in the l

review process of the Midland Plant, and what are the areas of its responsibilities?

A. Pursuant to an interagency agreement between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) which became effective in September 1979, the Corps undertook to provide technical assistance to the NRC. The Corps provides assistance on the geotechnical engineering aspects of the Midland Plant.

Q.3. Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?

A. Yes, a copy is attached.

l 8107240500 810723 l PDR ADOCK 05000329 T PDR

a 0

Q.4 Please state the nature of your responsibilities with respect to the llidland Plant.

A. liy involvert.cnt with the Midland Plant began in May 1980, when i I was assigned the responsibility as the Corp's lead reviewer for the geotechnical aspects of the plant. On 7 May 1980, I joined the Corp's team of engineers and geologists of the Geotechnical Section of the Detroit District, w* Nere engaged in reviewing the materials used in the foundation design of the plant. As the full-time lead reviewer, g responsibilities were to coordinate with all the reviewers, examine their comments, perfonn g own review, discuss coments with the Section Chief and prepare a final letter report to be trensmitted to the NRC. The structures being reviewed include the following: 1) Auxiliary Building, 2) Reactor Building Units 1 and 2, 3) Diesel Generator Building, 4) Borated Water Storage Tanks Units 1 & 2, 5) Service Water Pump Structure, 6) Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks, 7) Seismic Category I Piping and Conduits, 8) Retaining

~

Walls, and 9) the dikes adjacent to the Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir (ECWR).

l Q.5 What is the purpose of this testimony?

A. The purpose of this testimony is to evaluate whether the engineering properties of the fill materials used to construct the dikes adjacent to the ECWR meet or exceed the toil parameters assumed in design. The location of the dikes adjacent to the ECWR is identified in attachment 2 of the testimony of Mr.

I l

l

3-Joseph Kane. Mr. Kane's testimony responds to Ms. Stamirls' contention 4.B.

Q.6 Why is it necessary to reevaluate the engineering properties of the fill material used to construct these dikes?

A. In normal civil engineering practice of earth dam construction, field control tests (tests for index properties) and record sampling (tests for engineering properties) are performed to ensure that adequate engineering properties have been achieved in actual construction. The infurmation furnished in the Midland FSAR was not adequate, in iny opinion, to assure that the fill material placed in these dikes had achieved required engineering properties, particularly shear strength parameters, which were equal to or greater than those assumed in design.

Further, in recognition of the settlement problems in the plant fill, where the " compaction criteria used were identical to those governing the dike fill, it was essential to verify the engineering properties actually achieved for the dike fill.

l Q.7 What information did the Corps request for its review of the adequacy of the dikes?

A., By its letter reports of 7 July 1980 and of 16 April 1981. the Corps requested that the NRC obtain from the Applicant certain I

information needed to complete the evaluation of the stability of these dikes. In response, the NRC staff provided the Corps requests June 30, 1980 for information to the Applicant in letters dated l

• (request 37, attachment 2) and August 4,1980 (request 46, attachment 3) and a draft in a deposition on March 26,1981 with final copy dated April 16, 1981 at a May 5,1981 meeting (attachment 4).

Q.8 What information did the Corps use in evaluating the engineering properties of the fill material and the stability of these dikes?

A. The Corps based its evaluation of the fill materials used to construct these dikes and their evaluation of dike stability upon on information from many sources, including that contained in the FSAR, in Section 50.54(f) documents provided principally in response to the June 30, 1980 and the August 4, 1980 requests, and in the Applicant's final report received on July 17, 1981 which contained boring logs and test results on samples recovered in dike borings

-3, -4,-5, -6, and adjacent to the ECWR (i.e. borings no. COE-1, -2,

-7 as shown on attachment 5). The Corps also directly observed the drilling of borings and the taking of soil samples in the field.

i l

y.9 What are the results of the Corps' evaluation of the engineuring l

properties of the fill material placed in the dikes adjacent to the ECWR7 l

A. The Corps has concluded that:

'l. The shear strength parameters of fill materials actually placed in the dikes equals or exceeds those parameters used in design.

l I

l l

2. The soil explorations performed by Consumers Power Company (The Applicant) have revealed that the original foundation materials in some areas of these dikes are different from those considered in design. Boring flo. COE-7 has indicated a 40 feet layer of very dense fine sand below the dike fill where glacial fill had previously been indicated. The Applicant has performed standard penetration tests (SPT) on the sand layer and has furnished the SPT blowcount values in its final report. The Applicant has been requested to document that the shear strength parameters for the discovered fine sand layer equal or exceed the parameters previously used in the FSAR stability analysis.

This documentation is to include a discussion that provides an acceptable .

technical basis for concluding the dike is stable in the areas of the changed foundation conditions.

Samples of foundation glacial till materials obtained from borings COE-3 and -5 have been tested by the Applicant and the shear 1

However, strength test results exceed the original design parameters.

for proper docurentation, the Applicant should provide a discussion for its basis of selecting samples for testing and technical reasons why glacial fill samples from borings COE-2 and COE-4 are not required to be tested for shear strength parameters.

l 3. Because the Applicant still must provide proper documentation as identified above, the Corps lacks complete information to determine whether the slope stability of the dikes adjacent to the ECWR is acceptable to ensure safe operation of the ECWR. I have been l

t I

4 advised that uncertainties with respect to the glacial till are not issues before this Board and that the NRC Staff will pursue this concern at the operating license stage.

Q.10 Vid you reevaluate the stability of the dikes under seismic loading?

A. No. An evaluation of the slope stability of the dikes under seismic loading will be addressed upon resolution of the final seismic input.

l.

1 I

I l

t.

i 1

ATTACHMENT 1 4

1 STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS i OF HARI NARAIN SINGH, P.E.

Name: Hari Narain Singh Address: 34174 Noch Avenue Sterling Heights, Michigan 48077 Professional Licenses:

(1) Registered Structural Engineer - Pennsylvania - 1970, 15552E.

(2) Registered Civil Engineer - Pennsylvania - 1978, 15552E.

Education:

(1) H.S. (Civil) - 1956 - University of Patna, India (2) H.S. (Civil) - 1969 - University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.

Completed 30 additional semester hours beyond M.S. degree.

(3) (Geotechnical) - Wayne State University Detroit (Presently working for Ph.D. degree).

Professional Experience:

A. October 1978 to Present: Civil Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit, Michigan.

B. April 1978 to September 1978: Civil Engineer (bridges &

foundation) Arizona State Highway Departments Phoenix, Arizona.

C. March 1970 to March 1978: Civil Engineer, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Franklin, Pennsylvania 16323.

D. September 1965 to September 1969: Graduate student ano Research Assistant, University of Colorado, Boulder.

U.S.A.

E. May 1959 to July 1965: Assistant Professo. r of Civil Engineering, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar State, India. Posted at the Ranchi School of Engineering (1959-1961) and the Pu dons 1 Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, India.

l

• 2 F. April 1958 to April 1959: Assistant Civil Engineering, Government of India (Tripura Administration). India.

G. July 1956 to April 1959: Engineer Assistant (Civil).

Government of Bihar State. India.

Summary of Experience:

Twenty-four (24) years experience in civil engineering activities which include teaching, research, design, construction and maintenance. Complet<d design and reviewed design for more than fifty (50) bridge structures and their foundations. Carried out soil explorations and foundation investigations for structures.

0 e

e , ,-,, - ---g , - --,v- + - - -n , . , , - -.w-. . - . - - . - -,,,,a .-_ - - - ,- _-- n -- ,-..- -- ----n-,- ,,-m- . -- , -

l Attach net 2 f.& , , , %).,

UMTED STATES j'kig.,  ; NUCLEAR REGUL A TORY COfdf.11SSION ,

. 'g l wasmotoas o c :om i

JUN 3 6 13P .

ih* . . . ,/

Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company ,

1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORP.ATION REGARDING PLANT FILL We have reviewed your responses to our requests of November 19, 1979 regarding the quality of plant fill, effects and remedial actions 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 exploratior.s and laboratory testing identified in Enclosure 1 (Request 37) are needed to support required geotechnical engineering studies. D- tails 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 ranner. 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 follcwing obse;vations:

(1) The preload program as completed on the heterogeneous materials which were placed for the purpose of structural fill is not necessarily an improvement, nor does it necessarily produce founda-tion soils of more unifom engineering properties, compared to the soil perforw.ance which would have resulted if the material had been properly compacted to the original requirements established in the Midland PSAR.

(2) To develop reasonable assurance of plant safety, the required studies are needed to serve as an independent verification of the predictions of future settlem2nts and the conclusions of the preload program.

a&BWb{$ b l

4 gf _

JUN 3 01930 Mr. J. W. Cook 1

i (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

' reload 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,*

. lef//N'f- -

A. Schwencer, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated .

cc: See next page l

l i

(

f l - - ~ _ _ . - . __, . - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ , - - - - , - , , ,,, __

4 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 Miciand, Michigan 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 f Grant J. Merritt, Esq.

Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp & James l 4444 IDS Center

(. 80 South Eighth Street l

t Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 l

L

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. O. Box 1449 Canoga, Park, California 91304 Mr. William Lawhead U. 3. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor l 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 I

6 9

8 I

e O

I

-mm l we l

l 1

Enclosure 1 ADDITIONAL REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL

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:  !

l

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.

e. OW-1thru TEW-1 thru OW-5 TEW-8 (5 (8 holes holes) ) ,

The lo'gs should include date and method of drilling, the type and location of sariples 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.

{

9 8

4 Page 1 ef 2 .

Table 37-1 ,

Request for Additional Explorations, Sampling and Testing Anticipated Geotechnical N i

Depth2 ] 3,,pjg,9 M Lab Testing N Location N Engineering Studies to be Required For cohesive soils Bearing Capacity 4

Classify sampics .

Diesel Generator iThru fill and a according to C-D(Consolidated ~-Drained) Settlement Building iminimum of 5' Piping Distortion (6 holes along :into natural Unified Soils C-U (Consolidated-Undrained) i Consolidation 5'/ i l

perimeter) iglacial till soils Classification 6 System

For sands

'Dratned Direct Shear on both loose & dense speci-  ;

' mens 3

l Relative Density 1 I

. I Same as above except 3

Caisson Foundation N Auxiliary Building Same as above Same as above Design (Vertical and l add U-U (Unconsolidated-j (2 holes)  ! Undrained for cohesive i.attral Load Support) i soils 9 i  :

l Service Water Pump Same as above except con- Pile Foundstion Desirn Same as above Same as above l

! (1 holeh ,

solidation testing would (Vertical and Lateral Load j StructureAand He- I  ;

be limited to samples in Support)

taining Walls (2 holes) l l retalning wall foundations. Retaining Wall Stability &

Settlement.

1 Cooling Pond Em- Exte.1d thru fill For cohesive soils j

J bankments and a minimum of Same as above Slope Stability (7 holes along 5' into natural C-D(Consolidated-Drained) Fill compaction adequacy

] residual soils ex- C-U (Consolidated-Undrained)

perimeter) U-U (Unconsolidated-Undrained)

L cept hole no. 5 which should extend to bottom elevation of cooling pond.

i NOTES: See page 2 -

7

.'. Page 2 of 2

. Table 37-1 (continued)

NOTES:

If 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.

2/ No boring is to be terminated in loose or soft soils.

3] Continuous 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 1aboratory testing should be located at the completion and elevation of the split spoon sampling program. The groundwater level should be recorded at the completion of drilling in all borings once the level has stabilized.

4] Nomal classification (e.g., gradation Atterberg Limits) unit weight and moisture content testing to be perfomed 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 pennit on site visual observation by Corps of Engineer representative.

5/ The naximum load should be great enough to establith 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.

l

)

l l

l 3

l

i L. j i -

! . t t t t t L C,

• l b d5617s d + y un / .A' 1

us/ /u

, v -

o- ,

pl- O

'/ U '

l W-  %.

_-+

- .+ -

,4  :

m f[ / +

--9

-: ~

+.o 7 , g . j/WMj( . ,

v l -

~.

d 4,. M, t0 _

+  ;. o =< >

eoos s '

l Q

' l ( s. w,

v. . i + .  :

,, . +WS o,

. v/ I !i iV+y' In 4 H ' *,

( --

, s

. v.

i c

L1 3

} Ihd ' . l.

dF

=>

c

, $d0 q.

l .

+\s + g+ + l+ 1

• lI ) {1 "

l / .

/,.

r

'd lil + i ! w.

l .! +i 1, er f -

W i l

+ r + n  !

-i -

i i yw u t e .

i

..! 3 f

A

+

i

]io l.: N -

n h _ _ ,w s --,- -~

-k n === ,, --I -g.

"" i [  ! I  !._

f>i 1) l 6

l

\ \..

f * *

',+Y ** .m .

WATED iTMENT

.'s' n l

, . , , .7," .- 1 KAREA C00LiffG TowtR

~

)

e.

MI..M I'i4C. '-*

'D r, gi- . .,

y., .

• , , r,, I s ,,.,

~ .

3 *.

• s se (I ) ..

HYOROGEN f

7.. . R A0WA,STE BLOG.

a ..-e . . -e [., .'. OILY WASTE STORAGE AND TREATMENT TANKS

,,.,~ , ,

i ...,, .t . A..

• • • , AUXILIARY BUlineNGI .e.e .

l -  %

5A PL O C A R

.- . PL OC A R i

TANK

's '

N . .yggdfUk (FUTUREl .,,,,

I }

UNIT I UNIT 2 CONTAINMENT , .?,

( ~ CONTAINMENT

" '~~

COC' 1= A . . ... .3. .

