ML20091P103
| ML20091P103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1980 |
| From: | Goodwin Z ARMY, DEPT. OF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS |
| To: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-12, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406120596 | |
| Download: ML20091P103 (29) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:) r Z.;K.,... ;... - -. =. - es:.. - --... a w. w.. f ;. -
- 2f*yfy f
":.~ (R ,-: w ;o.. c -. -....m,. .w _... w,..,.. _.,,,,,.. g, g,. ( ; 3 ', <. ..t r. ,.e._._._._.,_,.,._, r. ,7[ y MO*' ' T:EPARTMENT OFe,%. ARMY 3.,_d +: o-- osvnolv osstaicv. coars.or snesmeras /;,..w.v.3 i som 1o37 N-' *' ~ [ DEvMOlv. 8dICMIGAN 4 east J z4 MAR $80 NCZZD-T Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167. Task 3o. 1 - Midland Plant SU3 JECT: (INTERDf) Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - 1.atter Report TERU: Division Engineer, North Central ATTN: NCDED-5 (James Simpson) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TO: fl ATTN:.Dr. Robert E. Jackson Division of Systems Safety Mail Stop P-314 washington, DC 20555 The Detroit District team which provides geotechnical engineering support ( to the NRC has reviewed nest of the available doc.:=ents concerning plant fill 1. i The team met with the NRC staff, the applicant at the Midland Planc. Consumers Power Conputy (CPCO) and its consultants, participated in a site visit to observe site conditions and discussed the proposed remedial sessures Since final design planned for Category I structures placed.on plant fill. i computations have not yet been provided for remedial measures, we feel it ( would be most expeditions for all parties to submit,this Dr:EL".i letter report ^ D. to provide our initial evaluation of she remedial measures and recommend The procedures to settle any unresolved issues, concerns and questions. Bistrict also feels it is important to accomplish a thorough review which just esanot be done quickly. The 81 strict's investigation to date has been centered'seinly around the 2. proposed e d =1 measures or other action for the Category I structures placed on fill unterials. The review to data includes at least a prelistamry look at all data aceived through Amendment 74. The initial indication of issues unresolved to data fall under the following four general types with subtopics as noted: I. Soils a. Groundwater b. Borings and testing Settlement / Consolidation ~F . c. d. Seismic concerns 6 8406120596 840517 PDR FOIA j RICE 84-96 PDR .-4 n ,-n
.. -. ~ -, - .n:., ..- ~... .:,f.=,s,- ;,; y . ' ~ M....**,W sf,i,.... .,g., \\
- ~
,**o g3-e,.% e pre..**'.", ? . w.., K -.<* - -..; y; e:- t^0thO ~I ( N. s -g t L'. ' C.on$a&e,5 PN HC w n, s .'1 NCDED-G (24 Mar 80) Itt Ind SUBJECI: Interagem.y Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1, Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - I.etter -I Report (UTIRIM) DA, North Central Division, Corps of Insineers, 536 South Clark Screet, -i f., Chicago, 711dnais 60605 ), SPR 1380 1 .' k 10: District Ingineer, Detroit .] i
- q 1.
The subject lattar report is returned for revisions. See Inclosure 1, recommended changes. .J 2. Inclosure 2 is a suggested format for this report. IUR. IEE D1TISION ENGUIER: ,'y / .,ii t -) ( phy.. ,. J.... . j,.! 2 Inci ZANE M. GOODWIN, P.E. -I as Chief, Engineer a g Division d .d-I, e .l 4 .J 1 n v
- e
?. ..t. .c .t i .b ~.4 s.
- e I
l l i 10 1,'. s
u c n. &? 'h, T: ":.:.' ]." ' ~ -Ys ?. K r ~~' _,g _.y: 'e in ' *);.* - y - g g g ;.., m.- m. .. w, :. - --ygys..gg. u
- ~ ~;... g su: = ~ * ~. - - *. ~,
. '... : :.. ~. - . n.,,... g; j;.. 'y . e,..w ;.: c-..... .,m.._. .. s. .,.y n- >~ r ..sn?cp.. ...y c 7.g y.,,. 7'D 24 S80 .NCIIn-T SmLTECT: Interagency Agreenent No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant I Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Raport (INTERIM) Misc. structures constructed on fill not covered in Paragraph II e. below f. Quality control g s H. Remedial Measures for Category I Structures on 7111 a. Dewatering ? b. Diesel generator building e. Service water building d. Scrated water tanks Underground diesel fuel tanks e. y f. Underground utilities r 3 Anz. building - Feedvata,r valve pit i O In. Geotoir s. Depth to rock b. Layer formation c. Tault and seismic history d. Crustal rebour.d Interpretation of borings, test pits, lab tests, etc. e. [
- 17. Eisetilaneous or General, k
3. Questions, uncertaintias and unresolved issces are stated in the following = These are in addition to the responses anticipated to be received fron pages. the applicant concerning additional design support information to the 10 CTR 50.54 (f) questions concer-ling structures on plant fill. The source of each question, concern or, issue is indicated at the end of each ites. 7 Q I. Soils b. 'dorings and testing (1) Who and what are the qualifications of the persons (s) who y classified samples of all borings, driller or geologist? Were samples tested in a lab? Are samples still available? Where are the results, many appear to be missing? Source - site visit, various documents and general concern. [ (2) Are final fill elevations available at completion of fill 5 placanent and prior to construction? Were additional borings taken prior to L start of construction! If so, where are they? Source - Inc1 to CPCO lettar 2 Nov 79. I I (3) Have all investigative borings for the plant fill probles [ been completed? If not, what are the locations of the remaining borings to be taken? Source - site visie 28 Feb 80. a 2 A o L s F O e Es- - ~-- --
~ ." z m.. v .x, ~m. a.-:-w - r-q *
- .... ~ <.
- m= z- : =L... z- ~>-~.-y. 7. 3 y.. ~. g; a / " * ~ ' * %N- .ju.. 24 ER 1980 1 . NCZZD-T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland. Plant Units 1 and 2 Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM) c. Settlement / Consolidation (1) Why have allowable soil bearing stresses not been discus. sed? h e are the related soil spring constants so that set lement vs. load is quickly discerned? Source - site visit 27 7eb 80. (2) Ras the bearing value of the glacial till been decorained and have settlements been estimated for this bearing stratus based on all building loads, particularly the reactor building? Source - site visit 27 Teb 80. d. Seismic concerns (1) New soil properties or new materials used for backfill should be used'in the revised seismic analysis for determination of structural O adeuatcy. 1.s this been acco p11shed and do -ted? Source - question 262.13, Q&12.5-22. Misc. structures constructed on fill not covered in Paragraph II e. below.. (1) Sand packats have been noted in cooling pena dikes which lead toward the river. What are the adverse inpacts (groundwater piping, leading to dike failure)2 Was the dike properly compacted? Source general concern. (2) Eave all structures on *11 he investigated for settlement? If not why not? Have all buildings on fill been checked for cracking? Source - interia SZL (3) The design of the Water Service Building retaining wall is critical and partially category I. This design should be provided for CofE r@ review. h e is the cause of the wall settlements noted during the 27 and 28 Feb 80 site visits? Source - site visit 28 Feb 80. f. Qeality etentrol (1) Why are there so many shrinkage cracks (assuming these are shrinkage ers ? Is this simply poor quality control? Will cracks be repaired in Source - site visit 28 Feb 80. II. Remedial Measures for Category I Structures on Fill a. Deustering l l (1) Why not utiliza a sinrry cutoff wall or trench across the l primary ratharge zona near the service water building in addition to pumped wells planned? Use of clay slurry wall would provide positive cutoff. Source. - site visit 27 yeh 80. 3 p .\\ s { d y.-,,...._,,,.,,
^ W.. w.- .- ygg.z =.~g ~.e.~. _ =am %.Q... W Ty"%..a. w.a..:.. =
- -
- z -:.
