ML20040F414
| ML20040F414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1982 |
| From: | Boos A, Hanson R BECHTEL GROUP, INC., CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8202090172 | |
| Download: ML20040F414 (66) | |
Text
_ . . .
. s -
D ~ [j'F ~ ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIgi p _g g g ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docke t Nos. 50-329 OM
) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)) 50-330 OL TESTIMONY OF ALAN J. BOOS AND DR. ROBERT D. H,'.NSON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT REGARDING REMEDIAL MEASURES , _
FOR THE MIDLAND PLANT '
BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK z,s U cic3VED 3 '
nj.
FEB 81982>
~
4 4
6 a rm nam en=a i 51 W" :l.T U w
o S*\
8202090172 820204 PDR ADOCK 05000329 T PDR
M s
\
Midlopd Plant Unita 1 and 2 Public Hearing Testimony BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF EXISTING FOUNDATION 1 STRUCTURE
3.0 DESCRIPTION
OF EXISTING SOIL SUBGRADE 2 4.0 DEFICIENCY AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 3 4.1 SURCHARGE A PORTION OF THE VALVE PIT AND 4 ITS SURROUNDING AREA 4.1.1 Monitoring the Surcharge Program 4 4.1.2 Criteria for Surcharge Removal 6 4.1.3 Current Status of the Surcharge Program 6 4.2 INTEGRALLY CONSTRUCT A REINFORCED RING 7 BEAM AROUND THE EXISTING RING WALL 4.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR THE TANKS 8 5.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA AND MATERIAL 10 SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE RING BEAM 5.1 APPLICABLE DESIGN CRITERIA, CODES, AND 10 STANDARDS 5.2 LOADS AND LOADING COMBINATIONS 10 l
5.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS 12 6.0 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 13 i
l 6.1 STATIC FINITE-ELEMENT MODEL 13 l 6.1.1 Foundation Structure 13 6.1.2 Soil Subgrade 14 6.1.3 Boundary Conditions 15 6.2 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION 15 6.3 DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC MODULUS OF 16 SOIL 6.3.1 Long-Term Loads 16
e
\
Tablo of Contents (continusd) . .
6.3.2 Short-Term Loads, 16 6.4 FORMULATION OF OZSIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS 17 6.5 DESIGN PROCEDURE 17
(
6.5.1 Existing Structural Components 17 6.5.2 New Structural Components 18 6.5.3 Interface Between Existing and New 18 Structural Components 7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 19 8.0 FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURE 19 9.0 INSERVICE MONITORING 20 10.0 SUBSEQUENT COMMITMENTS TO THE NRC 21 REFERENCES 22 TABLES 1 Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the New Ring Beam 2 Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the New Ring Beam (ACI 349-76 Load Combinations as Supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142) 3 Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the Valve Pit Members 4 Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the Valve Pit Members (ACI 349-76 Load Combinations as Supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142) 5 Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the Foundation Footing 6 Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the Foundation Footing (ACI 349-76 Load Combinations as Supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142) 7 Factors of Safety of Borated Water Storage Tank Foundation Against Overturning, Sliding, and Flotation FIGURES 1 Borated Water Storage Tank 2 Foundation Surcharge Program i
, ~ ,
1 e
Trblo of Contenta (continued) 3 Foundation Settlement During Surcharge Program i
4 Foundation Modifications, Sheer,1 5 Foundation Modifications, Sheet 2 6 Finite Element Model of Foundation 7 Finite Element Model of Subgrade 8 Extrapolation of Future Settlement 9 Predicced Foundation Settlement 10 Long-Term Elastic Moduli of Subgrade 11 Short-Term Elastic Moduli of Subgrade 12 Foundation Settlement From Finite Element Analysis 13 Ring Beam Axial Force Diagram 14 Ring Beam Vertical Shear Force Diagram 15 Ring Beam Vertical Moment Diagram 16 Ring Beam Circumferential Moment Diagram 17 Ring Beam Torsional Moment Diagram 18 Illustration of Interface Shear Connector Design Force 19 Flow TAagram, Formulation of Load Combinations 20 Comparison of Predicted and Calculated Settlements 21 Maximum Design Loads and Capacities of Interface Shear Connectors 22 Maximum Design Loads and Capacities of Interface Shear Connectors (ACI 349 Criteria)
i e
Midlcnd Pltnt Unito 1 cnd 2
'Publ'ic Hearing Testimony BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Each unit of the Midland plant has a 500,000-gallon, stain]ess steel borated water storage tank (BWST). These tanks are 32 feet high and 52 feet in diameter. The foundations of the BWSTs were constructed between July 1978 and January 1979.
Construction of the tanks was completed in December 1979. A load test of the soil by filling the tanks with water has been ongoing since October 1980. A deficiency of the tank foundations was identified on January 29, 1981, and was reported to the NRC under 10 CFR 50.55(e). This testimony describes the analytical work performed on the modified BWST foundations, soil bearing pressure, and settlement predictions, and justifies the effectiveness of the structural modification to the foundations.
This testimony also outlines a procedure for releveling the Unit 1 BWST.
l
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF EXISTING FOUNDATION STRUCTURE The BWST has a flexible, flat bottom. The tank shell, roof, and part of the water in the tank are supported by a reinforced concrete ring wall. Compacted granular fill lies l
Inside the ring Jall and a 6-inch layer of oiled sand is between the tank bottom and the granular fill. Approximately 25 feet of compacted fill lies under the foundation structure. Because the L _ _ _ _ .
1 i
tank bottom is flexible, the vertical pressure due to the weight of the water and the tank bottom is transferred directly to the soil inside the ring wall. This vertical pressure also causes a lateral pressure which is resisted by the ring wall. Forty 1-1/2-inch diameter anchor bolts, which are evenly spaced and embedded around the periphery of the foundation ring wall, provide anchorage to the tank for resisting overturning loads caused by externally applied lateral forces.
The ring wall measures 4 feet, 6 inches high and 1 foot, 6 inches wide with footings that are 4 feet wide and 1 foot, 6 inches thick. Each valve pit is 10 feet, 8 inches high and extends 4 feet, 8 inches below the bottom elevation of the ring wall foundation. The valve pit walls are 1 foot, 6 inches thick, and the top and bottom slabs are 1 foot, 6 inches and 2 feet thick, respectively. A depth transition is located at each ring wall and valve pit intersection to provide a continuous ring wall through each valve pit (see Figure BWST-1 for the tank and foundation cross-section). The valve pit provides access to the piping connection to the tank and houses the valves for the fill and drain lines.
3.0 DESCRIPTION
OF EXISTING SOIL SUBGRADE A description of the existing soil beneath the BWST is provided in the testimony of Dr. Alfred Hendron.