• ,, , .f*dr Cog \B -

.. e j g .L. '....'

i, wN ANo ... COE i(o -

ERvict

. DING ,

TURBtNE SUILDING

..f.,8\.., U

,e gs 4

COE9 CC E10 **

• ** y ,

COE8 m .,

[ $g i h...p....,

\ .. /

i ga u.n A* -y .t.p e.,. ..

A

!,r"Wj Qln #

s .u. . l. .Q .:--

. . . l D. .4,. .. -lyb;c, ,7,, .cp-.

, ..,,  ?.l.

CO E' 15

.'ti' I." .'. SIT"['(.I' ' *'"

• A .& Ayd 12, . ., .

RUM MiR Mt"NE

/~ com u a " * *** ***^*

i

• GUARD HOUSE ." 4 CCEl3E.,

e esa CHLOR auitoiNG

h. CIRCUL ATING wCEd

= tv .

i .

< CONDENSATE

WATER INTAKE 1 STORAGE ,e. STRUCTURE TANKS - .e e ,

(C f A o

4":R*: m st'.e i .

i a

- a i

. .W.t.c ~we*

I .

... C00 Loss poNO OtESEL GENERATON FUEL

}

on. STORAGE TANus Figure .37-2 l kI I I I I I l l I l l ,QN

[gS Ugg%e,, UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,{. .

n.

8 .. aI WASHINGTO N. D. C. 20555 j

4 mo

\,

f AUG Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 l

Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 .

SUBJECT:

CORP OF ENGINEERS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORi%

ON PLANT FILL Ky letter of June 30, 1980 requested the results of additional explorations and laboratory testing needed to support certain geotechnical engineering studies on the Midland plant fill and associated remedial actions. That letter noted that details on the extent of these studies would be provided by separate correspondence. Enclosure 1 is a letter report of July 7,1980 by our consultant, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is forwarded to this end.

Paragraph 4 of the Corps report identifies additional information needed to resolve specific problems identified in paragraph 3. For purposes of con-trol, we have re-numbered the subparagraphs of paragraph 4 to be sequential They have also been marked to with our prior requests on this matter.Your reply should reference the revised reflect the results of NRR review.

numbering system and should address the requests as marked to reflect our changes.

t Subparagraph 4j of the Corps report entitled Liquefaction Potential, is not included in our re-nunbering since it represents an evaluation rather than a request. We consider this evaluation to be tentative at this time since it is subject to the determination of suitable seismic design input for the site. We will address this matter shortly by separate correspondence.

f l

1

>v ,

) ) :)

1 pf[

l MP' f

I l

l . _ _ _ . __ ___ __ __ .._ ___ ...-___._, _ __ _ _. -._ _ _ _ ___

AUG 4 iS83 Mr. J. W. Cook I

We would appreciate your reply at your earliest opportunity. Should you need clarification of these requests for additional information, please contact us. -

Sinc / 'erely,

. . Ih! 4.

,_l. umM6z -

r/.l.; Licensing A. Schwencer, BranchActing No. 3 Chief

'l Division of Licensing

• l .

Enclosure:

I, COE Letter Report '

dated 7/7/80 cc: See next I ei

\

l G

\ -

l l

l

i e -

cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. .

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 1 1 First National Plaza l Chicago, Illinois 60603 1 Judd L. Bacon, Esq. .! ! .

Managing Attorney l

- Consumers Power Company . ./l.l lf 212 West Michigan Avenue j# '

Jackson, Michigan 49201 .J :j ,

..I ~ '

Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary ll..:

Consumers Power Company  !):

212 West, Michigan Avenue ' s;  ;- -

Jackson, Michigan 49201 l, , .

Myron M. Cherry Esq.

I 1B Plaza Ch'eago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 571.1 Sumrerset Drive -

Midland, Michigan 48640 ,

Trank J. Kelley, Esq.

• Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division  ;,

720 Law Buf1 ding Lansing, Michigan 48913 i

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 t.

I l

l l

l

- as .

-u .

i f .

j '

Mr. J. W. Cook e

, cc: Mr. Steve Gadler

2120 Carter Avenue '

St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 .

l .,

i Mr. Donofvan Farewe,Heal Chief. fflthf f' Division Radiological i i Department of Public Health ;

i P. O. Box 33035 d Lansing, Michigan 43909 j;/ /'

.. s

~

William J. Scanlon, Esq. ij 7 2034 Pauline Boulevard s.

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

! Resident Inspectors Office -

1 . oute 7 4 .sidland, Michigan 48640 9

\

d i

\

\

\

t i

4 9

0 e

e i

l 4

l

e cc: Comander, Naval Surface Weapons Center

• ATTN: P. C. Huang i G-402 White Oak lll];

Silver Spring, Maryland ,209)0 .l.l Mr. L. J. Auoe, Manager Facility Design EngineeririgI!. '  !

Energy Technology Engineerih'g' Center P. O. Box 1449 si / .i Canoga, . Park, California 91304 .

l-l ._

Mr. William Lawhead  !'

O. S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T - -

7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Ms. Barbara Stamiris .

5795 N. River Freeland, Michigan 48623 .

Mr. Michael A. Race 2015 Seventh Street

~j' Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Sandra D. Reist 1301 Seventh Street ,

Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Sharon K. Warren 636 Millcrest -

Midland, Michigan 48640 1

Patrick A. Race 1004 N. Sheridan Bay City, Michigan 48706 George C. Wilson, Sr. -

4618 Clunie Saginaw, Michigan 48603 Ms. Carol Gilbert 903 N. 7th Street Saginaw, Michigan 48601

-. . . _ . .-. . . ~ - - . _ _ . - . . . .. .-. . - - . -. . . . .

u Q <

c... . * .

-4. .

\

i t

ec: v.r. William A. Thibodeau

-3245 'a'eigl Road . .

Saginaw, Michigan 48603 Mr.' Terry R. Miller ,

IIl' /l1. u,l -

ji 3

3229'Glendora Drive i Bay. City,- Michigan 4S706 , i, , ' ,

=

e I. ,'.l. -

(si

'..e

,e'

• l . *

. g S

e en 1 .

.e*

g.

-f i

i 4

9 il~

j

• l a

+

A, f

1 9

m M

'i I:

e 5

i .

a:

,f.

j i

-t,-w A..e==-,s ee-,%__r,-,wwe-cw... , .m-w r w,ww m t. . ,ww e w,. ._ m , y- w y y my,. , w ,,,ne wv

W h

' $b$ su un Y. c b was

1. k, 9 Jut.90 N Pa., ,

NCEED-T . Tash. No.,1 - Midland Plant Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167

SUBJECT:

Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report r

l

l. l THRU:

Divisico Engineer, North Central .

NCDED-G (James Simpson) '

ATTN: t lll TO:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission * ,

ATTN: Dr. Robert E. Jackson *

• Division of Systems Safet' 2 '

Mail'Stop P-314 [.

• Washington, D. C. 20555 d to 1.

The Detroit District hereby submits this letter report vich regarAgree=e completion of subtask No. I of the subject InteragencyThe purpose f action of this report the Midland Nuclear Plant, Units I and l 2. identify hese matters prior unresol to and/or cite additional information necessary to'sett e t preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report. i port to 2.

The Detroit District's team providing geotechnical documents concerning engineer ng sup i s with the NRC to date has made a review of furnishedfound i t) and personnel from the NRC staf f, Consumers Power Co=pany (the appl can detailed site North Central Division of the Corps Revisicn2 of28Engineers of the FSAR, and h inspections. 24 through Interin Acendeent 78 to the operat'.ng license request, Revision 7 to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests and MCAR No.

Report No. 8.

separate entity. i I and 2 follows 3.

A listing of specific proble=s in review of Midland 11n ts for Category I structures. The issues are unresolved in many instances,Th because of inadequate or missing information.

follow the description of the problem. d a.

Inadequate presentation of subsurf ace inf ormation from c All structures.

borings on ceaningful profiles and sectional views.

p /[}Up' ,

gh g

i m . ,.

,' ' NCEED-T ,

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreeaent No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report .

b. Discrepancies between soil descriptions and classifications on boring logs with submitted laboratory test results sumcaries. .Exa nples of such .

discrepancies are found in boring T-14 (Borated water tank) which shows stiff to very stif f clay where laboratory tests indicate sof t clay with shear strength of only 500 p.s.f. The log of boring T-15 shows stiff, silty elay, while the lab tests shev sof t, clayey sand with shear strength of 120 p.s.f.

All structures. I- I IJ l

c. Lack of discussion about't e criteria used to select soil samples for lab testing. Also, identification of the basis for selecting specific values for the various parameters used 'in foundation design from the lab test results. All structures. f/(t (

• 9 .

de The inability to completely ide'ntify the soil behavior,from lab testing (prior to design sud construction) of individual samples, because All in general, only final test values' n sumcary form have been provided.

s true tur es,.

(1) Lack of site specific informati,on in estimating allowable bearing If necessary, pressures. Only textbook type information has been provided. All structures bearing capacity should be revised based on latest '-soils data.

on, or partially on, fill.

- (2) Additional information is needed to' indicate the design nethods used, design assu=ptions and computations in estimating settlement for safety related structures and systems. All structures except Diesel Generator Building where surcharging was performed.

A complete detailed presentation of foundation design regarding remedial measures for structures undergoing distress is required. Areas of e.

re=edial measures except Diesel Generator Building.

f. There are inconsistencies in presentation of seismic design information as affected by changes due to poor compaction of plant fill.

l Response to NRC question 35 (10 CTR 50.54f) indi:stes that the lower bound of I

shear wave velocity is 500 feet per second. Ve understand that the same velocity will be used to analyze the dynamic response of structures built on fill. However, from information provided by the applicant at the site caeting except for the Diesel on 27 and 28 Feb ,sary 1980, it was stated that, Generator Building, higher shear wave velocities are being Structures used to re-evaluate on fill the dynamic response of the structures on fill material.

or partially on fill except Diesel Generator Building.

4. A listing of specific iss.ues and information necessary to resolve them.

. Reactor Building Foundation 3 f, (1) Settlement / Consolidation. Basis for settlement / consolidation of the reactor foundation as discussed in the FSAR assumes the plant site would 2

$e * ,

• f Q EJ* eg

-- =: *

~

' NCEED-T SU3 JECT 1 Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, ' Task No.1 - }Udland Plant Units I and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Repart not be dewatered. Discuss and furnish computation for settlement of the Reactor Buildings in respect to the changed water table level as the result of site dewatering. Include the effects of bouyancy, which were used in previous calculations, and fluctuatiens in water tabl- 9.ach could happen if the devatering system became inoperable.

I, (2) Bearing Capacity. Bearing capacity compucations should be provided and should include method used, foundation design, design assumptions, adopted soil properties, and basis for selecting ultieate bearing capacity and resulting factor ofl safety.

h. Diesel Generator Buil , (

. a (1) Settlement / Consolidation. ' In the response to NRC Question 4 and 27, (10 CFR 50.54f), the applican't has furnished the results of his co:puted settlecents due to various kinds lof loading conditions. From his explanation of the results, it appears that compressibility parameters obtained by the preload tests have been used to cocpute the static settlements. Information pertaining to dynamic response including the, amplitude of vibration of generator pedestals have also been furnished. The observed settlement pattern of the Diesel Generator Building indicates a direct correlation with soil types and properties within the backfill asterial. To verify the preload test settlement predictions, compute settlements based on test results on samples fro new borings which we have requested in a separate meno and present the re s cit s. Reduced ground water levels resulting from dewatering and diesel plus seismic vibration should be considered in settlement and seismic a naly sis. Furnish the computation details for evaluating amplitude of vibration for diesel generator pedestals including magnitude of exciting f orces, whether they are constant or frequency dependent.

(2) Bearing Capacity. Applicant's response to NRC Question 35 Figure (~ 0 CTR 50.54f) relative to bearing capacity of soil is not satisfactory.

33-3, which has been the basis of selection of shear strength for computing bearing capacity does not reflect the characteristics of the soils under the Diesel Generator Building. A bearing capacity computation should be sub=itted based on the test results of sa=ples from new borings which we have requested in a separate meno. This infor=ation should include method used, foundation design assu=ptions, a dopted soil properties and basis for selection, ultimate bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety.

I (3) Preload Effectiveness. The effectiveness of the preload should be studied with regard to the moisture content of the fill at the time of preloading. The height of the water table, its time duration at this level, l

and whether the plant fill was placed uet or dry of optimum would be all l

i=portant considerations.

3 l

t

.~ TM.T: :E.5TGddF**f N.N.YGEE N M N .E N nNMEENAUN -

,1:CEED-T 5 .

r SUPJECT: Interagency Agre ecnnt No. NRC-03-79-167 Tash No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Lettar Report .

(a) Granular Soils.

When sufficient load is applied to gr,oular soils it usually causes a reorientation of grains and covement of particles into more stable positions plus (at high stresses) fracturing of particles at their points of centact.

Reorientation and breakage creates a chain reaction aoong these and adjacent particles resulting in settlement. Reorientation is resisted by friction A between particles. Capillary tension kould tend to increase this friction.

moistureincreasecausingsaturationl/suchasariseinthewatertableas '

oc' curred here, would decrease ' cap'illary tension resulting in more compaction.

Present a discussion on the water table and capillary water effect on the granular portion of the plabt fill .both above and below the water table during #

and af ter the prelead. t -

(b) Impervious and/or Clay Soiis,.*

[4[l! '

I .

Clay fill placed dry of o tinum would not compact and voids could l exist between particles and/or chunks. In this situation SPT blow counts would give cisleading inforr.ation as to strength. Discuss the raising of the water table and deter =dne if the time of saturation was long enough to saturate possible clay lumps so that the consolidation could take place that would preclude further settlement. , ,

Discuss the preload effect on clay soils lying above the water table (7 feet +) that were possibly co=pacted dry of optinom. It would appear only limited consolidation from the preload could take place in this situation and the potential for f urther settlecent would exist.