% g pg..ygg g;p w., _'- Q M.Q:.u-r .n...>.~.= -..w .-.. ~.. .--... -,,-., _. n.. n ~...-
- y 0.s.v.
s- .__ 24BR.hea H_R.m'4*w.'.a.. ~ - s.. .~> : ~n .i 3p7 s i .' SUBJEG;: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midla'nd ?;Last Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - letter Report (INTERIM) i (2) he is the dewatering well gravel pack design? Does it vary with soil laysr type? Source - site visie 27 feb 80 (dewatering). (3) Will groundwater piping occur from cooling pond to well points over tine? Any preventative naasures proposed to stop this? h e about, piping along piles, building foundacions or caissons? Source - site visie 27 - Feb 80 (dewatering). (4) Will weep holes in retaining well at the service water 94mns be plugged since these are no longer necessary with the dewataring planned? This could be a likely source of possible groundvatar piping in the future. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewataring). (5) he are the test 'tesults concerning incrustation of the {; devatarig systen as well as fines removal (additional settlement) concerus? Sourca - sita visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering). (6) h t is the final devataring plan; number of wells, spacing, location, depth, diameter, pumping races, recharge ratas, back-up systams, ete! Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewataring). (7) Are there any known problems of operations of the devataring systen due to presence of gas.ockats in the ares? ht about fire /azplosion hazards with the electrical controls 7 Source - general concern, prior. experience. (8) Has the need for localized dewstaring in sand fill lenses been analy=ed for structures other than the D.C. t=4 m a-f Source - site visie 27 Feb 80 (dawatering). (9) Upon reaching a steady stata in devatoring, a geophysical pd survey should be nada to confirm tha position of the water table and ec insure that no pera.hed sacar tah'es exist. Source - site vis,it 27 Feb 80 (dewatering). b. Diesel ganarator building (1) Provide additional verification that surcharge loading has indeed solved the settlement probleu. Additional borings, if taken, should ~ j indicate higher blow cor.ats when compared to borings taken prior to application of pre-load. Settlement analysis should be =ade on samples fros l l new borings. The drop in groundwater levels, implying heavier soil unic veights, and diesel plus seismic vibrations should be considered in the l l settlement and seismic analyses. Source - Q&E 2.5-22 and sita visit 27 ard 23 Feb 80. l-(2) How war sand surcharge placed inside D.G. building? 'Was it compacted? How war it' removed? h e was in place unit weight of sand used? 4
~ ' s. .y
- .-} Qg,
- g
- c.,,y r,,; A ; '.:
.r O- _ s-e ~<s- -: M-. r, 24 MAR 1080 . sCzza-1 SU10TCT: Interagency Agreeeent No. 31C-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midlard Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Lettar Report (INTz1IX) Could removal of sand by heavy equipsect cause cracking? Source - Q41 2.5-21, Question 362.1_. (3) Establish cracking history as a function of construction and surcharge activities. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (Anal. Investigations). (4) What is the explanation of the
- hump
- in the settismant between the two western-most generator bays on the south side of the building?
Secree - Incl. to CPCC istter 2 Nov 79. (5) Since certainty that the surcharge provided proper cospection has not yet been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Corps, and as a hedge against liquefaction, confidence in the structure could be established by underpinning. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80. %g .i (6) Are post surcharge borings and related test data available? If so, these should be provided. Source - CPCO letter 2 Nov 79. (7) Why is there no floor in D.C. b' NMT Will a floating slab te placed later? Source - site visit 28 Feb 80. (8) Turther, crplanation o'f the 11/2* of additional settisment (1/2" earthquake, 3/4" static load and 1/4" devacering) is requested. The 1/2" additional set.lement due to earthquake loads must be reviewed by WES. Source - Q&1 2.5-34, Q362.17. c. Service veter hailding (1) Corrective piles are to be 100 ton piles. How is this load to be developed and established, by tip elevation or blow count? Discuss the (') pile load test (s) to be performed. Resolve the problen of possible differential settisment that could occur between the pile supported and and the portion placed on fill. Source - site visit 28 Teb 80 (Davisson presentation). (2) What computations show that sufficione lateral stability is provided to the proposed underpinning piles by the building? Source - site visit 23 7eb 80 (Davisson presentation). (3) Would building lateral stability be improved by plugging the l l ree=4"4ng vall weep holes and naistaining the desatered condition? Source - site visit 2S Teb 80 (Davisson presentation). 'd. Borsted water tanks l (1) The soil test investigation report at the tank farn should be I -provided for our review. 3 earing capacities should be determined from plate load tests. The yield point of the foundation should be decernised. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (r M *=1 work). 5 '\\ [ l e .-r m
f-kb ~ y.c -~ . q. .;-r.. m :..c... v-.c v w.,., .g ( p % ? c.... -a :..- w -.-- .d ec. er.-~ ru < p e .,~ .~. m~2WiAR. 20 S A k s, w-w,,.-- .9 y: g_ NCZED-T SURJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland. Plant Units 1 and 2, Subcask No.1 - 1.acter Raport (INTERIX) (2) Why has the ring foundation cracked? Is this crack in the area of the reported broken air line? The diagonal crack did not appear to be a shrinkage crack. Sourca - site visit 27 and 28 Feb 30. (3) *dhy not increase the test load for the tank by a surcharge in addition to fil!.isg the tank with water? Source - Intcria SER. i 1 (4) Since applicant agreed that broken air line may have degraded the foundation material, the tests taken in this area must be conclusive. Source - NRC 28 Aug 79 Meno. . (5) h e are the residual settlement predictions and the consequences thereof? Source - Interia SER. f) Underground diesel fuel tanks e. (1) h e are the settlement prediction on these tanks and will these than function properly? Any differential settlement <=pected? Source - Interin SER. (2) Does differential set.lement reduce the fuel storage capacity? If so, how much? Source general concern, Incaria SER. (3) Are these tanks designed against *bonyancy?* Source - Interia $21. f. Underground utilities (1) Why not inspect the interior of water circulation piping with video camera with sensing devices to show pipe cross-section, infiltration and g slope? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80. (2) Have electrical duct banks at D.G. building -been damaged? Have these been inspected after it was shown they were severly loaded? Direct obearvation of the western-most duet would seen appropriate and easy at this time. Source - site visit 27 and 28 Feb 80. (3) 3 ave all Category I underground utilities, ducts, pipes etc. been profiled? This would seem to be the only positive way to be certain no damages to pipes or stilities have been sustained. h t'about corrosion to buried pipes or chemical attack of concrete pipes underground? h e about stress induced by differential settlement? Are all stress levels below i allavable and what about added stress due to residual settlement? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (evaluation of piping). t (4) Will all utiliry settlements he monitored throughout the plant lifetime, partienlarly at connections? Source - site visit 27.yeh 80 (evaluation of piping). 6 l i \\ t 1 ~ . 4. w . -,, - ~ -
,I ~ . ~ '.. --.. ^ . ~ =. - .:. _g. ..y a ' 4-9--F . v.-.., ~3 '. "..M'*=--i ~i....= = *-W~ C5% ~. n:.. 2. -M= -:, v ~ :..,.:., 24 MAR 1960 NCZZD-T 1
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midind Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM) (S) Passing a
- rabbit
- through conduits is not a suitable safeguard or insurance that sonduits are undamaged. Source - Interia SER.