4.0 DEFICIENCY AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The original design of the foundations included the load of two small tanks (9 feet, 6 inches in diameter and 10 feet, 6 inches in diameter) located on the top slab of each valve pit.
Later, when these tanks were relocated to another area of the plant, the original design was not modified to reflect the relocation of these tanks. Differential soil settlement developed as a result of the water load test. Because the major load is the weight of water which acts directly on the soil through the tank bottom, settlement beneath the tank bottom and ring foundation is more than the settlement under the valve pit.
Because of this uneven settlement, the foundation structure deflected correspondingly. The valve pit rotated relative to the ring walls and induced bending moments. These additional bending moments were not considered in the original design.
The BWST foundation design deficiency was revealed by a structural analysis which indicated the allowable moment capacity l
for the dead load and the differential settlement condition was exceeded in several locations in the foundation structure. A I
i visual inspection at the predicted overstressed locations during I
the water load test showed cracks in the Units 1 and 2 l
foundations as large as 0.063 inch, which indicate large strains i
- l and potentially overstressed reinforcing steel.
l A three-phase, corrective action is to be adopted. The following sections describe these measures and are discussed in the sequence in which these measures will be performed.
i 4.1 SURCHARGE A PORTION OF THE VALVE PIT AND ITS SURROUNDING AREA Figure BWST-2 details the surcharge program which was undertaken. The surcharge operation has consolidated the fill beneath the valve pit, thereby reducing the amount of expected residual differential settlement of the foundation structure over the 40-year life of the plant. In addition, by reducing the differential settlement, the surcharging will reduce the ring wall distortion. However, the proposed remedial plan for the ring wall described in Section 4.2 will not take credit for this reduced distortion, and, therefore, is conservative.
4.1.1 Monitoring the Surcharge Program Figure BWST-2 and Table 1 thereon outline the application and removal of the surcharge. A monitoring program was established for the surcharging program consisting of settlement point monitoring, concrete crack monitoring, and strain gage monitoring prior to, during, and subsequent to surcharge placement and removal.
The concrete crack monitoring consists of daily, except weekends and holidays, visual examinations of the BWST foundation I
i structures while the surcharge is in place. This monitoring has j not revealed any unexpected changes in the crack widths. All changes in the cracks have been small, well within the range of acceptable criteria (16 mils for new or existing cracks and no propagation within 18 inches of the top of the valve pit roof
t slab). One 5-mil crack was discovered to be 18 inches from the top of the roof slab during the initial stages of surcharge placement, but because this crack underwent no change after its discovery, it was determined to have been overlooked during the baseline crack mapping. Generally, the maximum amount of change in crack widths has been no more than 5 mils, and most of these changes have been attributed to the extreme weather conditions during the surcharge program and to the variable accuracy of optical comparator readings.
The strain gage monitoring and settlement point monitoring consist of multiposition Whittemore type strain gage and survey instrument readings, respectively, taken at the specified locations within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> before and after any surcharge placement or removal and weekly during other times.
Generally, the maximum strain in 10 inches, the gage length, has been no more than 4 mils and all strain gage readings have been within the range of acceptable criteria, 10 mils per 10 inches.
These. readings have indicated no unexpected or abnormal results.
The settlement readings indicate that the valve pits are undergoing an increased amount of settlement; therefore, future differential settlements over the 40-year life of the plant will l
be reduced. Figure BWST-3 shows the foundation settlement curve for the total settlement occurring between October 28, 1981, and January 18, 1982, 1 day after initial surcharge placement and 6 weeks after all surcharge had been placed.
i
4.1.2 Criteria for Surcharge Removal A decision to remove the surcharge is to be based on meeting any one of the three following criteria:
- 1. Settlement at any monitoring point reaches 0.04 feet, which has been determined to be a limit which would not cause unacceptable distortion for points on the ring wall
- 2. Total surcharge to remain in place for 6 weeks, which has been determined to be a period long enough to yield significant settlement
- 3. Total surcharge to remain in place 30 days past the beginning of secondary consolidation. This has been determined to be the point at which further settlement from the surcharge would not be large enough to justify the time period to continue the program.
4.1.3 Current Status of the Surcharge Program Removal of the surcharge is now justified based on the following:
- 1. Criteria 2 above has been met.
-7.- .
- 2. The pattern of settlement changes corresponds to expectations, and although it cannot be demonstrated that secondary consolidation has been obtained, the amount of settlement attained versus the further settlement predicted does not justify continuing the program.
- 3. The second phase of the proposed corrective action (additional concrete ring wall, see Section 4.2) does not take credit for the reduction in future differential settlement effects provided by the surcharge program.
Although formal NRC staff concurrence is not needed before the surcharge can be removed, the Applicant has supplied the NRC staff with data justifying such removal. At the present time, the surcharge remains in place.
4.2 INTEGRALLY CONSTRUCT A REINFORCED RING BEAM AROUND THE EXISTING RING WALL Figures BWST-4 and -5 show the ring beam construction details. The new ring beam is sized to resist all imposed loading from the tank, including additional future bending induced by the predicted residual differential settlement between i
the ring wall and the valve pit. Shear connectors transfer the shear force from the existing ring wall to the new ring beam.
One end of the shear connectors will be installed in the existing ring wall by drilling and grouting. The other end will be cast in the new ring beam. All cracks in the existing ring wall that
{
l l
L
exceed 10 mils will be repaired by pressure grouting. The main reinforcing bars in the new ring beam that terminate at the valve pit are anchored in the roof or base slab of the valve pit by grouting them into drilled holes. As construction progresses, minor chenges to the details in Figures BWST-3 and -4, which satisfy the design criteria, may be made to respond to construction-related conditions.
4.3 REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR THE TANKS After ring beam construction is complete, BWST IT-60 will be releveled. BWST 2T-60 need not be releveled. Refer to the testimony of Dr. Robert Kennedy and Robert Campbell of Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc, which addresses the condition of the tanks.
A detailed procedure is being developed to define a plan of action to relevel BWST IT-60. This procedure will be supported by an analysis which demonstrates that the tank will not to be overstressed during this operation. Strain gaging of the tank will be used as a backup to this analysis. When complete, this procedure will be submitted to the NRC staff for its review and ,
concurrence prior to performing the work. A brief summary of the procedure as currently proposed is provided below.
- 1. Drain and vent the tank.
- 2. Mount strain gages.
- 3. Attach 12 to 16 electromechanical jacks to the anchor bolt chairs.
- 4. Lift the vessel approximately 3 feet. (All jacks will be controlled from a central control panel and will lift at the same rate and time.)
- 5. Support tank with cribbing.