It Discuss the ef fect of the preload on clays placed wet of optimum.

would appear consolidation along with a gain in strength would take place.

Determine if the new soil strength is adequate for bearing capacity.

Cor lu ion- Sd ce .he elia .11 o' exi in fil anf[c ' act n i. o r=a ion E8l'ff5 de . .e id r tio 6ran .ar i u .er* in ad

• tio .a1 b .ine a te .s con nt dens ty, con olid ion , rop ti Cautre d o s) ela iv der ity sois ar w uld ppe r to e si ble n or er t 4/30/go a s .en .h ori .cial test push t-e f f es-fa .or 2y swe the be e q sti .s. ord gs houl be onti ou at

-# .di .ur d c . esi- s 1 =pl t a' n. ,

A contour map, showing tiie settlement (4) Mi scellane ous.

configuration of the Diesel Generator Building, furnished by the applicant at the meeting of 27 and 28 Febr.uary 1980 indicates that the base of the building has warped due to dif f erential settlements. Additional The stresses #11 be applicant should induced in the various components of the structure.

evaluate these stresses due to the dif f erential settlement and furnish the cocputations and results for review.

4 U Oi.i.U N.2.N M E fA S E *. M M 5i. N T; NU5fidDM.IO.NMil.!5 Li ?. M~.;.7 22)

l. "

, ' NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-0349-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant

' Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report N. / Service. Water Building Foundation. _

(1) Bearing Capacity. A detailed pile design- based upon pertiner.t soil data should be developed in order to nore ef fectively evaluate the proposed pile support systes prior to load testing of test' piles. Provide adopted soil properties, reference to. test data on which they are based, and method and assumptions'used to est'imate pile design capacity including '

computa tions. Provideestimated[caxiaumstaticanddynamicloadstobe i= posed and individual contribution (DL, LL, OBE, SSE) on the maximum loaded pile. Provide factor of safet against soil f ailure due to maxinus pile lead.

~

(2) Settiements. ,1 f,1 I .- .

(a) Discuss and provide [,], analysis evaluating possible differential l

settle =ent that could occar betse'en the pile supported end and the portion l placed on fil1And glaedsl illf,I features Ducr:6e the (e.g. smfest of fusf Jiesel fallere on r<fef fbehind oilsfor<fe aus)yeere (b) !.a-e 311scussCge why Nr#YaN,dg e vall adjacent to the intake structure is not required to be" Seismic Category I structure. Evaluate the observed settlement of'both the service water pumphouse retaining walls and the intake structure retaining vall and the significance of the rettlement including future settlement prediction on the safe operation of the Midland Nuclear Plant. This cuelvefion .

s e ttle n e, T assin et silows.6/e steerser pern*tted by yproved coder.

(3) Seismic Anr*vsis. Provided the proposed 100 ton v.itimate pile load capacities are achieved and reasonable margin of safety is available, the vertical pile support proposed for the overhang section of the Service Water Pu=p Structure vill provide the support necessary for the structure under combined static and seismic inertial loadings even if the soil under the overhang portion of the structure should licuefy. There is no reason to think this won't be achieved at this time, and the applicant has co=citted to a load test to demonstrate the pile capacity. The. dynamic response of the structure, including the inertial loads for which the structure itself is designed and the mechanical equipment contained therein, would change as a result of the introduction of the piles. 1he refore:

(a) Please summarize or provide ecpies of reports on the dyna =ic For the analysis of the structure in its old and proposed configuration.

latter, provide detailed infor=ation on the stiffness assigned to the piles change and the way in which the stiffnesses were obtained and show the largest in interior floor vertical response spectr's resulting from the proposed modification. If the proposed configuration has not yet been analyzed, describe the analyses that are to be performed giving perticular attention to the basis for calculation or " selection, of and the range of nurerical stiffness values assigned to the vertical piles.

(b) Provide af ter completion of the new pile foundation, in accordance with commitment No. 6, item 125, Consumers Poser Co=pany memorandu 5

M T 5E E M - N :i N T b k'h h b_ . h _"

_.bbh N b .

/

' .. , UCEED-T SUEJECT Interagency Agreement No. NRC-0349-167, Task,No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Latter Report ,

i i

dated 13 March 1980, the results o ceasurenents of vertical applied load and absolute pile head vertical defor=ation which will be nade when the structural load is jacked on the piles so that the pile stiffness can be determined and compared to that used in the dynamic analysis.

N Isolat

. [ ion Valve Pits. Auxiliary Building Electrical Penetration Areas a li llh. / /

Provide the assumptions, method, computation and (1) Settlement.

esticate of expected allowable' lateral and vertical deflections under static

,Iio and seismic loadings.

U.; i (2) Provide the construction' plans, and specifications for underpinning operations beneath the Electrical Penetration Area and Teedwater Valve pit. The requested information .to be submitted should cover the followinginsufficientdetails'[for' evaluation:

the f.c%porary (a) Details of Adecatering sp :em (locations, depth, size and capacity of wells) including the monitoring program to be required, (for example, eensuring draudown, flow, frequency of observations, etc.) to evaluate the perfor:ance and adequacy of the installed system. C. '

(b) Location, sectional views and dimensions of access shaft and drift to and below auxiliary building vings.

(c) Details c' te porary surface support systes for the valve pits.

4:::7- Dewatering before underpinning is recommended in order to preclude differential settlement between pile and soil supported elements and negative drag forces.

() Provide adopted soil properties method and assu=ptions used to estimate caisson and/or pile design capacities, and computational results.

Provide esticated maxi =um static and dynamic lord (co=pression, uplif t and lateral) to be imposed and the individual contribution (DL, LL, CBE, SSE) on maximum loaded caisson and/or pile.

Provide f actor of safety against soil failure due to maximum pile load.. ,

t Discuss and furnish cesputations for settlement of the portion of (I) the Auxiliary Suilding (valve pits, and electrical penetration area)Include in respe ct to changed water level as a result of the site dewatering.

the effect of bouyancy, which was used in previous calculations, and fluctuations in water table which could happen, if dewatering systen becomes inoperable. _

(g) Discuss protection measures to be required against corrosion, if piling is selected.

6

.y j

" = n m +;mx-=.wrjt%w$2!MMm.wzp2y,?Sg*wpyggyggy3

- g n so sCtgo-T SU3 JECT: Interagency Agreecent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task Ws.1 - }iidland Plant Units I and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (f) Identify specific information, data and nethod of presentation to be subtitted for regulatory review at completion of underpinning operation.

This report should summarize construction activities, field inspection records, results of field load tests on caissons and piles, and an evaltation of the completed fix for assuring the stable foundatior.

Ie f], Borated k'ater Tanks. , [

J

- ./ -

(1) Settlement. The settlement estimate for the Borated 'Jater Storage Tanks furnished by the' applicant in response to NRC Question 31 (10 ,

l CFR 50.54f) is based upon the .,results of two plate load tests. conducted at the foundation elevation (IL 627.00_+) of the ta'nks. Since a plate load test is not ef fective in providing information regarding the soil beyond a depth more than twice the diameter of the be'aring plate used in the test, the esticate of the settlenent furnished by the' Applicant does not include the contribution of the sof t clay layers located at ' epth d more than 5' below the bottom of the tanks (see Boring No. T-14 and T-15, and T-22 thru T-26).

(a) Compute s,ettle=ents which include ' contribution of all the soil layers influenced by the total load on the tanks. Disenss and provide for review the analysis evaluating differential settlement that could occur betseen the ring (foundations) and the center of the taniits.

(b) The bottom of the berated tanks being flexible could varp under differential settlement. Evaluate what additional stresses could be induced in the ring bea=s, tank valls, and tank botto=s, because of the settlement, and compare with allowable stresses. Furnish the co=putations on stresses including method, assu=ptions and adopted soil, properties in the analysis.

(2) Bearing Capacity. Laboratory test results onConsideration samples fro = boring has not T-IS show a sof t stratum of soil below the tank bottom.

been given to using these test results to evaluate bearing capacity infor=ation furnished by the applicant in response to lac Question 35 (10 CFR 50.54f). Provide bearing capacity d'o=petations This based on the test infor=ation should include resu.Its of the sa=ples from relevant borings.

method ased, foundation design assu=ptions, adopted soi.1 properties, ulti= ate bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety for the static and the seis=ic loads.

pf Underground Diesel Tuel 7 ad Foundation Design, (1) Bearing capacity. 7 rov-Ja bearing capacity computation based on

' e .nt borings , inc1nM ng me thod used, the test results of sa=ples ;ro:.

f oundation design assu=ptic ns, adopt.1 soil properties, ultimate bearing capacity and the resultin;, factor of safety.

(2) Provide tank settlement analysis due to static and dynamic loads including methods, assumptio-- r-'.4, etc.

7

- -Wr-7. West _.e.T."""LM?."4hre.mm-It2mm.=,r wwm m, % a.mm

. [ ,

7 jUL 'M

. NCEED-T SU3 JECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task 'No.1 - Midland Plant ,

Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report -

(3) What will be effects of uplift pressure on the stability of the tanks and the associated piping system if the devatering system becomes inoperable? .

h, Underground Utilities: ,

i (1) Set tlement (a) Inspect the interior of water circulation piping with video cameras and sensing devices to show pipe cross section, possible areas of crackings and openings, and slopes of piping following consolidation of the plant fill beneath the imposed surcharge loading.

~

(b)' The applicant has stated in his response to NRC Question 7 (10 CFR 50.54f) that if the duct banks re=ain intact af ter the preload program has been completed, they will be able to withstand all future operating loads.

Provide the results of the observations made, during the preload test, to deter ine the stability of the duct banks, with your discussion regarding their reliability to perform their design functions.

(c) The response to Question 17 of " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Till" states that "there is no reason to believe that the stresses in Seismic Category I piping systems will ever approach the Code allowable." We question the above statement based on the following:

Profile 26" - OlGC-54 on Fig.19-1 shows a sudden drop of approx. 0.2 f eet within a distance of only 20 feet. Using the procedure on p.17-2, (b = E(e) = E ( D2R) = E ( D2 ) ( 86 1,2 )

l l p = 30000 ( 26 ) [ 8(0.2)(12)_] = 130.0 KSI 2 (20x12)' a,5 a.//esali/e 10(.' ef Arti 1 &3052. 5, --. !!!, Li.;;i;; 1, J av T th-::.;,-th; 2 3.

--A Z M . . qJ;c: tht-:::: 0;.;es; 5:c sifi;;;i;;. ~.ute; "1" ; . ...;;..ed  ; -

- il -ers:;d ;.;.;.1;;;;: :t ::;;;. Yet, Table 17-2 lists only 52.5 KSI7 stress This matter requires further review. Please respond to this l'

for this. pipe.

apparent discrepancy and also specify the location of each More co:puted settlement than one stress at the pipeline stationing shown on the profiles.

critical stress location is possible along the sa=e pipeline.

(d) During the site visit on 19 February 1980, we observed three instances of */nat appeared to be degradation of rattlespace at penetrations of Category I piping through concrete walls as follows:

8 s  :

. . : s . -y...:

• L. . . . . , . .. c .  :

I

NCEED-T Interagency Agreecent No. NEC-03-79-167,- Task No. 1 - Midland Plant

SUBJECT:

• Units 1 and 2, Subtask Ns. 1 ~ Letter Report West Borated Water Tank - in the valve pit attached to

- the base of the structure, a large diameter steel pipe extended through a steel sleeve placed in the vall.

• Because the sleeve was not cut flush with the wall, clearance between the sleeve and the pipe was very scall. f.f< ~shex y

.~-..i p: -))e.ua%.,.- , -

. , g ; i *:..

3< ', gep j sq -

. l;f a '

Servic ba'ter St'ructure - Two of the service uter pipes penetrating the northwest vall of the service water str/ secure had settled differentia 117 vich respect ltb the , structure and were resting on slightly squashed shor't pieces of 2 x 4 placed in the bottom of the pene ration. From the inclination of the pipe, there is'a suggestion that the portions of the pipe further back in the'vall opening (which was not

. visible) were actually bearing on the invert of the opening. The botton surface of one of the steel pipes had s=all surface irregularities around the edges of Whether these the area in contact with the 2 x 4.

irregularities are cornal manufacturing irregularities or the result of concentration of load on this tenporary support caused 'by the settlement of the fill, was not known.

\ s These instances are sufficient to warrant from plant an: examination fill on one orofboth those penetrations sides of where Category I pipe derives supportIn view of the above facts, the following inform a penetration.

required. ,.

(1) What is the minimun seiscic rattlespace required between a I

Category I pipe and the sleeve through which it penetrates a vall?

