ML20002C924
| ML20002C924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1980 |
| From: | Afifi S, Swanberg N CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8101120444 | |
| Download: ML20002C924 (7) | |
Text
_
/,J / j' 6
- . )
r yd.
y O.
- r-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[ 2,f,
4
'[,,
V'
&c"
= i 3Q i
f
,rp NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION O
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE'! SING BOARD
/I&
C.
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-0M CONSUMERS P0k'ER COMPM;Y
)
50-330-0M
)
50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-330-OL
)
CONSUMER P0k'ER COMPANY'S ANSkTR TO NRC STAFF INTERFOCAT0rlIES f
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 82.740b, Consumers Power Ccepany hereby responds to NRC Staff Interrogatories 1-3.
Interrogatory 1 Have any laboratory consolidation tests been conduc.ted on samples of plant fill that were recovered in the diesel generator building foundation area since the re= oval of the surcharge load in August of 19797
.u wer No laboratory consolidation tests have been conducted on samples M ytant fill from the diesel generator building area since removal of the surcharge load.
Interrogatory 2 S..
If the answer to Interrogatory one is yes, please provide r'e' suits and conclusion with regard to future settlement of the diesel generator building.
.uswer Since the answer to Interrogatory Number 1 is,no, this is not applicable.
Interrogatorv 3 What is the reason for the discrepancy in the magnitude of the loading stress indicated.on Figure 2 (September 14, 1980 Report, " Discussions of the Applicant's Position on the Need for Additional Borings") with inforuistion previously provided~
in response to NRC Question No. 4. Table No. 4-1A (Volume 1) and on Tab:e 2.5-14 of the FSAR (Volume 4)? This c oncern involves both dead and live loads at foundation elevation 628 feet at the time of surchcrge and for long term plant operation conditions.
%c 81011'00 h%
1
2-t i
Answer Data concerning the diesel generator building in the three Tables and
~
figures referenced in the interrogatory (i.e. Figure 2 of the report,
.a
" Discussion of the Applicant's Position on the Need for Additional Borings,"
j Table 4-1A of the response to 10CFR 50.54, Question 4 regarding plant fill, and FSAR Table 2.5-14) were prepared for dif ferent purposes and with dif ferent Hence, the dif ferent loads presented in these tables and figures assumptions.
do not constitute a discrepancy.
The value given for the stress under the diesel generator building in FSAR Table 2.5-14 was used to demonstrate the f actor of safety for bearing capacity.
For the diesel generator building this information is contained in 'the Response fill. Table 4-1A of the Response to utd;10CFR 50.54, Question 35 regarding plant Question 4 was prepare.d to show a settlement history and prediction of future settlement, which were based on measured settlement data taken during the surcharge Figure 2 of the report
.and not on the approximate load data presented in the table.
" Discussion of the Applicant's Position on the Need for Additional Borings" was Ndbmitted to show with particularity the stress distribution below the building i
i l line during the preload, and to compare 2,dt various alevations along a vert ca lithose stresses with stresses which would be felt during normal operations.
With regard to FSAR Table 2.5-14, the stress level indicsted for the diesel foundation
(
__ generator building (4.5 kps) was taken at the point along the building l
l This stress consists of the dead load of the having the largest contact stress.
structure (excluding the grade slab) and the full design live load for structural This design live load is larger than purposes of the intermediate floor and roof.
l l i the load expected to be transferred to the foundation soil because ca cu at ons of live loads for structural purposes must be based on the full design live loads
-r
e 1
_3_
i wnereas the soil will experience some reduced value of live load based on actual building occupancy. The live load expected to be transferred to the foundation soil has been conservatively estimated to be 25% of the fuel design i
live load.
The latest bearing capacity calculations which were =ade and presented in
(" Discussion of Applicant's Position on the the Septe=ber 14, 1980 Report Need for Additional Borings") and in the answer to 10 CFR 50.54f, Question 40,
- Instead, cegarding plant fill, did not use 4500 psf as the applicable load.
a value of 3400 psf, which represents the net maximum dead load, wa's udlized.
