ML19347D886

Response to Intervenor B Stamiris Interrogatories 2 & 3. Provides Info Re Duct Banks,Turbine Bldg,Removal of Preload, Use of Gratings,Grouting of Gaps & Mudmat Foundation.W/ N Swanberg & s Afifi Affidavits.Related Correspondence

ML19347D886
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	03/30/1981
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	Stamiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8104140396
Download: ML19347D886 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ . .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

l i

Y -A U

Q $55 CW2.M~rCTDDm 'y l

'/ i' {g(b Y(

nfN ,, //

% 000%,,

~ '

V'O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AP -'

.i

'$j gl,iT.

13 UN .4 05' og,R 0 88 *

~

~

., , ., .garou NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ocy: .

g

.. hFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARD b 'M N /, i e e y In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329-0M 50-330-0M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50-329-OL 50-330-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

?/ V h k, eC~) ,

Cd

,) /

RESPONSES TO STAMIRIS' INTERROGATORIES 2 AND 3 (The response to these questions is provided pursuant to the agreement reached between the parties, as commemorated in the attached letter from Consumers Counsel James E. Brunner to Ms. Barbara Stamiris.)

Except as specifically noted below, there were no differences of opinion, suggestions, or comments; recot:mendations not followed; or changed recommendations with respect to the following items:

" Duct banks" -

From our review of the records, we could find no differences of opinion, recommendations, or suggestions on this matter. Discussions pertaining to this subject occurred in the early meetings, and in a letter dated 17 November 1978, Dr. Hendron specifically recoc:manded that the duct banks be cut, as they were probably holding up the diesel generator building. This reccmmendation was followed, and the duct banks were cut prior to preloading.

" Turbine building" -

Early discussions concerning the turbine building referred to the problem of supporting the turbine building walls. (Note: The turbine

'810.414 039(p g N

5 "

_2 building is not a Category I Structure. While answering this question, Applicant specifically reserves any and all relevancy objections possibly pertaining to it.) Suggestions for protecting the walls of the turbine building included bracing, tie-backs, and use of counterfold walls. There were no apparent differences of opinion, suggestions, or recommendations. Applicant ended up using all of these methods.

" Removal of preload" -

This subject was discussed in Tabs 7,15, 66 and 70 of the Index to Consultant Communications. Nearly all of the early discussions made passing reference to the fact that the preload could be removed when settlements reached reasonable levels. Other language used included "unen sufficient consclidati'.7 has occurred." On June 27, 1979 the Consultants predicted that the preload could be removed in approximately 8 weeks frcm that date. In Tab 70 (July 2, 1979) the Consultants jointly stated that the preload removal could begin in August, roughly corresponding to the 8-week period.

Actual removal began 7 weeks from June 27, 1979, but memory and file documents indicate that both Consultants Hendron and Peck gave approval prior to the beginning of surcharge removal.

l 1

The decision as to when the preload could be . removed was made by a special task group consisting of appointed Bechtel/ Consumers personnel.

This task group made most of the early decisions on remedial activities, subject to management review and based on consultant advice along with the engineering judgment of appointees to the task group.

m.

l l

s .

_3_

"Use of gratings" -

The term " gratings" was used to refer to a structural slab connecting the diesel generator pedestals with the building. The thinking was that the gratings could replace backfill *in the region above foundation level, and this would reduce the dead load imposed above the foundation elevation. A consultant suggested rather early in the meeting process (November 7, 1978) that the feasibility 4

of gratings could be considered. Gratings were considered by the task group, which decided against them. While gratings would reduce the dead loads, -the absence of fill above foundation level if gratings were used would also reduce the calculated factor of safety against a bearing capacity failure. Because of that trade M

off, it was determined that gratings would not provide any appreciable advantage, and hence gratings were not used.

There were no apparent differences in the opinions, suggestions, or comments made by consultants on this issue.

"c outing of gaps" -

On November 17, 1978, Dr. Hendron recommended that grouting be carried out before cutting the duct tanks and af ter surcharging.

The task group felt that grouting prior to cutting the duct banks could prevent the relieving of structural stresses caused by the support of duct banks. The grouting was eventually carried out l

after preloading. We could find no differences in opinion or suggestions made by the consultants on this issue.

l

.c ..

l "The mudmat foundation" -

At a meeting dated November 7,.1978, (Tab 12) a suggestion to breakup the mudmat prior to preloading was attributed to the e

Consultants, while Consultant Peck later indicated that it need not be broken up. Applicant cannot determine and cannot recall whether there was, in fact, a difference of opinion on this point or whether the Peck statement was made after further consideration. The task group determined not to break up the mudmat, based upon the final recommendation of Dr. Peck that it was not important to the success of the pecload operaticn.

4 "Other actions concerning the effects of the preload" -

Applicant is not aware of any differences of opinion or suggestions, changed recommendations, or recommendations not followed on this subject.