(2) Identify all those locations where a Category I pipe deriving Deternine and support fron plant fill penetrates an exterior concrete wall.

report the vertical and horizontal rattlespace presently available d as aand the niti=un required at each location and describe remedial actions planneIt is anti

, result of conditions uncovered in the inspection. dditional

(

answer excavation.

to Question (1) can be obtained without any'significant those locations requiring major excavation should be obtain information at deferred until the data fron the other locations have been exam 9

l T2N3NN5$3dd@SYdifhMhMAYNMMhNhkh

^

~

. f. . - -

/.. ,

NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreemnt No. NRC-03-79-167, Task 'No.1 - Midland Plant Un,its 1 and 2. Subtask Ns.1 - Letter Report l

(e) Provide details (thickness, type of materiai etc.) of bedding or cradle placed beneath safety related piping, conduits, and supporting structures. Provide profiles along piping, and conduits alignments showing the properties of all supporting caterials to be adopted in the analysis of pipe stresses caused by settlement. '

I#t (f) The two reinforced co'ncrete return pipes dich exit the Service V.ater Pump Structure, run along' pithe'r side of the emergency cooling water reservoir, and ulticately encef into the reservoir, are necessary for safe shutdown. These pipes are burle'd yithin or near i;he crest of CategoryThere I .

is slopes that form the sides of the.energency! cooling vater reservoir.

no report on, or analysis of, [thel seismic s'tability of post earthquaka residual di'splace=ent for these ,spopes. While the limited data from this area do not raise the specter of any . problem,. for an inportant elecent of the plant such as this', the earthquake sta 111ty 'should be exanined by state-of-the-art cethods. Therefore, provide results of the seismic analysis of the Please slopes leading to an estimate of the per=anent defor=ation of the pipes.

provide the following: (1) a plan showing the pipe location with respect to other learby structures, slopes of the reservoir and the coordinate systen; (2) cross-sections shosing the pipes, cornal pool levels, slopes, subsurface conditions as interpreted from borings and/or. logs of excavations at (a) a location parallel to and abcut 50 ft from the southeast outside vall of the service water pipe structure and (b) a location Were the cross section s-ill include both discharge structures.

Actual boring logs should be shown on the profiles; their offset from the profile noted, and soils should be described using the Unified Soil Classification Systen; (3) discussion of available shear strength data and choice of strengths used in stability analysis; (4) determination of static f actor or safety, critical earthquake acceleration, and location of critical circle; (5) calculation of residual r3venent by the nethod presented by New:4rk (1965) or Makdisi' and Seed (1978); and (6) a.

deter =ination of whether or not the pipes can function properly af ter such i

covecents.

~

h, Cooling Pond.

In recognition that the type of (1) Emergency Cooling Pond.

e= bank =e n t fill and'the co=paction control used to construct the retention dikes for the cooling pond were the same as for the problem plant fill, we reque s t reasonable assurance that the slopas of the Category I E=ergency Cooling Pond (baf fle dike and =ain dike) are stable under both static and We request a revised stability analysis for review, which dytasic loadings.will include identification of locations analyzed, adopted foundation and e:banknent conditions (stratification, seepage, etc.) and basis for selection,

=depted soil properties, meth'od of stability analysis used and resulting factor of safety with identification of sliding surfaces analyzed. Please address any potential inpact en Category I pipes near the slopes, based on the results of this stability study. Reco=nendations for location of new exploration and testing have been provided in a separate letter. .

10 mamm-eOE.W.Mr_mtMmmm1C".1.EL'N.ATA.=3:*We-w 3C -

/ ' .y

• NCEED-T Interagency Agrecoent No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plaat SUBJECT!

Units I and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (2) Operating Cooling Pond. A high level of safety should be required for the recaining slopes (a) of the Operating endanger public Cooling health andPond unless it can be assured that a failure will not:

properties, coergency access.

(b) result in an assault on environment (c) impair n These reco:naendations were tests have been subeitted in a separate letter. d dikes made on the assumptions that the stability of the opera.iog cooling pon should be demonstrated. /-

Y, Site Dewatering Adequa . ,l' ,#

.t ,

(1) In order to prorid [th'e necessary assurance of safety against liquef action, it is necessary t'o demonsi: rate' that the water vill not rise above elevation 610 during nor=al' pperations or during a shutdown process.

The applicant,has decided to acco=plish this by pumping from wells at the site.

In the event of a f ailure, / partial failure,'or degradation of the i

devatering system (and its backup syste:n) caused by t Depending on the answer to Question (a) below concerning the norma d pipelines vater levels in the immediate vicinity of Cat'egory I structures an founded on plant fill, dif ferent amounts of time are availab 95 f t" repair or shutdown.

states (page 24-1).

"the operating groundwr.ter level will be approxim be used in the designs of the devatering system as the maximum per=iss groundwater level elevatan under SSE conditions." d underlying natural

~

that "The wells will fully penetrate the backfill sands anThe bottom of sands in this area."

f24-12.

ron elevation 605 to 580 within ,i the plant fill area acco questions:

' (a)

Is the normal operating devatering plan to (1) l pumpi such 595 or that (2) the water level in the vells being pu= ped is held at or below ~

b e evat on near tion wells to pu=p as necessary to hold the water levels in all o serva Category I Structures and Category I Pipelines supported on plant fill below elevation 595, (3) to punp as necessary (4) to something hold water else?levels wells centioned in (2) above at or below elevation 610, or If it is something else, what is it?

In the event the ater levels in observation wells near Category (b)

I Structures or Pipelines sumrted on plant fill exceed (a) those for normal what action operating conditions as defi. . by your answeer to 'QuestionIn vill be taken?  ?

wells exceeds elevation 610, what action will be taken 11 g

o _

• O

,e _

~~

TCF.ED-9

. .S W ICT Interat,ency Agreemot No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland' Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report .

(c) Uhere vill the observation ve11s in th2 plant fill crea be located that will be conitored during the plant lifetinef At what depths vill the screened intervals be? Will the combination of (1) screened interval in cohesionless soil and. (2) deconstration of timely response to changes in _

cooling pond level prior to dravdown be rade a condition for selecting the cbservation velist Under what conditions will the alara nentioned on page case test 24-20 be triggered? What will be the response to the alarm?' A vor< .,

of the cocpleted perranent devatering and groundvater level monitoring systees could be conducted to detersine whether[ or not the time reqidred to accomplish shutdown and cooling is available. !;This could be done by shuttiot of f the entire devatering system when the' cooling pond is at elevation 62/ and The determining the water level versds' time curve for each observation well.

test should be continued until the ' vater level under Category I structure, whose foundations are potentia 11'y'11guefiable', reaches elevation 610 (the nor :a1 vater level) or the sum of the time _ intervals allotted for repair and the time interval needed to acco$p1'Ish shutdown (should the repair prove unsuccessful) has been e::ceeded, vyichever occurs first. In view of the heterogeneity of the fill, the likely varia' tion of its permeability and the necessity of caking several assumptions in the analysis which was presented in the applicant's response to Question 24a_, a full-scale test should give cote reliable information on the availr.ble time. In view of the above the applicant should furnish his response to the following:

If a devatering systed f ailure or degradation occurs, in order to assure that the plant is shutdown by the time water level reaches elevation In the event of a failure 610, it is necessary of the devatering systen, to initiate shutdown earlier,. hat is the water level or condition a shutdown vill be initiated? Eov is that condition determined? An acceptable ne: hod vould be a full-scale worst case test perfor=ed by shutting of f the entire devatering system ith the cooling pond at elevationfill, 627 the to determine, water level at each Category I Structure deriving support from plant which a sufficient time vindov still remains to accomplish shutde:n before at In establishing the groundwater level or the water rises to elevation 610. for nor=al condition that vill trigger shutdown, it is necessary to account surface pter inflov as well as groundvater recharge and to assume that any additio,f action taken to repair the devatering system, beyond the point iL ti=e when the trigger condition is first reached, is unsuccessful.

(2) As per applicant response to NRC Question 24 (10 CFR 50.54f) the i

design of the permanent devatering system is based upon two major findings:

(1) the granular backfill caterials are in hydraulic connection with an underlying discontinuous body of natural sand, and (2) seepage from the cooling pond is restricted to the intake and pump structure area, since the plant fill south of Diesel GeneratorHowever, Building soil is anprofiles ef fective barrier (Figure 24-2 to in thethe inflov of the cooling pond water.

"Responte to NRC Requests Regarding Plsnt Till"), pu= ping test tine-dravdown

raphs (Figure 24-14), and plotted cones of influence (Figure 24-15) indicate that south of Diesel Generator Building, the plant fill caterial adjacent to 12 I

i

. f:.N h tkhdN k,N $iNkh b 3bbhNbM$NMT12E55

,3.-.. ~*

NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreerent No. WRC-03-79-167,- Task No.1 - Midland Plant

- Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - 1,etter Report the cooling pond is not an effective barrier to inflow of cooling pond water. ..

The esticated per:cability for the fill caterial as reported by the applicant is 8 feet / day and the transmissivities range from 29 to 102 square feet / day.

Evaluate and furnish for review the recharge rate of seepage through the fill caterials from the south side of the; Diesel Cenerator Building on the . 1 per anent dewatering system. Thi,s,! evaluation should especially consider the recovery data from PD-3 and complete Idata from PD-5.

-(f.';'

(3) The interceptor wells have been positioned along the northern side of the Water Ictake Structtir's and service water pump structures. The calculations esticating the total,groundwat'er inflow indicate 'the structures serve as a positive cutoff. However, ihe. Isopachs of the sand (Tigures 24-9 and 24-10) indicate 5 to 10 fee't hf remai'ning natural sands below these structures. The soil profile (F gure 24'-2) neither agrees nor disagrees with the isopachs. T calculations or total' flow, which assumed positive cutoff, reduced the length of the line source of inflow by 2/3. The calculations for the spacing and positioning tf wells assumed this reduced Clarify totalexistence the flow is of applied along the entire 1er.gth of the structures.

seepage talow the structures, present supporting data and calculations, and reposition wells accordingly. Include the supporting data such as drawdown at the interceptor wells, at midway location between any two consecutive wells, and the increase in the water elevations downstream of the interceptor wells.

The presence of structures near the cooling pond appears to have created a situation of artesian flow through the sand layer. Discuss why artesian flow vas not considered in the design of the devatering system.

(

(4) Provide construction plans and specification of pernanent devateying system (location, depths, size and capacity of wells, filterpack l design) including required monitoring program. The information furnished in respcuse of NRC Question 24 (10 CFR 50.54f) is not adequate to evaluate the adequacy of the system. ,

(5) Discuss the rasifications of plugging or leaving open the veep holes in the retaining wall at the Service Water Building.

(6) Discuss in detail the maintenznee plan' for the devatering system.

(7) What are your plans for monitoring water table in the control tower area of the Auxiliary Building?

(8) What measures vill beIdentify required to prevent incrustation of the the controls to be required during pipings of the devatering system. Provide plant operation (reasure of dissolved solids, chemical controls).

basis f ar estab1/ shed criteria in view of the results shown on Table 1, page 23 of tab 147.

13

~ . - - it;'.u.a <munnw ~-xm:u: - - ---  : - w- -- - -_~ ~ nnauxac .

.-.......=.-_ a :.-. .

/

SCEED-T

/ SU3)ECT: Interagency Agreecent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - !!idland Plant

• Units 1 and 2, Subtask N3. 1 - 1.ctter Repsrt (9) Upon reaching a steady state in devatering, a grounduster sutvey should be cade to confirm the position of the water table and to insure that no perched water tables exist.

Devatering of the site should be scheduled with a sufficient lead time before plant start up so that the additional settlecent and its effectsSettlecent sh (especially on piping) can be studied.

during this period.

f'rovMc yoV! /'l^ *! l** Con Ad' Unj Uit $toundsdAW SV **W1 s J. I.iquefaction Potential.

An independent Seed-Idriss Simplified Analysis was perforced for the fill area under the assu=ption that the groundwater cable was at or belov For 0.19 3 peak ground surf ace acceeleration, it was found elevation 610. 5 that blev coants as follows were requiren for a factor of rsfety of 1. :

Elevation Mini =um SPT Blow Count *I ft For F.S. = 1.5 .

14 610 16 605 ,

17 600

- 19 595 (a) no

.The analysis was considered conservative for the foll'oving reasons account was taken of the weight of any structure, (b) liq considered nothing larger than 5.5 for an earthquake with the peak acceleration level of 0.19 s's, (c) unit weights were varied ever a range bread enough to cover any uncertainty Out and the250 of over tabulation standardabove is based on the penetration most conservative set of assu=ptions.

tests on cohesionless pinnt fill or natural foundation caterial below elevation 610, the criteria given above are not satisfied in four tests in natural caterials located briou the plant fill and in 23 tests located in the plant fill.

These tests involve the following borings:

SW3, SW2, DG-18, AX 13, AX 4, AX 15, AX 7, AX 5, AX 11 DG 19, DG 13, DG 7, DG 5, D 21, CT 1, 2.

Some of the tests on natural material were conducted at depths ofPrior

~

at less than 10 f t before approximately 35 f t of fill was placed over the location.

d by a factor to co=parison with the criteria these tests should be mul results from the placement and future devatering of the fill.

l 1*For 'd = 7.5, blow counts vould 1 arease by 30%.

I4 G

• eY j j)}

Y

,,e-----

NCEED-T _

SU3 JECT: Interagency Agrecoent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report I

of the 23 tests. on plant fill which fail to satisfy the criteria, most are _

near or under structures where re=edial measures alleviating accessity for support from the fill are planned. Only 4 of the tests are under the Diesel Generator Building (which will still deriva its support from the fill) and 3  :

others are near it. Because these locations where low blow counts vera _

recorded are well separated from one another and are not one continuous <

stratun but are localized pockets of loose material, no failure oc 2banism is present. ,  ! -,

In view of the large nunber of borings in the plant fill area and the '

conservatism adopted in analysis, these few isolated pockets are no threat to plant safety. The fill area is safe against liquefaction in a' Magnitude 6.0 earthquake or smaller 6hich produces a peak ground surface acceleration of 0.19 g or less provided the groundwater elevation in the fill is kept at or below elevation 610.

%, [ Seistic analysis of structures on plant fill material.