- 6. Install Celotex cofferdam around the inner diameter of I the ring wall to contain grout placed in Step 9 below.
- 7. Add and contour oil-impregnated sand.
- 8. Clean the top surface of the ring wall.
- 9. Place stainless steel shims on the original concrete ring wall. Level to a common datum plane approximately 1-1/2 inches above the ring wall. Set shims to the following standard:
1/8 inch within any 30 feet of circumference, 1/4 inch over total circumference
- 10. Remove cribbing and lower the tank.
-lC, .
- 12. Remove strain gages.
- 13. Tighten anchor bolt nuts.
5.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE RING BEAM 5.1 APPLICABLE DESIGN CRITERIA, CODES, AND-5TANDARDS i
The BWSTs supply borated water to the reactor building spray system and the emergency core cooling system during the injection phase following a loss-of-coolant accident. Therefore, they are essential to the safe emergency shutdown of the Midland plant. As such, they are designated as Seismic Category I structures and are designed in accordance with' design criteria, codes, standards, loads, and load combinations described in Final
. Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Subsections 3.8.5 and 3.8.6 (Reference 1) .
l l 5.2 LOADS AND LOADING COMBINATIONS The modified BWST foundations are', designed in accordance with the loading requirements for Seismic Category I structures.
The following loads are applied:
- 1. Dead load, which includes weight of concrete, tank, soil supported on the foundation footing, water, and l groundwater hydrcstatic pressure (D) i s
- 2. Live load, which includes roof loads, snow load, and lateral earth pressure (L)
- 3. Operating basis earthquake (OBE)' load (E)
- 4. Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) load (E')
S. Wind load of 100-year recurrence (W)
- 6. Effect of differential settlement (T)
- 7. Hydrostatic force due to probable maximum flood (elevation 635) (B)
The above loads are combined as follows for design considerations:
U = 1.4D + 1.7L (1)
U = 1.25 (D + L + E) (2)
U = 1.25 (D + L + W) (3)
U = 0.9D + 1.25E (4)
U = 0.9D + 1.25W (5)
U = 1.OD + 1.0L + 1.8E (6)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E' (7)
,, U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0B (8)
U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.05T (9)
U = 1.4D + 1.4T (10)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0T (11)
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 1.0T (12) where U = required strength to resist design loads or their related internal moments and forces Load combinations 1 through 8 are the applicable combinations based on FSAR requirements. Settlement effects are considered in load combinations 9 through 12. These combinations were presented in response to Question 26 of the Response to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill (Reference 2). To account for the increase in SSE due to site-specific response spectra, the seismic forces generated by the current FSAR SSE value (0.12g ground acceleration) are increased one and one-half times their value to formulate load combination 7.
5.3 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS The new ring beam will be constructed of reinforced concrete with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. The reinforcing bars will be American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-615 with a yielc strength of 60,000 psi.
Williams high-strength rock anchors and ASTM A 588 rods will be used as the connectors between the existing foundation structure and the ring beam. For repairing cracks in the existing ring wall, grout with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi will be used.
6.0 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 6.1 STATIC FINITE-ELEMENT MODEL The BWST foundation was analyzed by the finite-element method using the Bechtel Structural Analysis Program (BSAP).
Refer to Appendix B, Section 3.0 of Applicant's Auxiliary Building Public Hearing Testimony (Reference 3) for an explanation of this computer program. Because the tank has a flexible bottom, the water and tank bottom loads above the soil are transferred directly to the soil. To account for the settlement effect of the soil from this load, the soil subgrade was modeled in the analysis. The model is divided into two parts: the foundation structure and the soil subgrade (see Figures BWST-6 and -7). These two parts are connected at the common nodal points at the bottom of the foundation and the outside periphery at the top of the valve pit.
6.1.1 Foundation Structure The ring wall with the new ring beam was modeled with curved shell elements. The ring wall footing and the valve pit were modeled with plate elements. The new ring beam was incorporated by thickening the curved shell elements representing the ring wall and by thickening the plate elements representing the affected parts of the valve pit walls. The curved shell and plate elements are thin quadrilateral and/or triangular structural elements that have membrane and bending properties.
The computer program will centrally locate these thickened shells
l on the plates representing the footing. Actual construction of the ring beam will be on the outside of the existing, centrally located ring wall. The resulting composite wall will be off-center of the footing, which results in a twisting motion, or torsion, around the longitudinal axis of the wall. This torsion is considered in the design of the new ring beam. The torsion is calculated manually and added to the forces and moments from the computer analysis for wnich the ring beam is designed.
Figure BWST-6 outlines the elements comprising the foundation structure model. For clarity, the thicknesses of these elements are not shown.
~
At the locations where significant cracks were observed in the ring wall and footing, the thickness of the existing ring wall was reduced by 50% in calculating the thickness of the elements in the model. This increase in flexibility of the foundation structure simulated the effect of cracks.
6.1.2 Soil Subgrade The soil subgrade was modeled by brick elements. The brick element is an eight-node, hexahedron, isotropic solid element that has membrane properties. The amount of soil considered in the model extended outward to an average of 55 feet beyond the ring wall and valve pit and 85 feet below the top of the ring wall (see Figure BWST-7). Two sets of elastic moduli were used in the analysis. One set of elastic moduli was used for long-term loads to include consolidation effects and the
. other set was used for short-term loads.
1
6.1.3 Boundary Conditions Displacement boundary conditions are specified at the boundary nodes of the soil subgrade shown in Figure BWST-7. For all nodes on the circumferential, vertical boundary, vertical movement is allowed and horizontal movement is restrained. For nodes on the lower horizontal boundary, vertical movement is restrained and horizontal movement is allowed. This allows all vertical loads to be carried by the lower horizontal boundary.
Also, all horizontal loads will transfer to the side boundaries.
These boundary conditions realistically simulate structural behavior.
6.2 SETTLEMENT PREDICTION Future settlement of the BWST foundation was predicted based on the data obtained from the full-scale load test of the s c,il .
By extrapolating the settlement-versus-log-time curve for .
each settlement marker, future settlement was predicted (see Figure BWST-8 for an example). Settlement predictions based on the full-scale load test of the existing foundation are conservative because the modified foundation will be stiffer, thereby resulting in reduced differential settlement. Additional predicted settlement of the foundation from December 31, 1981, to December 31, 2025, is shown in Figure BWST-9. The testimony of Dr. Alfred Hendron provides his evaluation of the settlement prediction used for the design of the new ring beam.