"Other remedial actions" -

Applicant is not aware of any differences of opinion or suggestions between and among the consultants on the other remedial fixes.

The same is true with respect to changed recommendations or recommendations not followed. Applicant notes that the proposed remedial fix for the service water pump structure has been changed, but this change can be attributed to a need for larger seismic margins due to the NRC Staff's October 14, 1980 letter, rather than any changes in consul: ant recommendations.

0

. _ _ ~ ~ . . _ _ . _. _ . . . _ __.

1 o l

" Timing of the cooling pond filling in relation to the placement of the preload" There were no differences of opinion or suggestions, changes in recommendations, or recommendations which were not followed on s

this matter. Our review of the documents and memory determined that both consultants suggested that the cooling pond elevation be raised to maximum level while the preload was being applied.

" Cutting of condensate line" -

The problem of the condensate line possibly holding up settlement was discussed at the early meetings. There may have been a consu! tant suggestion respecting this matter, but we are unable e

to confirm that possibility. The line was cut at the turbine building,and settlement marker on the condensate line were monitored to determine whether or not the line was interfering with sectiement. From those settlement readings it was determined that the lines were not interfering with settlement, so that further cutting was deemed unnecessary. We could find no differences of opinion or suggestions of~ consultants on this feature.

" Borings in cooling pond area" -

There were no differences of opinion or suggestions, changed recommendations, or recommendations not followed on this subject,

except as described below. Applicant notes that despite consultant t

suggestions to the contrary, Applicant has decided to take borings in the cooling pond dike. The reason for not following consultant

~ . - ~~~~ - - - -

advice on this feature is the insistence of the NRC Staff that such borings be taken.

In some rather early meetings the subject of dike borings was discussed, and the only consultant reccmmendations were that such borings would be unnecessary.

With respect to the items in Tab 8 of Volume 4 of the 10 CFR 50.54f Reeponses to Questions Regarding Plant Fill, Applicant could discern no differences of opinion, recommendaticas, suggestions, changed recommendations, or recommendations not followed with respect to the following items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9.

1 With respect to Item 5", this suggestion was not carried out because exact records of all fill truckloads were not kept, and reconstruction of the filling process would itave been impossible.

The task group also did not feel that carrying out this suggestion was necessary for making the preload solution work.

" Item 6" is the same as the " gratings" issue, discussed above.

With respect to " Item 7", see the Response to Stamiris '

Interrogatory Number 4, indicating when attempts were made to contact the NRC during the early meeting stage. (Applicant did contact Mr. Heller on November 8,1978 with an invitation to visit the site. Mr. Heller indicated at that time that he could -

1

- l

1 o l

not visit the site until the scheduled December site inspection.)

In Applicant's opinion, the thrust of the suggestion was met, since Mr. Heller did either see some excavations or saw photographs taken at his request.

In answering the above questions, Applicant limited its review i

to file documents relating to the above specific issues. Applicant can also state that it knows of no other specific differences of opinion, suggestions, recommendations, changed recommendations, or recommendations not followed.

t i

H

.CpiRispONDENCF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-CM

) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2 ) 50-329-OL

)

)

AFFIDAVIT CF NEAL SWANBERG Neal Swanberg, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel' Associates Professional Corporation, as an Assistant Project Engineer; that he is jointly responsible with Sherif Afifi for providing answers to Interrogatoties 2 and 3 of Barbra Stamiris Discovery Request, dated December 4, 1980, to

,. Consumers Power Company; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct.

'Neal Swancerg Subscribed and sworn to before me this fC day o f f.'/ ' . ... I .

. , 19 81

.. NN 4  %

g, y  ? s.~r. n t<, & :L ., a goCWEU Notary Public, Washtenaw 2 t'#','

S , . County, Michigan

((-

6 \90 -

5' sed 51 My Commission Expires : ,'.'t....,n/ . .d . 4,:

$ 6 l

$ h['#A

\ ..

%l ,, . .. .. --

Cr i

b oO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMPOEENCE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-329-OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-330-OM

) 50-329-OL (Midland, Units 1 and 2) ) ,

50-329-OL

)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF SHERIF AFIFI Sherif Afifi, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as an Engineering Supervisor; that he is jointly responsible with Neal Swanberg for providing answers to Interrogatories 2 and 3 of Barbra Stamiris Discovery Request, dated December 4, 1980, to L

Consumers Power Company; and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct.

- , . v.. .

Sherif Afifi Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2.* c day of V ,,.,s , 1981

< N A: & +

cc '-ma 4 Notary Public, W'shtenaw a

" - - County, Michigan t!. -

2 APR 6 1981.

• C M

Cg;gsg My Commission Expires: /l..t.. i.s .Lj f l q Y ^

S --- .: .\. ...

' -~ ~ ~ ~

-