(1) Category I Structures. From Section 3.7.2.4 of the FSAR it can of about 1350 f t/see was used in the be calculated that an average V, interaction analysis of the Category I original dynamic soil structureThis is confirmed by one of the vievgraphs used in the 28 s t ruct ures. Plant fill V, is clearly much lower than

. February this value. Bechtel presentation.It is understood from the response to Question 13 (10 CFR 50.54f concerning plant fill that the analysis of several Category I structures are underway using a lover bound average V, = 500 f t/see for sections supported on plant fill and that floor response spectra and design forces

' will be taken The questions as the most severe of those from the acu and ol. analysis.

which follow are intended to make certain if tite is the case and gain an u:derstanding of the impact of this parametric variation in foundation conditions. been (a) Discuss which Category I structures havegand/or vill be reanalyzed for changes in seisnic soil structure interaction due to the Have change any in plant fill stiffness from that envisioned in the original design.

Category I structures deriving support fres plant fill been excluded from reanalysis? On what basis?

(b) Tabulate for each old analysis and each reanalysis, the foundation parameters (v,,9 and ( ) used and the equivalent spring and da ping constants derived therefrom so the reviewer can gain an appreciation of the extent of parametric variation perfor=ed. ,

(c) Is it the intent to analyze the adequacy of the structures and their contents based upon the envelope of the results of the old and new analyses? For each structure analyzed, please show on the same plot the old, new, and revised enveloping floor response spectra so the effect of the 15

/

'f V WM w

U'

, i svu ww

. i,-[

• d; .

, , NCEED-T

~~

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreen:nt No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units I and 2. Subtask No.1 - Letter Report -

changed backfill on interior response spectra predicted by the various c:odels ., ,,,_,,.

can be readily seen.

(2) Category I retaining vall near the southeast corner of the This vall is experiencing soce dif ferential Service L'ater Structure.

settleoent. Boring information in Figure 24-2 (Question 24, Volune 1 Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Till) suggests the vall is founded Please on natural soils and backfilled with plant fill on the land side. 1 furnish detai.ls clarifying the following.

(a) Is there any plant fill underneath the vall? What additional data beyond that shown in Figure 24-2 support your answer 7 (b) Have or should the design seismic loads (FSAR Tigure 2.5-45) be changed as a result of the changed backfill cocditions?

(c) Have or should dynanic water loadings in the reservoir be considered in the seismic design of this vall? Please explain the basis of your answer, ,

5. In your response for the com:nents and questions in paragraph 4 above, if you feel that suf ficiently detailed information already exists on the Midland docke t that may have been overlooked, please : sake reference to that Resolucion of issues and concerns s'11 depend on the expeditious infor ation. Contact Mr. Neal Cehring at FTS 226-6793 receipt of data mentioned above.

i regarding questions.

01:02102 23G N 8 q 70E C*d P. McCALLISTER Chlef, Engineering Division l

(

l l

l 16 l

..f S E-5 9 W V' N ?- W .9 WM f $ @ Q p M ?., E 'r M W 7f. Q Q Q M F d $ p .i46 ffp-f,g

Attachment 4 c- -

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY M3h cc.oa o,sta.cr. coa

,a u.n o, o.cmuns

\ .a., , an aa.. e ,am m Elo- 16 APR 1961 SCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreenent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant.

Unit 1 and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 THRU: Division Engineer, North Central ATIN: NCDED-G (James Simpson)

TO: Mr. George Lear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief, Hydrologic & Geotech: ::a1 Engr. Br.

Division of Engineering Mail Stop P-214 Washington, DC 20555

1. The Detroit District has reviewed the information received from the applicant through Amendment 85 to the operating license request, Revision 10 to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests. The information received addresses all the questions (Question 39 thru 48) raised by the Corps of Engineers in their letter report which was forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 7 July 1980, which subsequently was transmitted to the applicant on 4 August \

1980 for his response.

2. The review comments are inclosed. The purpose of the== review comments is to identify the discrepancies noted in the applicanti response and apprise the NRC of the Corps of Engineers vr.ews as to the safety of the foundations of the structures dsriving support from fill as well as from natural soil.

3. A listing of the specific discrepancies noticed during the review are as follows:

' '.-s The shear strength parameters used in the analyses are not the representative parameteYs for the soils for which the analyses have been performed. The bearing capacity of the foundation soi ( for the Borated Water Tanks and the Diesel Generator Building appears to have been do,ne on the basis of the shear strength parameters obtained from the test results oc the soil

• samples which do not represent.the scil conditions prevailing beneath these structures.

b. The evaluation of the settlements for the Borated Water Tanks, Diesel Generator Building, Service Water Structure and the, Reactor Buildings have S .->

r=*

yhy' /e .

i

l NCEED-T Task No.1 - Midland Plant,

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Unit 1 and 2, Subt .sk No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendeent 85 been byed on either assumed values of the Young's modulus o

c. In most of the cases of the settlement evaluations, only the immediate settlements have been considered. The consolidation (feactor Buildings, Service andWatte the secondar2 settlements have not been considered.

Building Foundation, etc.) * -

4. A listing of the specific discrepancies in the applicanti response to Question 39 through 48 are given.

Question 39 - Reactor Building Foundation (1) Settlement / Consolidation. The applicant's response to Question 39(1) indicates that the settlements due to the devatering have been computed on the basis of the Young's Modulus of the soil determined from the 17, 1977 and March 11, 1978. The load-settlement relations between May using load-settlement requires use of determination of the Young's Modulus Further, the soil's poisson ratio and the influence factor of the footing.

the settlement that occurred immediately after the application of the load should be known and be used. The applicant has not explained how these The Young's Moduli determined by the procedure parameters were determined.shown on page 39-8, should have been used to the dewatering instead e using constrained modulus used by the applicant.

The Young's Modulus obtained by backfiguring is based on the appropriate confining pressure and as such is appropriate for computing the settlements The consolidation and the secondary settlements caused by dewatering load. The applicant should address the have not been added to the total settlement.

primary consolidation settlements Presently, and the we aretime forcertain not themwhether to occurthe due to the(

load caused by the dewatering.

information provided in FSAR is enough to evaluate the time-settlement' Identify the relation or additional consolidation tests will be required.

consolidation test results being used in the determinatica of the primary The applicant should also address the secondary consolidation settlements.

consolidation settlements due to the dewatering load, even though such settlements appear to be negligible due to the high overconsolidation ratio of the glacial till over which the Reactor Buildings are founded.

The applicant should update the observed settlements and loading records as promisbd in response to Que,stion 362.9 and compare the observed with predicted sectiements.for monitoring settlements, which should' establish tolera differential settlement limits during the plant operati3 . ,

. e e

2

. . _ , _ . - . _ , . . . . . _ . . _ , . . ______-,_,,.._......__.._m,. _ . _ , _ , _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ , , . _ _ _ _

16 APR 1951 l NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant, Unit I and 2, Subtask No. 3 - R'eview Comments on Amendment 85 (2) Bearing Capacity. The shear strength values used in the analysis of the bearing capacity of the soil under the Reactor Buildings were takan from the weighted average of the undrained shear strength of the soil samples obtained mostly from the cooling pond dikes area. A review of Table 2.5-6, (FSAR Volume 3) and the borings by the Michigan Drilling Company indicate 5 that of all the samples tested for undrained shear strength, only one was taken from the area of the Reactor Buildings. Therefore, the shear strength ustd '

for the bearing capacity analysis is not representative of the_ soils on which the Reactor Building is founded. The drained shear strength parameters

($ = 32', C = 590 PSF) used in design of bearing capacity under static loads, also appear to be based on the averageIn of view the shear tests an the of these facts, the -

samples obtained from the entire plant area.

response of the applicant is not satisfactory. The applicant must evaluate the shear strength parameters from the soil samples obtained from the soil mass below or near the Reactor Building foundation. The information obtained from the Dames & Moore boring Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 15 might be used to determine shear strength parameters for the bearing capacity analyses of the Reactor Buildings. Limited information available from the tests performed on the samples obtained from these borings are presented in FSAR Volume 4. The applicant might choose to use this information provided he can demonstrate that the test results available are within the depth of influence for estimating bearing capacity.

Question 40 - Diesel Generator Building.

(1) Settlement / Consolidation. (a) The applicant has not furnished the requested information pertaining to the settlements of the Diesel Generator Building. The settlements computed on the basis of the compressibility parameters obtained from the preload test ara quettionable because of these reasons:

(i) There is questionable evidence to confirm that preload was held long enough to eliminate 100% of the primary consolidatics.

i l

(ii) Because of the flexibility of the footings, the surcharge loads were not evenly distributed. The foundation soils with relatively more compressible fill (southeast corner) have been subjected to a load intensity l

1ess than that of the surcharge, therefore, the applicant's statement that,

) "the stresses prevailing during surcharging at all depths in the fill beneath l

the building e*xceeded th,ose.that will prevail while the structure is operational," is questionable- -

e i .

3 l

I i

+- --_,.p.., e,, ,,-.,_. _n . , _ _ - . , , ,,,,w._. ..-.n..n.-._, , , , , - , _ , , , , , , , ,,c,,-_,n. , , - . . , , - , , . , . , - = , , , , - . , . , - - - _ - - .

,m- , - _ . - -a .-

i 16 APR 1981 i I

NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant, -

Wit 1 and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Consents on Amendment 85 (iii) The sudden drop in the piezometer levels after removal of the surcharge is due to negative pore pressures as the soil tries to swell. This is a normal reaction. After swell is complete, the piezoceter readings should return to the normal water level in the ground. However, in this situation, they generally retur:mtto some value greater than the ground water level which could indicate the presence of excess pore pressures.

The raise in piezometer levels to a height greater than groundwater levels af ter the dissipation of negative pore ' pressures are it:dicative that excess pore pressures were not completely dissipated at the time of surcharge removal. See piezometer 12,17, 23, 25, 29, 34, 36, 40 and 43.

(2) Bearing Capacity. The bearing capacity analyses for the Diesel Generator Building furnished by the applicant are based on the shear strength parameters (9,C), which are not representative of the soil fill beneath the Diesel Generator Buildir g. The numerical values of the angle of internal fri.. tion, 9, and the cohesion, C, were determined on the basis of the results of consolidated undrained tests on five esmples taken from the areas of the Tank Farm (Series T borings) and the Transformers (Series TR borings).

A review of the boring logs indicates that all of the five samples were obtain1d from the zones of stiff to hard clay (blovcounts varies from 12 to 19), with dry densities ranging from 114.4 pef to 117.9 pef, liquid limits ranging from 20% to 35% and plasticity index ranging from 9 to 20. Three of the samples (T9-8, T16-5, TR2-2) had been overconsolidated to the overconsolidation ratio ranging from 1.1 to 2.2 prior to testing, which stiffened the samples and changed their shear strength characteristics in ,

comparison to those which were not overconsolidated. The basis for doing such overconsolidation test should be given. Thus, it is evident that samples used to determine shear strength parameters are r.ec representative and as such, the information obtained by these tests indicate a soil type which does not exist N in the effective Diesel Generator Building area. The soil types beneath the Diesel Generator Building range from layers of sof t to hard clay as well as loose to very dense sand. An attempt to determine shear strength parameters by mixing the soil samples from layers of various soil types would result in misleading information as to strength. Selection of samples for testing as requested in 30 June 1980 letter from A. Schwencer to J. W. Cook, should follow the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.138 paragraph D.5.8, and cover not only the typical foundation condition, but also the extreme and critical zones. The resulting shear strength test results obtained should then be considgred in, evaluation of the bearing capacity for the foundation soil beneath the Diesel Generator Building.

(3) Preload Effectiveness. A discussed in ouT-review comments on the applicant's response of Question 40-1, the preload program may have not been effective in eliminating 100% of the primary consolidation, under the .

surcharge load of 2.2 KSFe We' are not in agreement with the applicant's statement that the preload program carried out at the Diesel Generator Building has demonstrated to have been successfully completed. The 4

~

16 APR 1937 SCEED-Z t

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreecent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland. Plant, l l

Unit I and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on A=endment 85 compressibility parameters obtained from the preload test are questionable and, therefore, future settlement predictions of the Diesel Cenerator Bufiding based on these patameters should be verified with the results from the requested laboratory consolidation tests. Validity of Figure 27-9 (Revision 6), in which the comparison of measured and predicted sett1ments is cade, is ,

questionable due to the reasons given in our review comments on the response  !'

of Question 40-1. Raising of the cooling pond's water level to elevation 627 ,

at the beginning of April 1979, did not satura'te the soil up to elevation 625 beneath the Diesel Generator Building during the surcharge, as 4tated by the applicant. ne drops in the piezometer levels to elevation 622- on  ;

renoval of surcharge indicates the water table to be at elevation 622I, ,

l resulting in considerable capillary action in the fill material below the ,

footing (el = 628). The effect of such capillary action is to resist l settlement. A rise in moisture, causing saturation, such as cut-off water l daring rain, would decrease capillary action causing more settlement. In j addition, it has not been established whether the clay fill was installed wet i

or dry of optimum moisture. If placed the dry side of optimum, the preload, evet, with the rise of the watertable, may not have consolidated the clay sufficiently to preclude further settlement. ,

f (4) Miscellaneous. The contour map (Figure 40-9) furnished by the applicant in response to Question 40-4, clearly shows varping of both the  !

north and the south walls indicating curvatures created by bending moments.

This warping would continue to grow with time, because of the future settlements of the east and the west ends about a rigid pivot in the center provided by the condensate pipe which has been reconnected af ter the removal of the surcharge load. An analysis of stresses induced by the warping should be performed taking into account the differential settlement over the life i span of the plant (40 years). The applicant should refer to the answers for Interrogatory 8 (Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff answer to interrogatory filed by th_e applicant, 25 February 1981) for the comments on the analyses which are n=eded to evaluate effects of structural cracks.

Question 41 - Service Water Building Foundation.