(6) During our site investigation on'23 February 80 it was noted that the " rattle space" had been reduced at several buildings. How will these defects be corrected? Source site visie 28 Feb 80. (7) The category I pipelines (outlets, inlets) for return water at the energency heat sink could be covered by a slope failure during a seismic event..!he applicant should anlayze the sideslope to determine if a sufficient factor of safety exists. Source - site visit 27 and 28 Feb 80. g. Auxiliary Wmag - feedwater valve pits b'f; (1) Seismic analysis of this area is needed concerning change from fill to lean concrete. Source - Questions 362.13 Q&a 2.5-23. II. Geology Fault and seismic history c. (1) Canadian faulting of asjor nagnitude exists at Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, Ontario. Why were chase not considered in the FSAR7 Sourea - FSAR Figure 2.5-27. Interpretation of borin;;s, test pits, lab tests, etc. e. (1) Many undisturbed soil samples were taken, yet no test results or reports are available for many of these. Why not? Source general review i of documents. O W IV. Miscellaneous or General t (1) Why are there so many shrinkage cracks, espa **117 in plant area structures placed on fill? This appears to be more than a coincidence. Source site visie 28 Feb 80. (2) Will C.P.Co. ecusultants Peck, Davisson, Gould & Hendron submit summary statements to NRC concerning their presentations at the 28 Feb 80 site visit? Source - site visit 28 Feb 80. i (3) Cooling pond dikes have been repaired due to erosion. This dike design should be provided for CofE review. Source - site visie 28 Feb 80. 1 (4) Will the applicant provide minutes of the 27 and 28 Feb 80 i meeting? 7 S. w m.,,.,-,r, e
l DK -, ~. '. -- =M--y, ;_ Lf_$ W -- ??
- Y.5 g.'..
r. % m %.. 2;r. -.p.W.w_. -.. -.. . 4,y.- :-- r M.u . ~ - ~ urm.~.y,,_ _.,.. .,-+> g.g g. m q.7;, v n=. _ es__2, ggy.fy ~- u u-g. v ;u q.--. r-
- m.... s, M;re *c g
U.':w.bw e..
- )y
.,,m n., . warm..,. v. -- -. ~-. ~ . ~, g
- Q p.,s;W"-27 g y
.,.
- T.*
- g..n
- /
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreenant No. 51C-03-7'9-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Suhtask No. 1 - Letter Report (I F N) (5) The entrance road to the plant appeared to be below cooling pond elevation. Would access to the plant be impaired for emergency vehicles in the event of 2 dika failure? Source - sita visie 27 and 2'3 Feb 80. (6) What provisions will be nade to insure the dewatering system will i be maintained in proper operating condition? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (devotering). l (7) Some of the cracks noted appear to be enlarging with e %. he width of these cracks would be already in excess of a shrinkage crack. Source - sita visit 27 and 28 Feb 80. 4. The District's recommendations concerning questions, uncertainties and unresolved issues presented above are given when possible and appropriate ({. below in a lika numbered paragraph: I. Soils e. Miscellaneous structures constructed on fill not covered in Paragraph II below. (2) All structures, includids utilites should be checked for 4 settlement and cracking. f. Quality control (1) Undertake a comprehensive analysis on cracked structure. Statements that all cracks g e due to shrinkage or do not effect structural integrity are not sufficient. G. e II. Immedial Measures for Category I Structures on Till. s. Dewetering (1) Consider benefits of using clay slurry cutoff un'.1 in conjunction with pumped dewatering. (3) Analyse possible groundwater piping along the paths indicated. (4) Analyza pros and cons of plugging veepholes. (5) Consider a control panel in control tower ares to indicata plant grounduster level in the critical plant areas so that monitoring can be easily accomplished. 1 1 8 e I e e w., a y yr -9w-- i, .i y- ,g.,, y-- e. -w-p
.w. ~ w.-- -.~.. .33, _ s e.,,, - ~q. .w z m 55,33 3..-._ qc.a y--n.cw_. -.. a "- %v-14 MAR Lc80 ~ ' 3CZED-T Task No. 1 - Midland Plan
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (INTERIM) b. Diesel generator building (1) Taka additional borings and tests to prove surcharge worked. f. Underground utilities (2) Conduct an visual inspection of at least one (the westernmost) electrical duct bank at the D.G. building. (3) Investigate any category I utilities not investigated. (5) Provide additional assurance the category I utilities have not been over stressed.
- g.
(6) Establish ~N--a rattle space criteria and restore as (7) Analyze outist pipes located in heat sink pit sida slopes for seismic, event (SSE & OBE). ~ 5. If you have any questions concer ing this interia letter report, please contact Mr. N.A. Gehring at FT5 226-6793. i I Y' dief Essiedering MN R e.. 7 9 e f ww-- > ~, - - - --w-r~,- c a
. a . v... g .? e..M~'ae** s s 4 n-=-... -yey. _;.,_.e.. _ ~ m. m. . m r -# %_Q (('Q... g9 y". . '];y-M. '--t#3PN -g*g tinz".p!";,'K6'_- ~..... * - ..s.. i N '.im.ar,"#M.5: f...-lgg q.~ s 1 m : h i,-;.; =. m : - n..., u,.. . _ a.a** P 4 \\ , p_ .,u . A r
- 4. c.
. m.. -
- (f. : ;
.c r.- . a-
- t.4 l
.n . 3 ~. a. . #.j f * "IJ ~ -d" Y .M.'I"2 '" :P= i I Sheet I of 6 I ElRTH WTRAL wv&ZG.N Jonn..TCrton [ gg 3,,g ,,7 JAMES W. SIMPSON 3t. ge,35734 NCDED-C DL, 10 Apr 90 . p., SUST.! ":
- k.'.]
~ SF. G. CF.T. Dvt. or No. No.
- s-a. We.
C3*ENT 1. Geaeral ..v a. It is our understanding that the purpose of this letter report is to partially complete the last sentence in Subtask No.1, "Prepara a letter report identifying any unres'alved issues with reccessendations on a course of action to be taken during ,.h construction to tesolve these issues." s v ,. 3 It is our opinion that we are not doing this by asking questions. We should change the format of the report by 4 identifying issues and then request the additional infor=atiot.