6.3 DETERMINATION OF ELASTIC MODULUS OF SOIL 6.3.1 Long-Term Loads The differential settlement effect on the BWST foundation was considered in the analysis by using a proper set of elastic moduli for the soil subgrade as shown in Figure BWST-10. The foundation settlement resulting from the finite-element analysis using the moduli in Figure BWST-10 is shown in Figure BWST-12. The differential settlement from the finite-element analysis is in general more severe than the differential settlement from the settlement prediction (see the comparison shown in Figure BWST-20). Thus, using the elastic moduli shown in Figure BWST-10 results in a conservative design for the new ring beam.
6.3.2 Short-Term Loads The elastic moduli used for short-term loads are shown in Figure BWST-11. These values are calculated from the shear moduli used for seismic analysis of the BWST and foundation.
l 6.4 FORMULATION OF DESIGN LOAD COMBINATIONS For load combinations 1 through 8 (see Section 5.0), the short-term moduli were utilized to represent the effects of each constituent of the load combination.
For load combinations 9 through 12 (see Section 5.0) where settlement effects are included, the long-term moduli were utilized to represent the effects of permanent loads (dead load and permanent live load) as well as settlement effects. The short-term moduli were utilized to represent the effects of short-term loads (wind or seismic) when included in these load combinations.
Refer to Figure BWST-19 for a flow diagram detailing the formulation of load combinations 1 through 12 as described above.
6.5 DESIGN PROCEDURE 6.5.1 Existing Structural Components
- 1. Valve pit: The entire valve pit structure was evaluated for the controlling load combinations (see Table BWST-3 for the summary of loads and capacities).
- 2. Footing: The footing of the existing ring wall is relied on for distributing the design loads to the soil
(see Table BWST-5 for the summary of loads and capacities).
6.5.2 New Structural Components The foundation ring wall and the new ring beam were treated as a composite section in the analysis. The stresses from the composite section were designed to be resisted by the new ring beam only. Samples of the design axial load, shear force, bending moments, and torsional moment diagrams are given in Figures BWST-13 through -17. Torsional moment due to the eccentricity of the interface shear transferred from the ring wall to the new ring beam was added manually to the design torsional moment obtained from the computer analysis (see Table BWST-1 for the summary of loads and capacities).
6.5.3 Interface Between Existing and New Structural Components The composite section of the ring wall, footing, and new ring beam is supported vertically by the soil. The net vertical force to be resisted by the composite section is the incremental I change in the shear force diagram. Because the new ring beam is I designed to carry all the force, the incremental change in the l
shear force diagram is the upper bound of the interface shear force to be transmitted to the new ring beam. At the intersecnion of the new ring beam and the valve pit walls, the interface shear force includes the full magnitude of the shear force diagram (see Figure BWST-18). One-inch diameter bolts with i
! nuts on each end are used to carry the interface forces between
the new ring beam and the existing foundation. The design of the connector is in accordance with Reference 4 (see Figure BWST-21 for design loads).
7.0 ACCEPTANCE CRATERIA The modified BWST foundation is designed to meet the load criteria presented in Section 5.0. The capacity of the structural components is designed to exceed the design loads in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-71.
Tables BWST-1, -3, and -5 compare design loads to the section capacities. The capacity of the interface shear connectors is designed to exceed the design loads in accordance with Reference 4. Figure BWST-21 compares the design loads to the connector capacities.
In addition to the strength criteria, the BWST foundation was analyzed and found to satisfy the requirements of FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3.4 for overturning, sliding, and flotation (see Table BWST-7 for the actual factors of safety) .
8.0 FOUNDATION BEARING PRESSURE The results of the finite-element analysis indicate all the soil elements immediately beneath the foundation structure are in compression for dead load and live load conditions. This behavior indicates that the structure is not uplifting off the
soil or the soil is not settling down away from the structure at any point. In other words, the soil and the foundation are displacing in a compatible manner without separation. The maximum calculated soil pressures are:
- 1. 2.0 ksf for dead load and live load
- 2. 2.5 ksf for dead load, live load, and OBE
- 3. 3.5 ksf for dead load, live load, and 1.5 times SSE The minimum calculated soil pressure for dead load and live load is 0.7 ksf.
The testimony of Dr. Alfred Hendron shows that the existing fill provides adequate bearing capacity to provide factors of safety which satisfy the requirements of FSAR Subsection 2.5.4.10.1.
9.0 INSERVICE MONITORING After the new ring beam is constructed, two observation pits will be provided for each BWST foundation at the high stress locations (see Figure BWST-2 for locations and size of the observation pits). The new ring beams will be monitored monthly for possible cracks under the service condition for 6 months after filling the tanks._
At the end of the monitoring period, a report evaluating cracks will be submitted to the NRC. However, if during the monitoring period any cracks are noted to be 30 mils or larger, an engineering evaluation will be conducted to determine whether the tank should be drained.
o BWST foundation settlement will also be monitored as part of the foundation survey. Foundations are surveyed at 60-day intervals during construction and at 90-day L cervals for the first year of plant operation. Subsequent survey frequency will be established after evaluating the data taken during the first year of plant operation. As a minimum, the tank foundation would be monitored annually for the next 5 years of operation and at 5-year intervals thereafter.
10.0 SUBSEQUENT COMMITMENTS TO THE NRC References 5 and 6 included a design report for the NRC technical staff outlining the proposed corrective action described in this testimony. Subsequent to the submittal of that report, the Applicant committed to design the new ring beam and interface shear connectors to withstand the load combinations of ACI 349-76 as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142. The Applicant also retained its commitment to analyze the existing parts of the BWST foundation against the load combinations represented by the two standards mentioned above. This design and analysis work is complete. Tables BWST-2, -4, and -6 and Figure BWST-22 summarize the capability of the new ring beam, interface shear connectors, and the existing parts of the BWST foundation to withstand the load combinations of ACI 319-76 as supplemented by Regulatory Guide 1.142.
REFERENCES
- 1. Consumers Power Company, Midland Plant Unit s 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report, Docket 50-329, 50-330
- 2. Consumers Power Company, Response to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Docket 50-329, 50-330
- 3. Consumers Power Company, Public Hearing Testimony, Auxiliary Building and Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits
- 4. American Concrete Institute, Proposed Addition to Code Requirement for Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76), ACI Journal, August 1978
- 5. CPCo letter to NRC, Serial 81-03 #8, J.W. Cook to J.G. Keppler, 11/13/81 (Com 049636)
- 6. CPCo letter to NRC, Serial 81-03 #9, J.W. Cook to J.G. Keppler, 11/24/81 (Com 051050)
TABLE BWST-1
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LOADS AND CAPACITIES OF TIIE NEW RING BEAMUI Axial and Flexural Interaction Axial, Shear, and Torsion Calculated Interaction Loadt Calculated Load m Load Grid Axial Moment Load Grid Axial . Shear Category CombinationU3 Number Tension Moment Capacity 12,33 CombinationU3 Number Tension Shear Tornion' Capacity 2.