The Applicant intends to modify its latest bearing capacity calculations to account for live loads. in its next' Amendment.
Data presented in Table 4-1A of the Response to Ouestion 4 shows the average approximate pressure (averaged over the building area rather than taken at any particular point as in Figure 2 and in ISAR Table 2.5-14). at the foundation level at various times. Exact data at any particular point or time were not presented in Table 4-1A, which was included to give the reader same indication l
of the approximate stresses applicable during the various stages of the The load data in Table 4-1A were not used to predict construction process.
future settlement nor to verify the adequacy of the preload. The dead load portion of the loading pressures for Table 4-1A consists of the approximate The live lead portion (.8 kps in stages V and VI) weight of the structure.
consists of the approximate full design live load of the roof, intermediate i
)
floor and grade slab. Piping and equipment were included in the live load increment.
_4 Figure 2 of the report " Discussion of the Applicant's Position on the Neid for Additional Borings" was presented to show the stress distribution below the building during and af ter surcharge.
For this presentation the foundation footing pressure at the building's southwest corner was used. The dead load shown includes the superstructure weight, and the live load is the actual expected live load during the life of the building. This is estimated to be 25% of the full design live load. Also included in the live load increment i
of this figure are piping and equipment loads. The Applicant intends to make a slight modification of Figure 2 in the near future to account for construction after removal of the surcharge.
e Y
e e
e W
g 4
j 1
4
_y-
~, _. - --.
.c--...
3
j@
k hTCLEArt RECifLATORY CO*t?'ISSION 1Ej VQ. U~^!g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ROARD y p ' *g h.
.?C: e I Af In the Matter of
)
DOCTET NOS.
50-329 s.
b f CONSCIERS PO*.JER COMPANY
)
50-330-0?. N Ga
)
50-329-OL
- $11 ?
(Midland, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-329-OL
)
)
COU'.Tl 0F WASHTENAU)
)ss STATE OF MICHIGAN )
AFFIDAVIT OF NEAL SWAMBERG 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 NRC Staff Interrogatories to Consu=ers Power Company Numbers 1-3, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct.
4 Neal Swanberg Subscribed and sworn to before me this
/de day of //e-w //v 1980.
k
/
/
s Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan My Comnission Expires:h b,f a b J { /(/f Q
'~
v.
- -... - ~.........
"g? *f-5PD
-" \\
UNITED STATES OF AMF.P.ICA V\\
NUCLEAk P.EGULATnP.Y COMMISSI0t e
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Atm LICENSING MOARD Q
Ib196( h iMili;g\\s/
4 In the Matter of
)
DOCKET NOS.
50-329k U@/
CONSUMERS P0'.;ER COMPANY
)
50-330 s
)
50-329-OL
~
(Midland, Units 1 and 2)
)
50-329-OL
)
)
COUNTY OF VASHTENAW)
)ss STATE OF MICHIGAN )
AFFIDAVIT OF SHERIF AFIFI Sherif Afifi, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is employed by Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, as-ari Engineering Supervisor; that he is jointly responsible with Neal Swanberg for providing answers-to NRC Staf f Interrogatories to Consumers Power Company Nunbers 1-3, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the above information and the answers to the above interrogatories are true and correct.
i Sherif Afifi_
Su5 scribed and sworn to before me this
/d day of / M 4 1980.
.Yr k
J Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan My Commission Expires: h e M,=8 8 //f*4
....r'..
.,v-.
,. ; s
........a.
~.
i Ms. Fury Sinclair 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 William D. Paton, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Barbara Stamiris 5795 North River Road Route 3 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Sharon K. Warren 636 Hillcrest Midland, Michigan 48640
-James--E.- Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Michael A. Race 2015 Seventh Street Bay City, Michigan, 48706 Ms. Sandra D. Reist 1301 Fourth St.
Bay City, Michigan 48640 Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D. C.
20555
&Ma J
7 Emes E. Brunner
- -,.. _..