- 12 to resolve.these problems.
We, as consultants, are supposed to answer questions, not ask them. See the included exs=ple report prepared by this office. -l b. A report of this nature should not have inked in corrections. ? 2. Page 2, Delete groundwater. Add under geology. Para':ET. 2. .j 3. Page 2, (1) yaulting, seismic' history and crustal rebound are of no ij Para III. concern to us. It is our understanding that h"dC will furnish earthquake design data based upon this and other information.
- f. ;.
We should not question NEC's information. '., i f (2) Interpretation of borings etc. should be under soils, Para I. 4 Page 2, No statement is made about.iten "a". Groundwater. Para 3Ia. t.. 5. Page 2, Reword these paragraphs so as to be a request for information. Para 3Ib, Identify specific borings and tests necessary for each building. (1), (2), and (3). Inclosure 1 ~ f 1 NCD FCRY. 20 Jfar 75 W EDIDIER'S C30EN"5 1 , _ -, _.. ~,
~ v.,, .. a. g.:.r. x:-+ , u..,a - _.4QN2Rz,3,7f%= =hGA@il .m .u sheet 2 of 6 NCICH CIN"?.L7. CITI5!CN JChN F. NCRTCN JA'"- S 'J. SIMPSON 3xt, ye, 35734 NCDED-G Reviewer
- ggggg, 10 Aor 80 217!
gm
- e
~ ~. 6. CF.7. 4.0wt. or 57 No. No. Dars. No. "r% % 6. Page S. De soil spring constants, alluded to here, is a poor choice Para C(1) of words. De spring constant concept is a nethod of computing deflections only when the deflections are in the elastic range. Settlement versus load can not be discerned with only elastic properties of the foundations in~ ques.-ion here because strains are well into the plastic range. ~ c3 Elastic moduli used in design calculations should be r, requested only for design information and evaluation. I (Toungs Modulus) and U (Poisson's Ratio) are the moduli 9, required. 7. Page 3, Request this design information for each building that you Para C(2) don't have it for. 8. Page 3 Request these properties and computations. Para d(1) 9. Para 3, Piping could possibly be a concern here, but not likely. Para e(1) Request complete embankment design criteria, nis should include material types, placement densities, stability f,j analysis, embankment and foundation drainage systens (if any), under and through seepage determinations, slope 3 p. protection measures, etc. D e design can then be reviewed s./ and appropriate facets evaluated and addressed. ]i fy 10. Page 3, Ask this data for each specific building where missing. ~j Para a(2)
- f
' T. 11. Page 3, Don't ask the designers why the vall settled. Request Para a(3) appropriate information and computations so a determination jd. of the reascu can be made. 12. Page 3, ne de.-igners have answered this several times in nestings. Para f(1) C of E should make their own decisions regarcing cause and rastifications of cracking. 13. Page 3, Do not recommend design changes. Evaluate the existing design l Para a(1) and approve or disapprove. If it's not acceptable, let the baigner provide appropriate modifications. i l NCD FCR.w. L2s az7 r nP.'s cones:s 20 Mar,75 ~ =- -.-.~ y-
.y.,. d_^ h +~.'g- ~~ ^*~" Y.:..=' a~ zw.w. ._ s +.,- p.. -m. . ~, gYYYib.. _. ^ ';~'W. _ &_ $f*r.[ , [ - ? f9* q '.". 3 Y ? &..,-..,,- ( 3-. - - - - n:, .: u::.:. -M.".','.7 6.sN.+ r A - - Qc i m.2,.;,.L g. ^ ~ ', (.:. %. ;. w. W ... - ~~ - .-u w - ~ .u-,. - --- g;e.~> . -tmim g- . ]Q: .~ . ? 7, '.rf ' y,- . ~_.. , ~. ,g NCRTI WTF4 EITI3 ION JOEN 7. NOR*CN 3 ranch /Dffice NCDED-C Reviewer JAMES W. 57.MPSCN Ext. No. 35734 DL;g 10 Aar 50 j 7 SUBJTOT: i s.a:., c ~ 57.G, 7.7. l Ova. or Wo. No. pa-e. No.i u.r..:.3. i 14 Page 4, Raquest the complete well design instead of details. ) Para a(2) i 15. ? age 4, If well gravel packs are properly designed, piping is not Para a(3) a concern. Piping along piles, building foundations and emissons are not a concars, unless informatica has cone to
- D light that the Division is not fmM M ar with. Recou=nend deleting this sentence if it can' t be data-supported.
U I/ 16.' Page 4 The possibilities of this seem very remote. Delete this 4 Para a(7) paragraph. l 17. Page 4 Raquest plan for localised dewaterist. Para a(8) 18. Page 4, (1) It is not appropriate to request vore split spoon sa=oling. Para b(1) Sa=p11:3 should be conti=uous pusa so undisturbed sanoles for 1 density, consolidation, (and perhaps strength tests for ,~, bearing capacity) can be obtained. Obtaisiss densities by blow count is a rough approxi=ation and not coc=:ensurate with the degree of accuracy and reliability desired for i l settlement calculations for these structures. $M* (2) Load-settlement curves indicate primary consolidation i ? due to surcharte was essentially complete when surcharge i i was removed. However, a word of caution is in order regardias future foundation consolidation pocantial. Stresses induced by the surcharge loading were considerably i dissipated with depth. In the lower amas of the fill -l zone (say 20 to 34 feet below grade), vertical stresses were auch less 1;han surcharges contact stresses, which were probably about 2400 psf. The groundwater level at that time was about elevation 627. When the groundwater is drawn down to 600, this will increase existing stress levels 27(62.4) = 1685 psf at the elevation 600 level. The significant thing is it will be directly ar, lied (without dissipation) at the lower fill levels. If sof i layers exist near the bottom of the fill area, significant consolidation potential exists due to this different loading condition. This foundation loading condition will a.tto be applied to the other structures. yM5 h28 EtfIDER'S C30G3:5 D +94 ,-,,-------,,.a.,- m-.-y -.-wy wy ygvy-4 y w g e--,wr-we e.- e- +y-ee w. e e--- ,w-<wa-.a.w ea-* w v e--.-.--..-s- + - - -
- a
~ y ~'..... '~, ; .a- -W'-' 3 ~': =~~. n S h L-_ _ _ ' ..~<~.,'.n.-@ .m..%r..'L u. ;. ~-c-2- -~ =.- s v., v n-Sheet 4 of 6 c NCP.TH CZN T 4. w.aICN JOHN T. NCRTON' hedffice NCD N Reviewer JAMES W. SIMPSCN 2gt. No. 35734 a. gg DL;g 10 Apr 80 -j .3 ~ 55. CY.. Dut. Cr We, No. Pa-s. No. CC99 LENT 19. Page 4, How the surcharge was placed, compacted and removed are Para b(2) irrelevant questions. Regarding cracking cause, see 3 Couneent No.12. i-i 20. Page 5, Request this information. Para b(3) 21. Page 5, Change "Commaction" to consolidation. Underpfnndng this p Para b(5) bnfiridng would be a very costly hedge. Recommend deleti=g this statement until such time it is determined that liquefaction is indeed a pessible failure mechanism. 22. Page 5, Request specific boring at desired location and identify Para b(6) purpose. 4 23. Page 5, Onit this questien. It does not pertain to foundations. Para 5(7) 24. Page 5, Request this data for each specific bnfirf *ng where desired. ? ara b(8) .il 25. Page 5 Ask for complete underpinning analysis d~1uding this 1,, Para c(1) information. s.. 'l 26. Page 5, Request a study of consequences of plugging the weep boles. Para c(3) 27. Page 5 Delete sentence requesting use of plata load tests to determine Para d(1) bearir.g capacity of foundation. Sharing capacity should be determined with appro,,riate bearing capacity equations. .+i Elastic properties could be checked from existing plate load data, taking scale factors into consideration. 28. Page 6, Ask for a study of this cracking including a foundation ? ara d(2) set.lement and bearing capacity analysis. 29. Page 6, outline load test,you want and give backup reasons. ? ara d(3) \\ 1 IP4"is us mmws e:mm ..- -~ g - -- - p ..,....., _.... _.. -____._-_,__._..._._._i._ m., .._..L,
~' w-7
- y.y-.., ma- :s:- - ';-
.. ~" ~~'=%;.25 * *.: ::1.:.?n..- - w - -'7Kh. 1.l'N "~5 c.. ~: ,J - ~- -~' ~ l ~ .....-w a ,,, _.f_ :. ~ I. l Sheet 5 of 6 1 ElP.TN CZm.AL I.T773 ION JCEN F. NCRTCN gggg, NCED-G 3sviewer JAMES 'J. SDfPSCN Brt. No. 35734 g3 DATE,10 A: 90
- 5E6 CY.T. Ows. or Wo..