Region A 10 34 283 2,492 3,573 10 14 290 31 237 105 Region B 10 6 290 3,153 3,575 10 36 282 142 345 249 Region C 10 5 285 3,547 6,492 10 37 278 135 394 553 Region D 10 4 293 3,822 8,225 10 38 288 123 679 333 Region E 10 3 280 4,041 7,464 10 39 274 120 932 619 8 Refer to Section 5.0 for load combinations.
(2sAxial and shear are measured in kips; moment' and torsion are measured in ft-kips.
83' Interaction capacities at calculated axial load .
"3 Interaction capacities at calculated axial load and torsion 883 Including torsion due to eccentricity of the interface shear force 70 fpTFB 0F TAMK dj p'. 16 .
N 7' [
~ w i Qt<aO.'
.#f
\/ '
A - ~
C Meg ; hQ i no ston f 9a c '
jgd A
..m... o N
- m. u - ,,,,,
a_ =..
SIMILAR dit EAs.M $tt* OF fie VALUE Fif a
TABLE BWST-2
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LOADS AND CAPACITIES OF THE NEW RING BEAM (ACI 349-76 LOAD COMBINATIONS AS SUPPLEMENTED BY REGULATORY GUIDE 1.142)
Axial and Flexural Interaction Axial, Shear, and Torsion Calculated Interaction Load'8 Calculated Load W Load Grid Axial ' Moment Load Grid Axial Shear Category CombinationM8 Number Tension Moment Capacityt2,3) Combinationi'l Number Tension Shear TorsioniSI Capacityt 2,41 Region A A 8 239 2,731 3,638 A 28 259 3 310 123 Region D A 6 226 3,494 3,660 A 36 309 153 439 156 Region C A 5 215 3,919 6,640 A 37 308 147 510 460 Region D A 4 211 4,316 8,458 A 38 323 130 855 193 l
Region E A 3 187 4,653 7,701 A 39 312 124 1,154 502
"' Controlling ACI 349-76 load combination is:
A. U = 1.4D + 1.4T + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9E where D = dead load L = live load F = hydrostatic pressure from groundwater T = differential settlement H = lateral earth pressure
- 4 E = operating basis earthquake (""h "" '
'88 \ -
Axial and shear are in kips; moment and torsion are measured in ft-kips 'N '
Interaction capacities at calculated axial load
'*3 1nteraction capac,ities at calculated axial load and torsion ,,, ,,d
("
n 888 Including torsion due to eccentricity of the interface shear force m ..MZ
'y[
.kS9,
. . .c wp- y n f' Cals 4 '
R%x
,k
- ...,-t
-c :
<_ _ _ -'x
~~_ . - "
S"W LAR 05 Eacit 51DE UF TItt WALVE Fif
e
'25-TABLE BWST-3
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LOADS AND CAPACITIES OF THE VALVE PIT MEMBERSIU Axial and Flexural InteractionUH Shear calculated Load In-Plane Transverse Actual Moment l Category Combinations Calculated capacity ' Calculated capacity Tension Moment capacityGH Exterior walls 10- 198 332 84) -
180^ 903 1,570 Interior wall 10 51 204 is 172 2,734 3,700 l (ring wall)
Roof slab'*I N-S directionern gg UH 18.6 41.1- 16.4 19.4 7.3 8.7 50.5 E-W direction t'3 NAUH 18.6 60.3 4.9 19.9 0.1 3.7 33.0 Floor slab (*l N-S directiont NA'
- I 28.6 45.8 15.7 23.4 16.7 20.6 27.5 E-W directioni'l 10 28.6 42.8 11.4 22.9 33.3 5.3 8.5
'U Refer to Section 5.0 for load combinations. ,,_,a, l'8 Units are in kips and feet.
83b Interaction capacity at calculated axial load %s/
84' Transverse shear in plate elements governed by those representing the slabs unmi l*3 No transverse loading on interior wall sg ~,' s
)(
'*3 Forces shown are per linear foot of slab. /
Asin rumm 8'8 Direction of the axial force y
's /
te8 Forces shown are the maximums and are not necessarily from the n same element or load combination. Combining these maximums wu envelops all possible actual governing load combinations.
ThANSVERSE SMAS .
Np nat
... .:... n s -
51H' LANE & MAR ~ .t
$ LAB
TABLE BWST-4
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LOADS AND CAPACITIES OF THE VALVE PIT MEMBERS (ACI 349-76 LOAD COMBINATIONS AS SUPPLEMENTED BY REGULATORY CUIDE 1.142)
Axial and Flexural Interactionian Shear tas Calculated Load In-Plane Transverse Actual Moment Category CombinationsHI Calculated Capacity calculated capacity Tension' Moment Capacity (33 Exterior walls A 200 331 tes -
192 1,411 ,- 1,570 Interior wall A 71 -206 gs, -
156 3,381 3,700 (ring wall)
Roof slabHU N-S direction #I 8
. NAI * ' 24.5 42.2 15.2 20.0 1.5 11.9 53.8 E-W directiont') NAi 'l 24.5 60.3 5.3 19.9 0 3.6 33.0 Floor slab'O i N-S direction A 34.4 45.8 15.2 23.0 16.6 26.2 27.8 E-W direction 'l i Nata) 34.4 42.9 13.7 23.0 32.7 7.6 9.4 HIControlling ACI 349-76 load combinations is:
IN-PLAllt SufA3 A. U = 1.4D + 1.4T + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9E o where (
H E
=
=
lateral earth pressure operating basis earthquake anatuum
,r' ff 188 Units are in kips'and feet.
sa: Interaction capacity at calculated axial load b l*3 mu Transverse shear in plate elements governed by those representing the slabs 883 No transverse loading on iliterior wall m m un sean
- c issForces shown are per linear foot.
'U Direction of the axial force ,r' IN unn inna p s ta8 Forces shown are maximums and are not necessarily from ' " " " " ^ '
the same element or load combination. Combining these maximums envelops all possible actual governing load ""
combinations.
m _ _
l l
TABLE BWST-5
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LOADS AND CAPACITIES OF THE, FOUNDATION FOOTINGI 'I Load Type of Load Combination (13 Calculated Loadt2) Capacityt21 Moment 7 3.4 37.5 Axial Tension 7 25.5 30.3
- Shear 7 5.4 14.6 I'I Refer to Section 5.0.
(2) Units -are in kips and feet per linear foot of footing.