(1) Bearing Capacity. The use of drained shear strength parameters to analy e the ultimate bearir3 capacity of the proposed piles is not ,

justifie6 3e ultimate pile load capacity from the load test would simulate i an undrai< 1 condition, (even a long duration pile load test would not create l l

a drained ' condition at .the tip of the pile in this case); a static pile load l analysis should be perfoimed using undrained parameters. The shear strength parameters used in determination of thE side frictions % F2, F 3) and  ;

I point resistance (F4 ) are not the representative values for the soil

• condition prevailing at the locations where the piles will be driven. The . j same values of 9 and C are used for sand as well as clay (see sheet 2 of .

l Attachment 41-1). The applicant has used shear parameters for a soil type l l

5 l

l i

l \

J 1

1 I

' S RPR M NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant, Unit I and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Asendment 85 which he has created by mixing the test results of samples of Series T, TR and CT. In Attache =ent 41-1, the depth of fill considered in evaluating T3 and F2 is 27.5 feet, but the actual depth of the fill reported in Borings Logs CH-1 thr* ugh CH-6A (Volume 9 of the applicant's response to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Questions) indicates approximately 45' of fill material in the area where the underpinning piles will be driven. ne computations of the ultimate pile capacity should be revised using 38.5' (45'-6.,5') of fill instead of 27.5' used previously. The ultimate pile load capacity from the load test, Ru' shown to be 280 tons on page 41-3 should be revised considering the increased negative skin friction due to the increase in the fill material. Further, it appears that the determination of Ruat 280 tons (page 41-1) has been computed by multiplying the design load (100 tons = normal dead plus live loads on each pile) of the piles with a factor of safety of 2.5 and then adding to this value the negative skin friction of 30 tons (computed in Attachment 41-1). However, in our opinion the above approach of evaluating the ultimate pile load capacity from the load test is not correct. The factor of safety of 2.5 must be applied to the external load of 100 tons on the pile top plus the computed skin friction and the product then be added to the skin -

friction again [2.5 (100 tons + NSF) + NSF).

(2) Settlements.

(a) Paragraph 1 of the applicant's response to Question 41, Part 2a indicates thattvertical load on piles was calculated based on an appropriate spring stif fness of the underpinning piles and the subgrade modulus of the mat foundation resting on natural soil. However, in our opinion, the stiffness of the cantilevered portion of the Service Water Structure will be a factor in computing the underpinning pile load. Provide total computed pile loads due to dead and live loads as well as total vertical (

and horizontal loads due to seismic actions, along with the detailed analysis for the spring stiffnesses of the underpinning piles. De settlement values provided by the applicant indicates a time dependent settlement of 0.1 inch for the portion of the Service Water Structure founded on glacial till and l

0.05 inch for the portion to be supported on underpinning piles. The analyses I

for these settlements have many questionable assumptions and rationalizations such ass (1) Application of pile loads over an area of 15' x 3.5' (sheet 5 of'6' Attachment'41-2) at the tip elevation is not appropriate. According to Bjerrum et al (1957), pch a simplified method underestimates the settlements. ,,c -

(ii) It is not known whether the soil moduli used in the analyses .

I are for drained or 'undrained conditions. For a long term settlement, soil -

modulus for drained condition should be used.

l ,

l l

16 APR s.i' NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreecent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant. -

Unit 1 and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 (iii) The simplified approach used by the applicant is used in conjunction with one dimensional consolidation theory.

(iv) Secondary cettlement has not been considered in evaluation of long term settlement.

(v) The applicant's planning to jack the underpinning piles af ter ,

the devatering settlement takes place is not fealistic. Dewatering settlement is a time-dependent settlement Ond it might take many years to complete. The dewatering settlement of the area under the pile tip is estimated to be 0.48 inch (sheet 3 of 6 Attachment 41-2, Line 2), but it is not known what ,

compressibility parameters were used to compute this settlement. In view of these facts, the differential settlement problem still remains unresolved.

The approach outlined for computing settlement of pile group in Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Paulos and Davis, John Wiley and Sons, may be used.

(b) The analyses indicating a factor of safety of 2.2 against f ailure for the slope behind the retaining wall near the Circulating Water Intake Structure is based on soil parameters that may not te applicable to the type of fill material behind the wall. The applicant should base the analyses on the representative she strength parameters from the test results on samples taken near the retaining walls. A thirty feet (30') distance between ,

the top edge of the failure plane and the nearest safety related Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks shown in Figure 41-4 does not appear adequate. Provide, (1) the groundwater condition considered in the analysis, (2) loading conditions (e.g.

earthquake, seepage, drawdown, etc.) considered in the slope analysis which resulted in the safety factor of 2.2, (3) the identifications of boring logs, soil samples and the laboratory test results which are the basis for the g allowable shear strength parameters provided on page,41-6.

(3) Seismic Analysis.

(a) and (b). The analyses furnished and tne additional work the applicant has committed to perform would insure the seismic safety of the foundations, provided the representative soil parameters have beer used in the analyses.

Question 42 , Auxiliary Building, Electrical Penetration Areas and Feedd[ter Isolation Valve Pits. .., -

(1) Settlement. The applican s response that%: Settlement of the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pit (FIVP) and the caisson of the Electrical Penetration Area (EPA) will be identical" is not correct. The caissons of the

EPA and the concrete fill of the FIVP would not act monolithically. The .

' continuity of the top few feet of the FIVP concrete fill around the casings of 7

e e

,----,,y.--.-.. - - . - . ,..w.-..,.,_. -,.m-. .- r. _--,,--,..,,.,-,._,-3 , , - - , - - - - , , , . - , . , - , , , , - . . - , . . .,,,,,m-,, , , , ,y._,, ,,-,-,--w~.,-..-e-,,- , - - , - - , - . , - - -

16 APR E3i l

NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No, 1 - Midland Plant.

Unit 1 and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 the caissons in the EPA would not establish adequate structural bond between '

concrete fill and the caissons. In the case it happens, the peor soil fill around the caissons below the concrete fill is still compressible and the  ;

problem still remains unsolved.

(2) (a) Temporary Dewatering System - The Corps is in agreement with the applicant's response.

(b) Figure 42-68 Ihows the location of the access shaft.

However, the location and the dimensions of the drif t are not shown. The -

technical specifications for the work provided in Attachment 42-2 do not specify anything about the drifts. Item 3b of Attachment 42-2 indicates that the caissons will be extended at least 4' into the till; with this constraint -

the caissons' tip might end up with dif ferent elevations because of the sloping natural till surface caused by the foundation excavativn of the containment buildings. In the design of the bearing capacity of the soils under the caissons tip, the effect of this factor has not been considerd.

Item 3d, states that the caissons should have a vertical resistance capacity sufficient to prodace a static moment of at least 325,000 foot-kips st eclumn rows 5.3 and 7.8. The meaning of this statement is not clear. Item 4 ofBut it Attachment 42-2 provides a very brief outline of caisson load testing.

is not clear what remedia. measures will be taken if a completed caisson fails to meet the load test. A caisson filled with concrete cannot be driven further. An empty shell test (EST) by loading to 1.0 times the design load prior to placing concrete appears unrealistic, because with only 4' penetration in glacial till it is not possible to obtain frictf.onal resistance adequate to perform load test with 1.0 times the design load (?rictional g resistance of fill should be neglected for losd test). In item 5.2.3e, the applicant proposes to complete, test and wedge each caisson tight to the structure under a load equal to 1.5 times the design load, on a one by one basis. This procedure does not appear feasible; a previously wedged caisson under the bottom of the structure might be released when jacking for next caisson is applied under the structure.

(c) Temporary Surface Support - The responseAdditional of the applicant design for the temporary support systen for the valve pit is vague.1 information should be provided to assess the struises on members required for tsmporary.suppsrt.

~

(d) The app'licant's respo,nse indicates that the caissons capacities have been determined on the basis of the' shear strength parameters, determined from the soil samples obtained from other areas. On sheet 3 of 6 l Attachment 42-3, in the equation for ultimate bearing capacity, Qg, the last term accounts for the contribution due to adhesion between the caisson surface .

and the soil. The cohesion value 6 K.S.I. used in this term must be 8

+.,..,,-..-,,-,,-,...wy

4 16 APR 193i NCEED-T SUEJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant, ,

Unit I and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 multiplied by a reduction factor,,c , to obtain the adhesion. For stiff clay as encountered at the tip of the caissons, using the full value of the cohesica as adhesion is not justified. Also, *n computing load at the base of each caisson, the concrete fill and the soil between the caissons should be considered. This will have an effect of reducing the factor of safety. In case of an earthquake, an undrained condition would prevail f.n the soil around the caissons, therefore, an analysis for the caissons' group .apacity and factor of safety based on an undrained condition are taquired. The applicant has not performed analysis for 'the caissons group espac;t , considering the

SSE earthquake. It is our understanding that th2 4,000 kips, which the cai esons have to transmit to the glacial till, do not include dynamic load dua to a potential earthquake.

(e) Settlement of Auxiliary Building due to change in water level during dewatering. See review comment of 42(1).

(f) The applicant's response is acceptable.

(g) The applicant's response is acceptable.

Questions 43 - Borated Water Tanks. .

(1) Settlement. Since the soils beneath the tanks consists of not only granular type but also clay, the major part of the settlement will be consolidation settlement and secondary settlement. Consolidation and secondary settlements are time-dependent and might continue for the full operation life of the tanks. Therefore, settlement measured from full scale load test, as proposed by the applicant would not provide the accurate settlement. To accelerate the settlements, the tank must be surcharged wit' .

\s load considerably more than the load which it has been designed to carry.

However, because of the tanks fixed volumetric capacity, the surcharge load cannot be increased in excess of its design load. Blowcount plots shown in l

Figures 31-3 and 31-4 show variations in blowcounts from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 43 in the area of the East Borated Water Tank, and from a minimam

' of 4 to a maximum 57 in the area of the West Borated Water Tank, indicating that soil layers of variable density and consistency exist under the tanks.  !

Therefore, che information obtained from plate load tests cannot be used f o detgrmine the settlements. The application of the theory of elasticity requires soil moduli.for. drained and undrained conditions to determine time dependent and immediate settlements. It is not known what values the applicant has used to determine the dif ferential settlemente. To review the T

differential settlements, the numcrical values of Young s modulus of the soils and the unthods used to determine them are required. Secondary settlements -

also need to be evaluated to determine the structural adequacy of the tank

• l f bottoms.

l

~.

~

i 3-.,. - - - - , - - - + . , . - __w,--,e,s --. , , . _ , - . , , .,.,-%,, ,,------,...,,-,-,,,,,,..,-,,-,-.w- ,.,,,e-.-,,e.rs.--ew....,..,,--- .

l

. 1 l

l04?R 81 l

NCEED-L' SUBJECrl: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 Midland Plant, .

Unit I and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 (b) The dif ferential settlement of 1-1/2", using elastic plate l I

theory, appears to be computed on assumed value of soil moduli; therefore, it does r.ot present the potential differential settlement. The soil moduli ranging from 260 kips per cubic foot to 490 kips per cubic foot used to deter.nine differential settlements for the ring walls are not realistic for l the soil conditions prevailing under the tanks. The above valces of soil

• moduli are applicable to soils with consistencies ranging from very stiff to f very hard. Under the Borated Water Tanks, the soil consistencies vary from soft to very stiff. Provide actual settlement records of the Borated Water Tanks, and indicate the effect the settlement has on the piping between the

• tanks and the Auxiliary Building. The records should include the loading history.

(2) Bearing Capacity. The sherr strengthr, used in the analysis of the bearing capacity of the soils utader the Borated Water Tanks are rot appropriate to the soils conditions prevailing under the tanks. Figure 35-3, used to obtain the undrained shear strength, was constructed from the result obtained from the tests on the soil samples taken from the various locatioss of the plant area. These sa=ples had densities ranging from 114.6 pcf to 131.3 pef, water content 9.3% to 16.2%, and liquid limits ranging from .'81 to 35%. Thus, the samples were not identical, and therefore, shear strengt:ss obtained from Figure 35-3 are misleading. It is advisable to compute the bearing capacity of the soils using the soil parameters of the soil beneath the tanks. Attachment 43-1 shows the bearing capacity analyses. On sheet 2 of Attachment 43-1, there appears to be some computational error in evaluating effective confining pressure. The 1** (617) should be the average of pressure at elevation 600 (bottom of fill) and elevation 635 (top of fill):

Also, the numerical value of 0.55 for the coefficient of lateral pressme at \

rest, K o, is for over consolidation ratio (OCR) 2 which should not be used for fill material. A OCR of 1 is appropriate for the fill material, the to for this DCR is 0.49. The applicant should perform analysis for the factor of l safety using the results from the shear testing of the soil samples taken near l the Borated Water Tanks area and within the depth zone influenced by the f bearing capacity analysis.

Question 44 - Underground Diesel Fuel Tank Foundation Design I

(1) Bearing Capacity. The applicant's response is acceptable.

(2) Settlementr. Although the soil under the Diesel Generator -

Building and under the Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks are of Lhe same classifications, their strengths, compressibilities and the perpeabilities are not necessarily the same in numerical values. The use of classifications to '

evaluate the fundamental properties (shear strengths, compressibilities, and ,

permeabilities) is not a sound engineericg practice, particularly for the use in design of a Category I Structure of a nuclear power plant. The settlement 10

.,,.p,,.,r,,m ,,,9, , --7.,.-y,g9 g . , ,r_.-,_,w---- y.~w-- --

t- m - -,,--w - - , p. -.r-n-y,---,,e . . _ . - - , - , - . , , , _ , - , , , . - - ,,y,.w,-,,%..,i,-

=- .