No. Sa-s. No. N 30. Page 6, Omit these paragraphs. They should ba answered in Coneient No. 23. Para d(4) and d(5). 1 31. Page 6 Ask for a bearing capacity, bouyancy and settlement analysis. Para e(1) I D. and e(3). p, u 32. Page 6, Omit this. It has nothing to do with cur mission. Para e(2) 33. Page 6, Request such an in'apection. Para f(1) 34. ? age 6, Request a risual inspection for damage. Para f(2) 35. 'eqn 6, Ask fo'r profile study. Corrosion is not our business. l tars f(3) Request stress analysis of pipes where bending is significant. .i 26. Page 6, Probably orn necessary since settlement vill be 70 to 100 t I Para f(4) percent complete. Cait this question. ...g. 3 37. Page 7, omit since a profile study has been requested. Para f(5) 38. Page 7, Request study to determine necessary rattle space. Page f(6) 39. Page 7, Good ccament. Para f(7) 1 i 40. Page 7 Request a complace settlement and bearing capacity analysis. Para g(1) 41. Page 7, It is our understanding that the NRC does this study and Para c(1) furnishes coeffici, ants and, design parameters. ~ j HQ FGF 20 Mar 15 h2e arrtret's cones-s ~ ,---n., _ - -. ~.,..,.. - n
l . m :.;~-
- ."=. L%....
= 47?!--z..;= + ?._ W W M M R.'.:. ' h ~:~.-.n. Terf,$ $$44-J-Q },3,,C;T % % 2 ~ g A.ip+p*ip*- -. i g ,r w c. g_.gr.y-: w-m. ae -, - ._..,_";...,_,m.4_.....,,.. g., y. ...a--- --.w g :. Q &-. .;-.n..-, ..-..w.,--c.--w W.- k 'T. N. '1. h..g., gga.,_ ** .h e --7._. t Y - S et _of 0 p.; s i. + 30P.T5 CZNh.AI IlITT37CN l JCHN F. NCRTCN 3 ranch /ttfice NC:ED-C Reviewer JAvrs 'J. sweem Ext.. No. s e -v -S. s g3 10 Apr 20 g .l. ; 1 5I.G. CF.7., Dws. or No. No. Sars. No. CCi u 4 42. Page 7 Paquest specific borings and tests necessary for review of Para e(l) each separate bn* W ng. We should have, or be able to construct, a profile both lengthwise and c,rosswise. rf 43. Page 7 Reword this paragraph to request a crack st.ady for each Para IV(1) building desired. m 44 Page 7 Raquest these papers and/or mi=utes. Q i ~ Para IV(2) and (4) 45. Page 7, Good request. Para 17(3) 46. Page 8, Ask for a study of a pond dika failure and access. Para 17(3: 47. Page 8, 2equest a maintenance study. Para 17(6) l 48. Page 8, Quit. This was asked"for already. See Comment No'. 43. Para IY(7)
- i p.j w9 49.
Page 8, Omit this paragraph. These points.should be covered in prior Para 4. requests. We will cover this in detail in the full letter report. ~..t I l ' 7 l l \\ 1 MCD FCax us 20 mar.75 arvuuta's caems s l . v. I _. t e - -, ~ -.. -. ~,
\\ a .. s e... -h.g ,..,, -j.,.; ; h. ~~ j . v, ~..S W, $&b5D% ~.'. -f..-?56 ' ' ~..:QSf s-.... .c ~'" v.. NCZZD-T t SU5 JECT: Interagency Agreenest No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - +. Midland Plane Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Latter Report (INTERIM) ,'hi "JDtD: Division Engir.eer, North Central .). ATIN: NCDED-G (James Simpson) t" .li, TO: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Constission ATIN: Dr. Robert E. Jackson ' ~. ; Division of Systems Safety
- g Mail Stop P-314
~, : Washington, DC 20555 /( A* ! i' l ? 1.* 3e Detroit District hereby submits this INTERIM letter report with
- y regard to partial compliance wi.h subcask No. 1 of the subject Interagency agreenent concerning the v4 d' -8 Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
The purpose of this report is to identify unresolved issues and make 4 recommendations on a course of action and/or cite addi.ional information necessary to settle these matters prior to preparation of the SE1 report. 2. The Detroit District's tasa providing geoteehafa=1 engineering support to che agreement to date has made a preliminary review of furnished 3 documents cencarning foundations for structures, has jointly participated j in briefing meetings with the NRC staff, Consumers Power Company (the ,.i applicant) and personnel from NCO and has made a detailed site inspection 4 visit. The data reviewed incindes all doe ments received through ,U A==admaat 7.4 d, i Generally each bnfiding within the complex was studied j as a separate entity. Iy 3. A pr="=^=ry listing of unresolved issues is presented in paragraphs 4 (Roman numerals 1 to III). Taitial rec-d=tions following the ,i listed issues mostly concern limited and/or missing information in the following catagorias: ) J (1) Inadequate presentation of subsurface profiles due to lack of 1 ,J borings. The number and spacing of borings should be suffic11ent for ) j constr.v.eion of at least two detailed orthogonal profilas for each l j structure. j 1 Inclosure 2 i f e es e**m** g emuhe e s.. ems. ag ene p... 1 l
w:... _ -~-" C X +w* ~,-----W, :..