/ \
/
s'
- i b, -
l l
l 1 i , I I I
/1 l N i
, 4 -
/
AXIAL TENSION MOMENT SHEAR 2
- - _ _ , - --. - .- - . _ _ - .. -----------.---,---y
~28-TABLE BWST
SUMMARY
OF CALCULATED LOADS AND CAPACITIES OF THE FOUNDATION FOOTING (ACI 349-76 LOAD COMBINATIONS AS SUPPLEMENTED BY REGULATORY GUIDE 1.142)
Load Type of Load CombinationU) Calculated Load (2) Capacity (2)
Moment A 2.8 37.5 Axial Tension A 24.6 30.3 Shear A 4.4 14.6 l'I Controlling ACI 349-76 load combinations is:
U = 1.4D + 1.4T + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9E where D = dead load L = live load F = hydrostatic pressure from groundwater T = differential settlement H = lateral earth pressure E = operating basis earthquake
Units are in kips and feet per linear foot of footing.
/ ^s
,' s I
i
(~ ' / I l
~I' I
I I l l
l l l N i
, s /
/
AXIAL TENSION MOMENT SHEAR
TABLE BWST-7 FACTORS OF SAFETY OF BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION AGAINST OVERTURNING, SLIDING, AND FLOTATION Factor of Safety Load Combination Required Actual Overturning D+L+E 1.5 6.64 D + L + E' 1.1 2.92 Sliding D+L+E 1.5 6.88 D + L + E' 1.1 2.21 Flotation D+B 1.1 1.40 I
l l
i i
l I
l I
Q BORATED WATER TANK l
1 1
7 '-0 "
1 AUXILIARY BUILDING 32'-0" i DIKE WALL
's.
v .LL.
l".% f i
r
\ 18" DIA PIPELINES VALVE PIT COMPACTED GRANULAR M ANCHOR BOLT CHAIR l /%" ASPHALT i IMPREGNATED BOARD 7 OILED SAND 3]_.
, .j ANCHOR BOLT
- G; , _ _
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT tlNIT31 & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FIGURE BWST-1 G-1834-03
e
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ - /***" " " "
.- m u ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
. e g m. eea.==. c eght.of
.. the concrete tWoce. an We
.ao.ao va a g .o .. .. t. w n umim ca.s.o o e n .e .e.. e. gg,g g,g
+ ;q, .o .
q,;--
em - a
.am -
gg,,,,,7
.e m
- ,., s
. '6, . . . , , , , e, , .= c e , .= r
..ca ..o.
en a, .= c e., w ar
-ps:: ., s. % / es m
w .= r e,e w .= e-g aw \ j g g
, e.
ur
.=
.= r r e en w
., . = ,
.= r
- e, er ,, /' V To t,,m,,,,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,
ef r V' +
m w
,w u,
.= r e
u, om av u,
.w e r
ee n,e .w r en mw owr
, se u, .= v m .= r
,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, . we .wr en >>, .we w
.=
- = 4 4
~. .e.
ei.
g en er=
e.-
~
== en sw
.wr
.= r em m,
=,
nr r
.= r ou natu m .= r sas v=ve m eat r
, . , g g,,,. p , , e.. == w m .wr om .= w m .w r
,p , s -
- m. ur r
,,c$.
.sg g z, g ig.y ,,
- + em .mve. .aam nre em . . . are Q .y N ,,
c_
9,,
, ss ,,<a ,,
, e 's
- e. e n .m wr ur . .m ure i, jp3
- N s
s (
/
p1e _.-:-
g, en en e.s == ar.- em .. . m arr iE p,~) 3-m, y j i e.s .m arr om o.s wm arr
) E. N I em . .m are en nrr c.,,,,n
,o,g/
D,p 's N /,'
s ,,,,,c.,,,,,,a.
sn, s h , ]/
s su m =
e arr
.= r eres e.
e.. .m e use-
.w r
,g .
g- y
..a.
en m
w w
are
.= r n es.
. .wr r
- y - - u __~ m u, avr er en , w .wr
-- 'T _ _ ~5'~ **' *3 ~Ig' ~"",_ ' r' . " - ' ' * * . ' ' ' ' ' ' * ' ' ' * * " , - - ' ~ * ' _
' ere en sw .w e . vie tw em r ser owr se,e say .wr
, , . , 3 e r. e., .= r ein n, .w r y q e ,e. ns eso sov .w o- este s.r .w r
" " " "#* " one siv .w r esn sv .= r PLAN OF MONITORING LOCATIONS aar sen 7"' AND SURCHARGE AREAS r . e +- '
n,,, ,, ,y
- d
- p # *** snt
.w e
- ser us a-
-f ==,,,, *-**"..te
. .. ma p,g
____, \ w-- - w-. -
- .,,,..a m. u. .
,"'"a ,, ,am. - = me . ,
l ,:
.g e. - -
a,n C", , y ~~a==='--
y _ __ __ =c== u -= _ _ _ _
y .
- :::,,,e , .
- .. =,n=
( M. .
rn . p
- v
~ - e= w.
ac,,,,,e, e wm e _. :,,w . .,- :.
i.* si\
. . ~w. . .... .m.o co ...
er ...
i___,
-r- y*- '
au-u
. s
-- - a cumenon a sn=t.e .e cou.tafee
- ' a M ,.-
- arry '
-*ces e a ancnon wetensoar neeuntsvaries a rama snataano .a as e w ; . ennessa.se e emacies av Paomcv anemesanse s' r a
- 8 M a ses sectiose e r tem s.etaca nosee a.umenaase n rwo one s t. avan i ano e a r mas
- " = ses saevsoas a e es=
s.noto esacapoe re suncm.anos weems savan .c awe w r mas SECTION /h SECTION (8 eve av SECTION /E\ SECTION /'0% 0 su n.etace suncmaana aavun e ano ses asevion se r esse mo scas \,,,/ ano mata Vev en.s t-ee eso scas U mo st.a a V ",,,','c[,**,E"*c7aS"
, 'e*misee "#""'
v 9 Map 0WE SuflCesanGG iatte.s a80s 5&S teCT8ote ttr esses note een two wasas c err mas WI e RetBOWE MMasseDee 08 Busicee440E FF Fr
& Artget seg b ages ta E Meques sala I
CONSUMERS P('WER COMPANY MIDLAND PLAUT UNITS 1 & 2 80 RATED WATER STORAGE TANMS FOUNDATION SURCHARGE PROGRAM FIGURE BWST 2
KEY PLAN -
C B
A
. f D
E 1
C
.01
.03 -
P F B F
, ,, ,,, .a D
- A y E h
sn
.04
.05 -
.06 LEGEND assumummeDEVELOPED VIEW OF RING FOUNDATION PROFILE I men me ausDEVELOPED VIEW OF VALVE PIT PROFILE MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT DURING SURCHARGE PROGRAM FIGURE BWST-3 G - 1834
s
> VALVE PIT p j 4 ' <
uk <
f k & ,
D5 hss ,>
f k <<s@ )>
g 5
\
'%wc =- S W $
c , a
- SECTION PROPERTIES INCLUDE ORIGINAL WALL AND NEW RING BEAM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2
, BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF FOUNDATION FIGURE BWST-6 G-1834-06
00-'o,,
g O" N'0 \\ g EL 635'-0" LAYER 1'
- 4 EL 629'-9"
/
,/ h EL 625'-4'
( i /
/ fp / M LAYER 3 0 -
._. f/ / EL 615'-0" NS // .\ \ g/// / M LAYER 4
/ d , y- EL 600' 0"
\
Q w_ s j '
/ / M LAYERS N
\
-s N N -
/ / .