1$ c3R $31 NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant, -

Unit 1 and 2 Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Ameadoent 85 evaluation of the Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks performed by the applicant by comparing the soil classifications under the Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks with those under the Diesel Generator Building are not acceptable. In addition, boring log DF-5 (Figure 33-1) indicates a layer of loose sand below the pads, which is susceptible to densification resulting in some settlement under a dynamic load. Therefore, settlements due to dynamic load should be estimated.

(3) Uplift Pressure on Tanks. The ap'plicant has not performed any analyses to demonstrate the effect of uplift pressure on the etability of the tanks. The stability of the tanks in uplif t cannot be assured unless the applicant can demonstrate, by analysis, that an acceptable factor of safety against uplift of the tanks does exist. The applicant is requested to provide the results of the analysis for uplift resistance.

Question 45 - Underground Utilities (1) (a) Settlement - From the applicant's reponse it appears that it has no plan to perform inspection of the interior of the water circulating pipings for cracks and openings after the removal of the surcharge load as requested in part (1)(a) of Questions 45. The applicant has made reference to the measurements of the deformations during surcharge for line 96-2Y3J-4, which was reported in responsa to Questions 19, 10 CFR 50-54(f). However, it has made no attecpt to compute the pipe stresses from the measured deformations, and as such the measured deformations do not provide any information regarding the adequacy of the pipe. In absence of the requested information, it is not possible to check the adequacy of the pipings which were affected by the surcharging of the Diesel Generator Building.

(b) Duct Banks - The applicant's response to Question 7,10 CFR g 50.54(f), indicates that reinforcing bars in the duct banks had exceeded the yield strain under the building load which the duct banks carried prior to their isolation from the walls of the Diesel Generator Building. This implies that permanent deformations have occurred in the reinforcing bars and cra-ks  ;

l wider than normally permitted in reinforced concrete structures have already I

! developed in the duct banks. In response to Question 30,10 CFR 50.54(f), the l spplicant has provided the results of its seismic analyses for the duct banks, ,

f but it is not known whether ur not it has taken into account the effects This of permanent strains in the reinforcing bars created by the previous load.

aspect,should ,be further reviewed by the appropriate engineering section of the Nuclea,r Regulatory Commission.

(c) BuriedPiping-Applic(n has stated 'itM11 respond af ter a

consultation with the NRC, 11

~

~.

i I

l

. i e

16 APR Ei' NCEED-T 3

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant, Unit i .nd 2, subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 (d) We concur with the applicant's response, except the response to Question 45(d)(1). In the applicant's response to Question 45(d)(1), the last column in Table 45-1, which is entitled " Building Displacement to Pipe (1)," gives minimum rattlespace requirements at penetrations of Category I free-field piping supported on plant fill into various structures. In that column of the table, the quantities given for the eight penetrations of the '

Diesel Generator Building are "V < .015 inch and H < 0.03 inch." For the nine penetrations for the Auxiliary Building, the quantities given are "Y < .

.036 inch and H < 0.129 inch." These numbers seem auch too small. What the ranges' imply is that less than 1/8 inch relative displacement is expected ,

between the building and the nearby free field. The applicant should provide detailed information as to (a) the sources of the numbers mentioned above, (b) describe how they were computed (c) what percentage of the free-field maximum displacement implicit in the shock spectrum or of the displacement obtained by double integration of the free-field acceleration are these rattlespace values. In addition, we are addressing the following two review comments to the applicant for his response.

(1) Since the structures are quite stif f, most of the relative movement between the pipe and the structure that would occur in a seismic event would be due to relative movements between the base of the structure and the free-field at the elevation of the penetration. Relative movements of the free-field at the two levels could be roughly estimated by H F ,x/V, where H is the vertical distance between the base of the structure and the  ;

penetration, V ,,x is the free-field maximum particle velocity, and V is the shear wave velocity of the fill. Alternatively, the effect of an H/Vs time shif t in a free-field ground motion vs time plot could be used to compute relative displacement of two potots in the free-field. In addition, for heavy structures the question of whether the structure foundation moves with the free field should be considered.

(2) Table 45-1 indicates that everywhere there is much more than the applicant's stated minimum rattlespace requirements, This butisthere are a few an unacceptable places where clearances "C" are less than 1 inch.Some future settlement of the plant fill (u situation, in our opinion. The pipes will its own weight) in the nonsurcharged areas is to be expected.

move downward further reducing "C." After consideration of the original svorce.for, minimum clearances given in Table 45-1 and the range cf numbers for the analyses suggested above, the applicant is requested to provide revised minimum clearances and state the action to be taken to achieve o

-,, them.

(e) The applicant's response that "the analysis oE the settlement .

stresses in the piping is unrelated to the properties of the supporting

• materials" is correct. The evaluation of the stresses using the radius of l

l 12 -

i

-v +--e v---*--eow w-w w en w - , w w -,,en--w--s--r- -,-ea-n auww--m--ww-~--ww,,e,-oweewwww-- ,-- - =--,

16 AP:t &*

NCEEL-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant, -

Unit 1 and 2 Subtask No. 3 - Review Com=ents on Amendment 85 curvature computed from the measured deflections of the piping from their original positions, does not require soil properties of the bedding on which the pipes are laid. However, to review of the stabilities of the pipes near supports it is necessary to know the support conditions. Therefore, we are reiterating our request that the applicant should furnish the requested information in Question 45(1)(e).

(f) The applicant's response to Q6estion 45(1)(f) is not t satisfactory. The shear strength parameters used in the analysis of slope stability of the dikes may not be representative values for the soil conditions prevailing in the soil mass of the dikes. The value of the angle ,

of internal friction, 9, used in the total stress analysis has been manipulated from the 9 (drained condition) given in FSAR Table 2.5-22 rather than using the actual value obtained from the test results on samples taken from the dikes, or from the test results of the record samplings. The values of the shear strength parameters provided in Table 45-2, page 45-7, are basically taken from the FSAR Table 2.5-22, which are assumed values for the design. Thus, the applicant has not demonstrated that the shear strength parameters of the soil mass in the dikes are identical or better than those of the assumed values for the design of the dikes. The applicant has further attempted to justify the soil parameters selected on the basis of the average blowcounts (Figures 45-4 t'ru 45-10) of the standard penetration test (SPT).

The tests for this area (eacept boring No. P2-5) do not provide blowcount information for top 15' height of the dikes. As a matter of fact, except boring Series P2 involving five borings across one particular cross section of the emergency cooling pond dike, all of these tests were carried out in the natural soil, therefore, they provide no information about the fill material of the dikes.

Question 46 - Cooling Pond (1) Emergency Cooling Pond. In paragraph 1 of the response, the applicant has referred to its submission of September 14, 1980, and has stated that as pointed out in the submission, the compaction to cor.struct the cooling pond dike was different from t'. problem fill in the power block area. A review cf the applicant's submissica of 14 September 1980, indicates that it has no intention to furnish the .aquested information. Th6 explanations provided in the submission against making additional borings as requested by the st4ff ,has ,ti6 engineering merits. The applicsnt has .aken no record t samplings at all td verify the design assumptions as to the shear strength parameters. It has performed no field control tests for compacted soils in dikes above elevation 6201. The boring logs of the standard penetration tests (SPT), through the dike's fill material conducted for the installation

• of the piezometers,' show no blowcount numbers above elevations 62CI with one .

13

• e

-en

o 16 APR C NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant.

Unit 1 and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendment 85 exception which is boring No. P2-4 where a blowcount number of 7 has been recorded at elevation 625.7 . Thus, the results of the standard penetration test furnished by the applicant provide no information regarding the soil conditons for approxicately the top 15' of the dikes. Further, the blowcount records from boring No. P1-2 and F1-3 (see boring logs furnished with the response to Question 45) indicate soft clay in the ease dike below elevation -

620. In absence of the requested information, it is not possible to review -

the applicant's response. .

(2) Operating Cooling fond - The applicant's response to Question

- 46(2) is not satisfactory. Our comments on the response to Question 46(1) are

• applicable to this question. In addition, the averaging of the blowcounts. ,

which varies from a minimum of 4 (see boring los 611 in Figure 45-6) to a maximum of more than 100 for clays and silt and from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of more than 100 for sand, would provide totally misleading information as to the strength of the soils. Averaging of the blowcounts is acceptable, if all the blowcounts belong to one particular consistency or relative density group. The method adopted by the applicant would not allow for locating we2k and strong stratifications of the soils.

We concur with the remaining portions of the applicant's response to Question 45(1)(f). If the appropriate values of shear strength parameters are used, the analyses performed would assure the seismic safety of the foundations of the two Category I reinfo.ced concrets return pipes.

Question 47 - Site Dewatering (1) (a) We concur with the applicant's response.

(b) The additional work the applicant has committed to perform in \

its response of this question will assure the seismic safety of the foundations of Category I structures, deriving support from the plant fill.

Therefore, we concur with the response.

(c) The remedial measures completed, and the additional work the applicant has committed to perform, would provide definite data on the adequacy of the analyses that the applicant has relied on to demonstrate safety. For example, this will verify whether or not there are more than 90 days recharge time to reach elevation of 610 as calculated by the applicant in his response to Question 24(a),10 CFR 50.54(f).

(2) In its response to Question' 47(2), the appQcant has presented results of the pumping tests and hydrographs (see Figures 47-7 and 47-8) to demonstrate that the plant fill south of the Diesel Generator Building is an .

14

._m.__ ,, , _ . . , . . . . . _ . . , _ , _ , _ _ _..._____-,,.-_,,,_._.,_,..__-___..m,.,_. . . _ _ , , _ , , _ , _ _ , , _ , , , _ , , _ , , , , _ _ , , , , m.m.,m , , _ _ . . - - . _ .

16 APR W:

SCEED-T SU BJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant, -

Unit 1 and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Comments on Amendmeat 85 However, none of effective barrier to the inflow of the cooling pond water.

these test results can substantiate that the plant fill is an effective barrier. The results indicate that inflows of water from the However, south side is since less than that from the area of the Service Water Structure.

the applicant is planning to monitor the water elevations in plant areas, and to perform a full scale test (last paragraph of response to Question 47(1)c), ,

the seepage from the south end will also be accounted for, and if the test indicates more than 90 days recharge time to reach the elevation of 610, the dewatering system will be acceptable.

(3) The applicant has revised the analyses for the inflow in the .

~'

line-slot on the basis of a combined gravity-artesian flow to design the dewatering system. Houever, it has reduced the value of the permeability of the aquifer from 31' (used in the previous analysis) to 17' per day obtained from the pumping test of the well No. PD-15A which is the nearest analysistofurnished the locations of the proposed dewatering wells. The method ofBut the validity of by the applicant is acceptable to the Corps of Enginers.

using a reduced permeability of 17' per day should be further reviewed by the appropriate section of the NRC.

(4) The filter pack gradation requirements provided on page 47-12 of the response, appears te have been designed for a aquifer materialWhat gradation determined on the basis of the boring logs of Series PD borings.

measures (established gradation of soils with depth interval of screens, modify filter pack gradation) will be required during the well installations and during production pumping to prevent infiltration of soil fines from material finer than the gradation submitted in Figure 47-123 Acceptance criteria of sand in discharge from an individual well after the (

completion of its development given on page 47-14 (10 PPM or less) does not ,

provide any information regarding the amount.of. erosion that will take place ,_

over the 40 year life span of the plant. Provide flow rate, sand in flow in terms of PPM (taken at some interval), and quantity of total sand pumped during the development of the wells on the basis of each individual well asAlso well as on the basis of total number of wells.

l sand in diccharge related to flow rate of a single wel1~ as well as of the l entire system of wells during the production pumping including an estimate of l volume of sand material removed in one month and during the 40 year plant life I

ba' sed on your. submitted criteria.

(5) We concur w"ith the applic, ant's response., % .

(6) The quantity of chemicals in groundwater shown in Table 47-3 I .

indicates the possibility of early incrustation (high percentage of CsCo3 .

Ph > 7.5, etc. ). Therefore, the applicant's maintenance program should also i

15 . , ,

l t

i l

l . . .

I

' 6 AP R '.CE' SCEED-T SU BJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant.

Unit 1,and 2, Subtask No. 3 - Review Con =enu on Amendment 85 consider periodical cleaning of the incrustations by an acceptable method. We concur with the rest of the work the applicant has cocaitted to perform in his maintenance program.

(7) We concur with the applicant's response.

(8) We concur with major part of the applicant's responses. However,

• in our opinion the high percentage of Caco 3 shown in Table 47-3 indicates early possibility of incrustation, and the applicant should stipulate a remedial measure in its maintenance program by periodical cleaning.

48 - Seismic Analysis of the Structuras on Plant Fill Nkterial '.

(1) (a)(b)(c) The seismic analyses which have been completed, and the additional work the applicant has in process, or committed to perform, will either (a) assure the seismic safety of foundations of the Category I structures deriving support from the plant fill or, (b) provide definite data on the adequacy of the analyses that the applicant has relied on to demonstrate safety. However, in case of the Diesel Fuel Storage Tank Toundatico, we disagree with the applicant's response. A seismic investigation as to the settlement of the loose sand indicato by boring DF-5 needs to be investigated.

(2) (a)(b)(c) The applicant has furnished the requested information, and we are satisfied with the applicant's response.

5. If you have any question regarding our review comments, please contact Mr. H. N. Singh of our Geotechnical Section at FTS 226-2227. Resolution of discrepancies and concerns will depend on the expeditious receipt of the \s information mentioned in our review comments in paragraph 4 FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER:

W P. McCELISTER Chief, Engineering Division e .