- .- a-
~gg<g.4Jf".%.y%.:..:My '-n.4 4 4.,p,- h u. .:'~l, ~GC%.+ '.. R.3 ~." _~ - ; ~.g.,-, ~
- 4. n: :
c- . _ a.. u. > v. -..s
- .g-
-..~........-c .,.-..,-..um.. t.:y. :.. "'2 u m-., V. '.n f.;m;miy" NCEED-T SUL'ICT: Interasaucy Agreen-nt No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - .f W M =nd Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report $1 (DrrInni) y. (2) Iack of proper soil testing information to ' support the design. .p (3) Incompleta or non-existant bearing capacit-/ data. 'y .g .s (4) Inconglace secclement computations. (5) Missing detailad foundation desigt data. e. (6) Insufficiant data presentation regarding remedial sensures for j; structures undergoing distress. U) Seismic problem information.
- f. '
h.. '(8) Other miscallaneous or general concerns. k. A listing of issues and infernatien necessary to resolve these l problems for each separata structure and/or appurtenance are as follows: 5 - I. Isactor 3u11 ding Youndati'an Adequacy a. Subsurface information j (1) "vo borings, one for each building, are needed to bettar define the completa soil profile t.o bedrock. '. t (2) I t:4==d = 1 tests and consolidation test data from layers are needed to 8 b. Settlement / Consolidation ~ s ' =4 Furnish setriement computations using both alastic and ' plastic soil deformation properties. .a c 3saring capacity 5 3 earing capacity computations, including factors of safety and foundation design assumptions regarding soil properties,
- ~. '
spring constants (if used), etc. should be presented for review. 4 d 2 I 1 1 ... -.. ~.... - ....e-. O
~ * ^ - -~k. * * )- ~:.:-L*k" r*[ Ls.-.&~=-f.,. C O " 5.; _J;&f ~ v... - ' '; p~--jf_.u.:. k..*m ~~ ' g 2. ..s- , v-c ~. r NCID-T SU3JT.C2: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subcask No. 1 - Letter Esport (INTERIM) d. Seismic Concerns .~..q:. (1) Show that t!.ase buildings will vichstand the design ~
- r seirsic event.
(2) Discuss liquefaction possibilities. II. Diesel Generator' Building Foundation r a. Subsurface information .5,e Ji (1) Tour additional borings, one cc each building corner, (') are necessary to verify that surcharge loadings have indaed solved the fl settlement problem. Borings should be continuous to feet below the foundation. .' s ~ (2) Sampling for tests should be (3) Testing of cohesive and non-cohesive samples should be as follows: b. Sottlenant/ Consolidation A settlement analysis should be submitted based on consolidation tests from new borings. The drop in ground.ratar levels, implying he rier soil unit weights and diesel plus seismic vibrations j should be considered in the total settlement picture. c. Bearing Capacity ,.,? i Furnish allowable soil bearing capacity of fill soil using information from new borings. Factors of safety should be presented. d. Seismic Concerns i: j (1) Properties of insitu backfill material should be acquired from tests and used in the revised seismic analysis. Present this analysis. (2) Discuss liquefaction. "I e. Miscellaneous Concerns 1. (1) Turnish final fill elevations at completion of fill placement prior to building construction. 1 3 ~.,.
z.-- j;;.r =..- . - _m 1 _.-- 7" rR.., aw:.:. :._, e. .,,n.m%- c >. :.. y i t.::: r.-~'C. g.'*&y s. ; ~r;. - L- .;.~i.v. w :
- q. : h p.i~.
s -2 g. g; '~ ,~ ~~<(q %._. .,.r.... = -, -- e
- g...
-.;.:-. n w ; g,,; .,,,.,m.,..,..~.~.. ( ; %p. n.z r.. w. : - -m~~-~+v-.-~'cv*^**"~~~~- N ~ ,((,ey..La s'
- 2
- 7 m.
. ? / Tl NCED-T SUL'ICT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - latter Report (INTERIM) ,~ < (2) Submit all computations on sand surcharge for review. ... 4, ..g.' (3) Present chronological cracking history. 1:y. (4) Study and present a post-nortes of settlement differential especially that between two western bays on the south side of building. (5) All existing pre and post surcharge horings and ) g. related test data should be provided for review. (6) D!scuss significance of cracks to the safe operation ) of the building and the repair of the cracks. t) III. Service Water Building Tor.Jation a. Subsurface Information i Borings and tests? b. Settlement i Present computations regarding the probles of possible ~ differential settle =ent that could occur between the pila supper.ed end and that portion placed on fill. c. Searing Capacity i Provide bearing capacity computation.s for both sections of this building. O $. i '7 d. Seismic problea 9' ,.' d (1) Present computations showing how this baf Mfng and fiz up measures will withstand a seismic event. , l,i .,-j (2) Discuss liquefaction. f hj Remedial measures for structurt undergoing distress a. i . t. (1) Submit complete design of corrective pilas including } data regarding load tests to be performed and lateral stability. (2) Discusa construction procedures in detail. s l 4 I t. .y.... i a.
,,,.. fa, _.
- [
pf ",aj-{** '**K .s.*af. '$ $'ES ' --- m.-.p-r. -, 5 E { {k: Y .~ ~ ~ ' ' -c, v.. :. i l t. = l NCEED-T SUMECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report . j (INTERIM)
- 3
\\ ( f. Other Concerns 'd ! ?;, ".9. Explain reasons for cracks, their significance to the i safe operation of the building and the repair of the cracks. 1Y.
- tia 7 3uilding Foundation 1
a. Subsurface Information .R 1
- s. -.
Borings and tests? N, b. Bearing capacity r \\' g* 4 Provide bearing capacity of insitu fill using data developed as the fill now exists. This would particularly apply to the adjacent control tower footing area. .r c. Settlement Suhait theoretical settlement computations for this bn4 W g as odified. ..s d. Seismic Concerns (1) Develop seismic computations for this building. . E (2) Discuss liquefactica possibilities. e. Other Concerns ,.y, J. (1) Explain fully the reasons for cracking. (2) Discuss the signifier.nce of cracks to the safe operation of the b=4 m at. (3) Describe repair of cracks. 3 (4) Present full computations of proposed fix up design. Y. Berated 'Jacer Tanks Foundations a. Subsurface Information The subsurface investigation report at the tank fars should be provided for review. New borings and tests are needed as follows: I s. \\ .. ~... -.... e ..,.7 -~
~.. >mn...e a., . _ %_w -n.m.,...a.._ ,q.. v. - m- -=_,...& m;g,p _.-_.>m____ ,m 4.. _s- .,,. g.:>.,...,...<.r .n..a-g.< ~ w.a. v-qf &. i vpj.Q .;m.,... $ .,m..- z-4 "c. r ;,;,.,. +. -. 4y *-n..~; q'u==s.! 1*.; T f.: 7
- s.. -
..s _U : b w :,:.:. w. n. ~ :.,.,....... n..,..,..,.,..._. '"y .'y 1 *. n (.s%~%w .f:
- wi:..6.1 i y :;.2*2*~%+A t
C 3CZED-T SUN ICT: Interagency Agreenent No. N'AC-03-79-157, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - 14tter Report . i.' (IRTZUM) b. Bearing Capacity . H.* F'urnish foundation design computations. This should 4* .!j include bearing capacity deteratsations, and foundation moduli if elastie '7' analysis was used. The factor of safety should be presented using the an.st severe tank loadings. 1 c. Settlement . s-Submit tank settlanant analysis. d. Seismic Concerns ..er : ~ h (1) Discuss liquefsetion. (2) Explain seismic design considerations. e. other Concerns Explain fully the 'eason for cracking, their significance r I concerning safe operation and the proposed repair of cracks. 1. VI. Underground tissel Tuol Tank Toundation Design a. Subsurf, ace Infornation 9 'l ? b. Bearing Capacity 1 Trovide bearing capacity and foundation design cogutations. c. Set:1a.ent i 1 '..'t Submit tank settlement analysis. i d. Seismic Concerns
- 1. t.