/ EL S80'-0"
\ '
' s
l s ~~ .- - / /
N '
- ' / MLAYER 6
\
\
N N % _-
, /
/ j1
(-
EL 550'-0" m W ' /
/
/
~ .-
\ /
% /
~
sdN -.
's'
! CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 i
l BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF SUBGRADE FIGURE BWST-7 G-1834-05
KEY PLAN TF 1 SETTLEMENT VERSUS LOGARITHM OF TIME FOR MARKER TF-1
-o 5 10/0/80 LOAO TEST STARTED o -
05 -
\
111 210 1 1120/01
--* +-- POND LEVEL RAISED FROM 623.5' TO 827.0*
10 -
y$ ,,
4e,4 Y% % %
1213112025 20 -
UNIT 1 DEWATERING STARTED ON 11l19100 % **' %
sti4ses tristies N % SEULEMENT W W W
%s'% .,
26 -
emo g '
- F% %~
3U i io ioo 1,000 10.000 tMo@
TNE (CUMULATNE DAYS)
NOTES C0llSUMERS POWER C00$PANY UNIT 2 DEWATERING STARTED ON 8I10/80 IllDLAND Pl Alli UNITS I & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION EXTRAPOL ATK)N OF FUTURE SETTLEMENT FIGURESWST 8
KEY PLAN - TF 2 TF-19 TF-2d TF-3 TF-21
.02 -
.04 -
,r h .06 -
TF-21 TF-20 Og, TF-3 pb y .08 -
' TF-1 TF-2 TF-3 0 O TF-i9
.10 -
.12 LEGEND:
O PREDICTED SETTLEMENT OF SETTLEMENT MARKERS FROM 12/31/1981 TO 12/31/2025 DEVELOPED VIEW OF RING FOUNDATION PROFILE CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
= = == DEVELOPED VIEW OF VALVE PIT PROFILE MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE NOTE: FOUNDATION PROFILE IS BASED ON BEST TANK FOUNDATION ESTIMATE OF PREDICTED MARKER SETTLEMENT PREDICTED FOUNDATION SETTLEM_ENT FIGURE BWST-9 G-1834-14
%, g , v , ,- ,
,, --.-; :,,' 'n ,' > :,,
' ~
>- l'; ,. , ,y-s- .,c ,1 ' '* ,'
, :s .e- '+,',,:,, '
^'.' ", ', ' ,:,:.,
+-
,, ~...s'~ -
L, '^s'
,' > < , , - ' ,s s
< i* q : R s. g 36;M LAYER 1 3
( $3 MtWR: LAYER 2 i
LAYER 3 '* E = 400 ksf LAYER 4 s LAYER 5 E = 900 ksf LAYER 6 E = 2,400 ksf CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK LONG-TERM ELASTIC MODULI OF SUBGRADE FIGURE BWST-10 G 1834-02
4 s
a
% y / p s'
t ; s .,
s l ^
- t '. s .
, s %, ,,, .qs, '< .s v l),s g, ,sa
, . :s, , ,s,
,s s ,
m 3.., <
s ; y s s.
% - ..* + ,
c3 g., gg...a..p;yg . ,
q ~
a; :.: 3.e E = 1,827 ksf I
l E = 5,278 ksi .-
I~
, E = 5,149 ksf , ,
i r
r d
E = 5,149 ksf 1
ll 4
- # s /
J ,
f CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2
!. BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK l SHORT-TERM ELASTIC l MODULI OF SUBGRADE FIGURE BWST-11 G- 1834-04
KEY PLAN -
3 A
F D
E E
.c2 -
% A
- .04 -
p
- D B #
g .06 -
F g C
.08 -
.10 -
.12 LEGEND:
- EVELOPED VIEW OF RING FOUNDATION PROFILE CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l
-= = DEVELOPED VIEW OF VALVE PIT PROFILE D MU MM 1 & 2 ,
BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION FOUNDATION SETTLEMENTFROM FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FIGURE BWST-12 G-1834 15
TOTAL AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM - LOAD CASE 10 400.0 aty et Am 300.0 -
ene s f
g 200.0 - /
one s, n
[
2 g 100.0 -
E O o.o
-100.0 -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
-200.o , , , , , , , ,
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ORAHD WAm MM,TaE MK GRID LOCATION FOUNDATION RING BEAM AXIAL FORCE DIAGRAM FIGURE BWST-13
TOTAL VERTICAL SHEAR DIAGRAM - LOAD CASE 10 400.0 y 300.0 -
GA4D 1 12 i ./. .,
g 200.0 -
?
b 100.0 -
e s
0.0
-100.0 -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 200.o MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 0 5 to- 15 20 25 30 35 40 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK GRID LOCATION FOUNDATION (
RING BEAM VERTICAL SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAM FIGURE BWST-14 G-1834-16 r
TOTAL VERTICAL MOMENT (MX) DIAGRAM - LOAD CASE 10 KEY PLAN O.0 1
onio i g -100.0 -
x ear et X~
-200.0 -
i5 8
3 -300.0 -
6
_ -400.0 -
b 500.0 -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 .
' ' ' ' ' i i
-600.0 '
o 5 to 15 20 25 30 35 40 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION GRID LOCATION RING BEAM VERTICAL MOMENT DIAGRAM FIGURE BWST-15
TOTAL CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT (MY) DIAGRAM - LOAD CASE 10 KEY PLA.4 100.00 -
)
0.0
?
g .
% /
.../.,
z
$ -100.0 -
8 Y
F
$ -200.0 -
E s
a g; -300.0 -
o N
R
-400.0 -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND FLANT UNITS 1 & 2
-500.0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION GRID LOCATION RING BEAM CIRCUMFERENTIAL MOMENT DIAGRAM FIGURE BWST-16 G-183414
TOTAL TORSIONAL MOMENT DIAGRAM - LOAD CASE 10 900.0 KEY PL AN 6 600.0 -
g -
on.o i d
s
$ 300.0 -
.../. ..