1

. (

1 1

16 1

m- rw t- w ---y --w ,, - ,,v--r- - -wy -m. , w ,---r- ,- se ---->-w -

--'e c--% ,-t,ry m.s iw--m-- ----- ==-y v-, w.

~ '

,.,,, Attachment 5

/ o UNITED STATES g

P, n o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 'N '

{ .*  ; WASHINGTO N. O. C. 20555

%,,' v

• .... ",-r' fg 8 1981 ,

Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 Ott, OL Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201

SUBJECT:

FOLLOW-UP ON DECISION REGARDING ADDITIONAL SOIL BORINGS AND TESTING - MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 By letter of November 10, 1980, I informed you of our decision relative to your request for relief from making additional borings and associated tests of soils in eighteen areas on the Midland Plant site. That letter noted that a relaxation of certain requirements for six Standard Penetra-tion Tests (SPT) in the vicinity of plant structures were in order on the basis of additional boring data which you submitted on September 14, 1980 and our extensive discussion on the merits of your position.

My letter of November 10, 1980 also stated that certain borings which we had requested June 30, 1980 along portions of the cooling pond embankments should be relocated to areas of the dike immediately adjacent to the submerged emergency cooling water reservoir. The details of this relaxation, including the changed boring locations, are provided herein.

The new borings in the areas of interest for which subsurface informatien was provided by your letter of September 14, 1980, and the six SPT borings identified by Question 37 of our June 30, 1980 letter which may now be eliminated, are as follows:

Structure New Borings Provided Eliminated 9/14/78 SPT Borings Diesel Generator CH-13, CH-14, C"-15, COE-8 Building CH-16, CH-17. CH-18 COE-13 CH-1, CH-1A, CH-2, COE-16 Service Water Structure CH-3 D-9 COE-14 Retaining Wall COE-17, Auxiliary Building TW&TEW Series COE-18 O' Iq j f b0

J. W. Cook jgy 8 lggi Details of this relaxation are further described in the enclosed letter of December 2,1980 by Mr. P. McCallister of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, our geotechnical consultant. Mr. McCallister's letter includes a revised sketch (Figure 1) showing all.the borings in the plant fill area and noting the six borings from which the SPT's have been eliminated.

Mr. McCallister's letter also includes a revised sketch (Figure 2) showing the relocated boring locations on the cooling pond dikes.

Figure 2 shows the new locations for borings COE-1, COE-2 and COE-3 (previously located in the south and east dikes), and boring COE-7 (previously located in the northwest area). We further endorse Mr.

McCallister's comer.ts regarding selection of undisturbed sample locations and his requests that the guidance of Regulatory Guides 1.132, " Site Investigation for Foundation of Nuclear Power Plants," and Regulatory Guides 1.138, " Laboratory Investigation of Soils for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plant" be used as appropriate.

Your letter of November 21, 1980 forwarded Amendment 85 to the Midland application and noted your belief that Atendments 85 and 81 satisfy the concerns raised in Question 37. We find that these submittals do not fully satisfy the concerns of Question 37. Except as changed herein for the six SPT borings and the relocation of four dike borings, it remains our position that tiie requested soil borings and testing are still required as stated in my letter of November 10, 1980.

Sincerely, hSL c.O Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

McCallister's letter dtd.12/2/80 cc: See next page.

P i

l I

I

.-.. - .-- . = . _ . - . ._. - ... - , -..._. - ., - - , .-. - - . - -. - .-- - . - -

\

gg B1981 -

P cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Mr. Don van Farowe, Chief Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq. Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq. Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 t.ansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 James E. Brunner, Esq. William J. Scanlon, Esq.

Consumers Power Company 2034 Pauline Boi.evard 212 West Michigan Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Jackson, Michigan 49201 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Myror. M. Cherry, Esq. Resident Inspectors Office 1 IBM Plaza Route 7 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Mary Sinelair Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5711 Summerset Drive 5795 N. River Midland, Michigan 48640 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Ms. Sharon K. Warren Attorney General 636 Hillcrest State of Michigan Environmental Midland, Michigan 48640 Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 l

Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 l

l t

1 O

e l

2 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 Er.gineering Center P. O. Eox 1449 Canoga Park, Califernia 91304 Mr. Villiam Lawhead U. S. Corps of Engineers flCEED - T 7th Floor 277 t'ichiCan Avenue Detroit, Richigan 4S22C Charles Eechheefer, Esc.

Atomic Safety t- Licensir.S Scard l

i U. 5. I:uclear Regula. ry Commission l

Pashington, D. C. 20555

.M r. Gustave A. Liter:berger Atcric Safety I Licensir.g Ecard l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatery Cor.cissicn Pashingten, P. C. 20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowar.

Apt. B-125 6125 E. Verce Trail Poca Raten, Florida 33a33

OtPAr.TI.*E!4T OF THE Ar..1Y e B . 1 I" 8 8 aCf Ctwo- g, g g;sgg 9 g; l

• 4.C.s 88-f 3

• . DL1=Ost.t.sC%as. 46339

%% ., 2 DEC Bo

CEED-T SC5Ji:CT: Interagency Agree . nt No. NRC-03-79-167 Tash !.o. 'l :lidlan.I Plant Unit 1 and 2 Subtash No. 2 "r. Mrge '_ car, Chief

'l.3. : uchar Reguistory Commission "ydrologic & Geotechnical Engr. Br.

Division of Engineering

! ail Stop P-214

'isshington, DC 20555 .

Dear Mr.14ar:

Reference is cade to the letter of 10 November 1980 from Mr. R. l.. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing, to Mr. J. W. Cook, Vice President, Consumer Power Company, conveying the NRC action on the applicants request of 70 August 19S0 for relief from r.aking ad.!!tions1 bority,s and testing of soil sacples from eighteen (18) areas on the Midland plant site.

We have reviewed the NRC letter, and concur with the decision reached. The six (6) boring locations, from which requirements of the Standard renetration Tests (SPT) have been relaxed were provided in our letter of 30 September 1980. We are inclosing a new m:sp (Figure 1) showing all the borings in the plant fill area with special identification of the six (6) borings from which the SPT's have been eliminated. We are also inclosing a map (Figure 2) showing the relocated boring locations on the cooling pond diken. In our opinion, relocations of the three borings (COE-1, COE-2 and COE-3) from the south and east dikes and one boring (COE-7) from the northwest area to the emergency cooling pond dikes are advisable. Data from these four relocated borings will help evaluate the stability of the dike around the Category 1 Emergency Cooling Pond (baf fle dike .ind main dike). 'Ihis will also help cvaluate any potential impact on Category 1 discharge pipes which are located l

along either side of the emergency cooling pond and ultimtely enter the reservoir at the south end.

l

. Selection of undisturbed samples locations should be based on the renults of f

the SPT's to be performed prior to takity. samples at each borinn location.

' For the six (6) boring locationc in the plant fill area where SPT data is h )yW 7 N

J I

qd g Y g- y f

~ . .

.. 1...

4.

'C IL-!

SrbJECT: Interagency Agreewnt No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 H1J1and Plant Unit I and 2 Subtask No. 2 available, the taking of undisturbed saeples should be based on this data.

Tne NRC Regulatory Guide 1.132 entitled " Site Investigation for Foundation of Nuclear Power Plant" should provide guidance for explorations and taking of undisturbed samples. Laboratory testing of the recovered samples should follow the guidance of NRC Rep.islatory Guide 1.138 entitled " Laboratory Investigation of Soils for r.ugineering Analysis and Design of Nu:1 car Power Plant."

Sincerely, 2 Inci -- g7[ P. 7--

McCALLISTER ,

As stated / Chief, Engineering Division o

l l

l l

l

%E i

-e p--- g y,.wam ,e, -p__ --- .,-- w-y - - -,

. CATER TilEatuCNT

. I V -

e

'N.

. " ". s'

'[*

( )' . ". '

1. f allK Al1[ A ' COOLING TOWLil

! t '!.'.. E X _ u'! c'  ; L-i' I

-Q P j #]7. 7.%'-

..(

1Q,y ... .

, _) .

' '** * ' 'd *' iivprtoGEi

-+- OILY YsASTE SToltAGE 1

R A0 WAST E OLOG 1 n.. . . . ~g*** AND TitEAT JEtai 1ANKS f,Et:END_ _

i. ..". .. - i- ~ . .t . . . , .:

lg'. .

l .

Aux a ny cultosHG p COE XX No Str.ndard Penet. rat ion I * ' '

% /\ RL.O C A R NO SPT. Test Required

.f[,,. , . e w,, , .

J,c,A P. *

(FUTUREl

\ I

\) .=s o I T UNIT 2

'l . UNIT I

• 4 I C0f1TAINIAENT CONTAINf.:ENT s. e

, a l

~COE17 - n ~ >'

o.

.........!. '"... .. 1. .

f. -

{M CO $uW (no ., .sn)

I ._

'a * (y lg (30 SPT)

~

a.

("O SPf) a 7 l ,,,

I e. .ee .

l

• >'.l-*

(';9 SPT TunersE sueLoseso e a

.e is s is

• • h*

togg)

CO E9 CC E' \O * '8 -

~

( ky --- f .

. . . .. ' ~ '

- " v:s:.y'

... A f

1 x:,;.u..... tw  :. .:,b ~. '- ..

"' M' l , [j :.n', ;[] i .. . ..r,

- . g. . "'a "tD...

. } IQ l D 4 CO E 15

. .... .... ... ;i~ 0.5%g t;y,, r. a' . .. .... . .

.... L

.) [e

~

E"S ,e

.s . SERVICE WATEM FU!AP STRUCluRE

\y -

~ A . . g o.ESELNEf8AT0ft *.-e

' , s .. . A.8 u.

8.I* -

A 1

COEll

...' .N(JI SPT) r es.s a Catt o n. J' .6 a-

. .GUAriOIIOUSE '

l CCE13 f. t .. auituiHG7 # "

4 i se . . '\F/

ig ,) CiftCUL Al tilG CO E P2. CoNotNsArc S10AAGE

'* V wAri.ei ensiaKE SinuclunE TANKS - se s . q ,'Ih.l -

% y. ,I3 r

' T..

J'.gi,a;g, C,oh M cn.,s.if i

I

- u >.4 M. C aos.,n a ro N o j

I

) citsti. ctritnaton rutt Figure <1 oii. stonact tarms - .~ ),

/

, ,.... .... i. i iiii -i i im. o i

- m v ou W: 3

• I c3 l

.. P 5 .

Q

.k. N I

0

. l E

.. .. e e T ** =j= -i gg 4

) .

l,.

h & .2.- 6;ce s 7 f , y

/l

• a s'ye Y ,'*

• • • g3 T

j= Ltj

• _,,,...-,._-siv*

T/

./ -coc; 3 ye .

~

, m /h O-- /

_' j v' t[' if

+'p .

y ,, Q,,p.

j y y --

&3- [. +

C.:

d. . , ,

![:

/  %' ) i

/ to, Q IO .iqw.?-

h,

a . , - LI/g V + l l, '.:n ,

' O, - i 9

/Q l 1e 0/ V  :

/ +

.:,:c a -

[fj . +0 1, 1

g '- *occa a

{Ag "2

Q ~

.=, , : I,f;k <(f +

[.I  :._ ,

if' f_ $ y' ' '.1 .

. 5:v ,o, ) A '- ..

,: o It.Q $ + 's + i+ + +  :-

dA 149  :

,: t O 'J.. Ir 1 i

1. la1

+ , .

, 8.. ..c els .

I r

, ,,  : .r- + l

=m., g S  !

l

- c ,

l l }

m ..' i

- + -

m.

I; I c .' ,

-_~ E-- -E--t "Z ~t"

/'. _ _ ___ T.- .. . .

. '.. ' ~ *

• 8

[ I .! ..

I

.4 l , * *

• * $l .O 2 R  :: tl  % l!  ! t 3 e

}.  ::.

. .r- 31 g

-' ' ~ ~

,--r---, - , , . . 4 - - , - - .y - - - , , - - - - g- . - - . - --

l' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Afii'. LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)l CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l Docket Nos. 50-329-0M & OL h 50-330-0M & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KANE ON STAMIRIS CONTENTION 4.B and TES11 MONY OF HARI NARAIN SINGH CONCERNI DIKES ADJACENT TO THE EMERGENCY COOLING WATER RESERV0IR in the above-caption proceeding have been served on the following by Aposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail systam, this 23rd day of July,1981.

• Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licens%g Board 5711 Summerset Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Ralph S. Decker Michael I. Mi'11er, Esq.

Route #4, Box 190D Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.

Cambridge, MD 21613 Alan S. Farnell Esq.

Isham, Lincoln E Beale One First National Plaza Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 42nd Floor 6152 N. Verde Trail Chicago, Illinois 60603 c

Apt. B-125

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Board Panel Frank J. Kelley U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attorney General of the State Washington, D.C. 20555 of Michigan

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Steward H. Freeman Appeal Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 Environmental Protection Div;sion Washington, D.C. 20555 I

720 i.aw Building Lansing, Michigan 48913

• Docketing and Service Section

~

Office of the Secretary /

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 L .A

e.r-James E. Brunner, Esq. Jeann L;nsiey Consumers Power Company Bay City Times 212 West Michigan Avenue 311 Fifth Street Jackson, Michigan 49201 Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Barbara Stamiris Paul C. Rau 5795 N. River Midland Daily News Freeland, Michigan 48623 124 Mcdonald Street Mr. Steve Gadirr 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Wendell H. Marshall, Vice President Midwest Environmental Protection Associates RF0 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 James R. Kates 203 S. Washington Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48605 William D. Paton Counsel for NRC Staff

- - - - , , . - - - - - . , - - . - . - .-,-,..~--,----.-~,-,.----,,-----,-----w--- -- , , - - - , - , - - - . -