,'l (1) Discuss liquefaction. 4 .d
- {
(2) Explain seismic design considerations. 1 e. other Concerns I j Submit uplift calculations for the tanks. l ~ .] 4 a. ag. p. .e e.. ...a.m. ee em .me w. . ~, -_<-..w-> u.-
_ w? 7.g., y..; k- :- -?- . v :, :~,:. ca.h.+:5_ R~52_.'*:: "._'-&. ' :" *TOJi
- i.
'~' mW a .t. ! NCZZD-T SunJIcT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Repor-(INIIIIM) VII. Underground Utility Deficiencies M] a. Mettlement p. (1) The settlement of underground piping could be in question because of the unknown amount of fill settlement. Present a profile of najor pipe flowlina elevations. s. '~ (2) Compute and submit pipe stresses in areas vbere bends are the most critical. (3) Submit proposed cor:2ctiveseasureswheretheratble ci space has been reduced. Q; .j ' (4) Inspect v.sually electrical duct banks at the D.O. J; building where they have been severely loaded. b. Seismic Analysis (1) Show computations for stress in pipes and *d== rattle space necessary at bnNfng connections. i;j (2) Explain seismic design censi.ferations. VIII. Teodwater Valve Pit Toundations (Aure. 'ou11 ding) .{ (1) Provide computations f ar fix up incicding bearing capacity and new settlement analysis'. I
- s
\\ ;)T (2) Explain seismic considerations. 4 s. II. Cooling Pond Stability cij (1) Cooling pond dika design should be submitted for review including stability, seepage and seismic considerations. (2) 3orings and tests? I (3) Check outlet pipes located in the heat sink pit for l nearby slope stability failures that could block entry of water. (4) Show that a ecoling pond failure would not impara the fi plant entry road for emergency vehicle access. (5) Provide design for slope protection nessures. l 7 I i t ~.. 3 \\ l i I l ~. -.
l 3...
- .:r;;w... -...
m.. :
- 2=%w % M.
+ r.w._ L .' "I
- E'E-
' ' " ~ ,~'tW[.,-..w -.*7 -7 7 @Nihikbh,fh.!. N~h S y,, .. p : n -,;...--. n.....,. ;... _. -.,,, _. g. G.:..%......:.,. .....~n~~ ~.- v - - - ~. 4. .~. ~- - ' " ~~ %e .na .(.bu -~@y3 l;; 9 ' Y.' Sc3JIc; Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (I3TIRIM)
- t
.c, ; 2. Water Service Building Retaining Vall Stability .? (1) Borings and tests? ..l,' 4* (2) Submit the design of this vall histAing stability ?. i computations.- (3) Discuss tha settlement of his wall and its significance ~ to safe operation. ~ (4) Discuss seismic considerations. v j 2:- II. Site Devataring Adequacy . '.r o-(1) Furnish complete report including computations on site devatoring design. .,D. (2) Turnish typical well design '- la ms gravel pack. (3) Submit groundwater chemical analysis data related to possible encrustation and/or corrosion problems. (4) Present computations and explaination of significance 9 of weep holes in retaining wall with regard to dewatering. (3) Discuss in detail the maintance p1'an for the devateri=g
- g system.
1 Ij III. General Informetion Desired I O
- Q
- a. Consultants Peck, Davisson, Gould and Rindron should submit f.
summary stacaments concerning their presenta-dons at the 28 Feb 80 site M'S visit for review. d
- b. Provide minutes of meeting 28 Feb 80.
1
- c. Submit a list of people involved in field and laboratory
.j classifications and testing and briefly list their qualifications. 2 ~' 5 Resolution of issues and concerns stated herin will depend on the Q expeditious receipt of data mentioned above. Contact Mr. Neal Gehring l-at TTS 226-6793 regsrding questions. i ..J .:t. = 1 8 i 8 M. -~ , - p.eue
- s p7 e-8
,6. ~. - n.- ......._._:.s 4 .'.'f. s$ .. *'.C, s'.A.j ' N.' ' ' $,*.** Tw?'." ,,...,.R^. .R ~ ~sg L, "~~ - *:>...~ -.' ,~.W. ~r i * ~ .,'LA .. w._ x., . p.... v. y ._ _. _ ~ ......e .L m, ' W. - M sn QM) t l // / // / . L. - p ,w ._ NsBt<ui 9PW. ... w r .l .~ s g.'Q gef ,/ , s..;,, um. t< __y r w, .c..._.-.... + e,. = _A a \\ . O.- -- \\. A_! ~ t ) l _ _.. i l i I l l
. 3. n ^%~ "n ~- ~ ~ l 'j < ~[ ?f ?Y ? -m.. ~ d. -- ~ ...)... NN~ N, h N..: b.$ NM.'.y. 9 T - Q rn=e.A.n:.;;gy.:.s5.~Vq.16ll5.T'"~: : }Nyp 4 '"
- b D. _ % d.
n J w M r @ f,*;;.,.r A* E 88 9 w ad ar" a **i'CCt C ' - - - ~ - - - rip Report of'i4 eating at fiRC Cf}?res Ccacerning .. u...u . a. a i.. S w e, Midland & Bailly Plants, en 15 January 1930 HCCED-T HRU: Chief. Eng. Div. "" Asst. Ch, Tech Br. 8^7811 February 1980 Cat i LAWHEAD/ml/56781 TO: Files To meet with Nuclear Regulatory Comission Personnel and jointly f 1. PURPOSE: review adminStrative policy, manpower, technical aspects, and the pending 16 January 1980 meeting with HRC applicant Consumers Power of Michigan concerning the Midland, Michigan Project. NRC Offices in the Phillips Building, Sethesda, Maryland 2. PLACE AND DATE: on 15 January 1980. 3. PARTICIPANTS: The participants in this meeting varied as the topics changed fecm policy to manpower to technical aspects to pending 16 January 1980 meeting. The group included the following: 1. Rixby Hardy, OCE/ Corp j 2. Jim Simpson, NCD/ Corp l 3. John Norten, NCD/ Corp _ 4 William Lawhead, tiCE/ Corp ~ 5. Joe Kubinski, NCE/Co 6. 0 rfl Hood, NRC 7. Lyman Heller, NRC 8. Joe Kane NRC i 9. Rcbert Jacksen, NRC
- 10. William Olmstead, NRC attorney SIGNIFICNiT EVENTS: The meeting pointed out that the Midland Project geo-i 4.
We were technical problems had been apparent to FRC for the past 14 years. told that NRC had recently issued a Show 'Cause to Consumers Power concerning l We were advised by NRC that geotechnical aspects of the Midland construction. all Corp spaces provided for NRC work should be filled with Geotechnical Engineers l considering the assignment scope and possible testifying requirements. However, our personnel choice was up to us. It was requested that all non-Corp and I NCD should non-NRC requests for project information be fomarded to NRC for reply. be kept infonned of such requests. We also learned that the Detroit District assignment was a new concept due to its extensive length and responsibility. Finally, NRC concurred that NRC Agreement activity schedules would be uniformly slipped two months. 5. NARRATIVE: The initial meeting was opened at 0830 by Lyman Heller of NRC. Rixby Hardy (OCE) asked why the Corp of Engineers was requested to take part in l ~ l l l j G \\ l-
~.a\\5 h hl-E 9 -3 % = k c;5 d [ 7.y,jg s ' 's -i x - -w +.. +" UCEID-T (11 Feb 30)
SUBJECT:
Trip Report of Meeting at NRC Offices Concerning Midland & Bailly Plants, j en 15 January 1980 the two NRC projects (Midland and Bailly). Joe Xane (NRC) informed us that NRC lacked the in-house geotechnical manpower to handle the projects. Rixby Hardy rela / tad that the Detroit District assignment with NRC was a new concept. Other 1 District assignments were very short termed, around two months, and simple in na ture. Lyman Heller concurred. Rixby Hardy asked about present attaNability of Detroit personnel for the NRC wo rk. We infonned Rixby of Detroits F&M Section make-up. In light of our rtply, Rixby indicated that the following options should be considered: a. Cetroit with W.E.S.* Support b. Detroit with Consultant Assistance ** c. Turn work over to another Corp Division.
- W.E.S. has assisted in 34 such projects since 1973.
- Hardy, Simpson, and Heller would prefer to avoid this.
Rixby Hardy further stated that to hire new employees and get up to speed would probably take too long. Rixby said he would discuss the above options within CCE with the intent of stressing required W.E.S. support. Bob Jackson (NRC) suggested that Joe Kubinski (NCE) spend one or two weeks at NRC i to help get all concerned up to speed. Jce Kubinski agreed. I concurred with this, based on past stataments made by Joe Kubinski concerning work interferences. Bob Jackson indicated that this approach had worked for others in the past. Lyman Heller (NRC) estimated that of the four manyears provided by Detroit, three would be spent on the Midland project and one would be spent on the Bailly P-oject. Lyman Heller questioned Con personnel concerning estimated progress and concurred that the NRC Agreement activity schedule would be uniformily slipped two months. Lyman Heller suggestad that perhaps the U.S.G.S. could provide assistance to Detroit on the NRC Projects. Lyman Heller indicated that NRC had issued Consumers Power of Michigan a construction Show Cause, fe; Show why NRC should.1ot stop construction because of geotechnical considerations. The present construction permit for Midland, as described by Hilliam Olmstead (NRC), does not include foundation techniques (underpinning) proposed by Bechtel and Consumers Power. Further, the design of the changed foundation techniques has not been provided to and reviewed by NRC appropriately. Additionall1y, a new Safety Evaluation Report (SER) review must be conducted in light of the changed design. i William Olmstead stated that Consumers Power may request, during the board hearing. covering the Show Cause, that the board additionally consider the project Operating 2 e I s .. ~ - - ,-.--e.
NO O f Q % q w.;-: w z w.~..--, n.. y-} G.. u.. w
- y c.---,.n-.+n.~...,
f.,. 2 ; - f [ 3.-b. L - ^ ~ ~ NCIED-T (11 Feb 80) SUEJECT: Trip Report of Meeting at flRC Offices ConcarrJnc Midland & Eailly Plants, on 15 January 1980 License. The project initial Operating License application was made in 1969. A beard pre-hearing will probably occur in March 1980 with the actual hearing occur-ring in June and July 1980. Two interveners (Attorney liyron Cherry and Mary Sinclair) would probably take part in the Show Cause hearing. At present, the State of Michigan appears to take a neutral official position concerning the project. William Olmstead was told about letters received from non-Corp and non-ilRC interests re-questing information from the Detroit District concerning the Bailly Project. The requests were not specific ie; copies of all Infomation was requested. William Olmstead requested that all such requests, non-Corp and non-NRC, be forwarded to NRC for reply or appropriate sction. We were infonned that the A/E Firm (Bechtel) for Consurers Power covering the Midland Project was also performing the Midland construction work (turn-key arrangement). We discussed the settlement of the Midland Diesel Generator Building (apparent major settlement problem) and apparent settlement problems at other buildings and facilities (Borated Water Tanks, Service Water Pump Suilding, a portien of the Auxiliary Building, and the Fuel Oil Storage Tanks). The Corp of Engineers would be expected to play a major part in obt:ining - ra. medial measures by raising related issues for Cechtel to answer. or by establishing requirements of information to satisfy the Show Cause. All settlement problems apparently arose from approximately 30 feet of " Clay Fill" placed on the liidland Project site. Lyman Heller (fiRC) indicated Detroit persorinel should visit the two projects when construction activities of interest are taking place. Coordination of appropriate i times would be made through NRC inspectors. Jce Xane (NRC) and Lyman Heller (NRC) stated that requests for information by the Cetroit District from project contractor /A-E must be made in writing through NRC in order to become part of the records. Requests should be signed by the Chief j of the Engineering Divisionf Detroit with copies to NCD. s.n44 Joe Kane (NRC) stated that NRC would provide Detroit' Seismology data concerning the Midland Project. Seismic Analysis is an important consideration in both NRC Projects. i 6. REC 0!iiENDATIONS AND ACTIONS: It is reconnended that (1) the Cetroit District i make innediate arrangements with W.E.S. through NCD for W.E.S. to review and connent on the Midland Project Seismic Analysis as related to li,,quefactionand other seismic 3 e l l 1 -~-r-a-- r -.,,-n....
~ e _,5 'T=) ~ e,
- ; - (* gg[.y[5. J
. **'N '? ..,.,.,hg L m v.- c .a MCEED-T (11 Feb S0)
SUBJECT:
Trip Report of meeting at 'IRC Offices Concerning Midland * & Bailly Plants, on 15 January 1980 geotechnical problems including affects on underpinning piles, (2) that the Detroit District take im.ediate action to establish validation of the existing soil data base of the Midland Prc, ject (3) that the Detroit District fo11c.4 above mentioned NRC. recer.andations concerning requests and manpower, (4) that the Detroit District con-tinue to review available geotechnical data and schedule work to meet deadlines (as modified) established in HRC Agreement. Asn _ x'.nl W. LAWHEAD Assistant Chief Tech Branch i S l i e 4e e 6. -}}