8 5
g ih 0.0 [\
8 d -300.0 -
R
-600.0 -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2
.gooo i ' ' ' ' ' '
O 5 to 15 20 25 30 35 40 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION GRID LOCATION RING BEAM TORSIONAL MOMENT DIAGRAM FIGURE BWST-17 G-183413
TOTAL VERTICAL SHEAR DIAGRAM - LOAD CASE 10 400.0 , , , , ,
l 300.0 -
GMDO I DESIGN FORCE GRID 1
$- = 196 KIPS x~ j /
x 200.0 - 7 '*'**'
b DESIGN FORCE GRID 6 TO GRID 14 b = 160-30= 6.25 KIPS / GRID j 8 y 100.0 -
= 4.8 KlPS/FT C
W s
il 00 DESIGN FORCE GRID 41~
(2 - 160 KIPS
-100.0 -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 2m.0 - - ' '
0 5 20 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 to 15 25 30 35 40 GRID LOCATION BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION ILLUSTRATION OF INTERFACE SHEAR CONNECTOR DESIGN FORCE FIGURE BWST-18 G-1834 16
( LOAD COMBINATIONS
)
(INDIVIDUAL LOADS) 6 8 9 1, 12 1 2 3 4 5
-& LONGTERM MODEL d RESULTS )
L e.
g..... ...,.,5 ,., ,.,
. 9.
Mi> __3=M -
9...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . ............ ............ ............. .._ ,.2 5 ....... .... ,., ...
-& g .. . . . .. . . . . . ._ _ .. ............ ............ ............. ...,.,5 ,.. ,., ,.,
-& 7
( RESULTS }
1.4 1.25 a 1.25 0.9 0.9 1.0 a.e 1.0 e 1.0 1.0 1.0 L 1.7 1.25 u 1.25 naan anau.a au 1.0 .
au a.-aa. i.anaana.aaaaaaaaan.a< a
.aa.a. 1.25 -aa.' .a 1.25 naa. 1.8 ==
9..............................
NOTES:
.---.=- ---40
'" = =^==::::= e~--.-e-- us - ---@---a.-----
(2) O DENOTES LOAD FACTOR .......................................a............................. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FLOW DIAGRAM BORATED WATEATIORAGE TANK i FOUNDATION i
FORMULATION OF LOAD I
COMBINATIONS-~ i FIGURE BWST-19
...... )
l
e KEY PLAN .
C B
A F
.l D
E
.02 - E A
.04 -
CALCULATED SETTLEMENT PROFILE F
$ .06 u;
- B C A
.08 -
F
- D B
.10 - L PREDICTED SETTLEMENT PROFILE
.12 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATION COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND CALCULATED SETTLEMENTS FIGURE BWST-20 G-183416
KEY PLAN
_ _g, CAPACITY ENVELOPE _ _ _ .
70.0
. I m one i I
i 60.0 ,,,f,,
I I
a i I g 50.0 g l I
@ L____________
e 40.0 n.
E o 30 0 DESIGN FORCE ENVELOPE
/
s
- e. 20.0
. / ^
g 7
10.0 -A '
V_
0.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N LOCATION CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FIGURE IC: FSAR LOAD CASES 1 - 7 BWS FOUNDATION DASHED LINE REPRESENTS SHEAR CAPACITY OF A588 BOLTS AT SPACING AS SHOWN Of.4 DRAWINGS C-1153(O), REV B AND C-1154(O), REV B.
l ONNEC FIGURE BWST-21 G .1834 12
K E Y PL AN 80.0
__fCAPACITY ENVELOPE _ _ _ .
i 70.0 j -
g **'
I I
60.0 i
j i /
l I I g 50.0 l .
g g L_____________________a E 40.0 te 0 i
$ 30.0 -
DESIGN FORCE ENVELOPE [ -
g FOR ACI 349 COMBINATIONS 5
E 20.0 I ,
10.0 -
s s,< A 0.0 ' ' ' ' ' '
s 10 is 20 2s 30 as 4 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY GRID LOCATION MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK FIGURE 2C: ACI 349 LOAD CASES 3-11 MAXIMUM DESIGN LOADS AND DASHED LINE REPRESENTS SHEAR CAPACITY OF A588 BOLTS AT SPACING AS CAPACITIES OF INTERFACE SHEAR SHOWN ON DRAWINGS C.1153(O), REV B AND C-1154(Q), REV B. CONNECTORS (ACI 349 CRITERIA)
FIGURE BWST-22 G .1834 11
SS: STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WASHTENAW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docke t Nos. 50-329 OM
) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)). 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF ALAN J. BOOS My name is Alan J. Boos. I am Assistant Project Manager for the Midland Project for Bechtel Power Corporation. In this capacity I am responsible for providing overall manage-ment direction for the soils remedial work as well as for project services (procurement, administrative services, cost and schedule) . I have a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Michigan. I am a registered profes-sional engineer in the states of Michigan and California.
My resume is attached.
In connection with my role as Assistant Project Manager, I have been assigned the responsibility for the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundation Testimony. I am personally f amiliar with the events leading up to the decision to implement remedial work on the foundations, and I partici-pa ted in the decision process related thereto. I have reviewed in detail the proposed design of the remedial work, and I am jointly responsible with Dr. Hanson for the testi-mony.
i .
t t
I swear that the statements contained in this affidavit, the attached resume, and the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundation Testimony are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
, 0. ,'/ .i-
// . , > , . _ , s p t . -- -
, ' Alan... Ji Boos Signed and sworn to me this [ day of '
, February, 1982.
i
/
K n o i .I l< #1 ( 5 4 -
] Notary Public arrsaLTh~inoes sotaar rearrc, WASETERAW 00. 18c3 lit 0018E3810s E m AES 597 30 1983 t
f 1
ALAN J. BOOS POSITION Assistant Project Manager EDUCATION BS, Civil Engineering, University
- of Michigan MS, Civil Engineering, University of Michigan PROFESSIONAL Registered Professional Civil Engineer DATA in Michigan Registered Professional Engineer in California
SUMMARY
l-1/2 years: Assistant project manager 4 years: Project field engineer 2-1/2 years: Area engineer 1-1/2 years: Senior civil design engineer 2-1/2 years: Civil design engineer 2 years: Civil field engineer EXPERIENCE Mr. Boos is currently serving as an assistant project manager on the Consumers Power Company Midland project. In this position he is responsible for providing overall manage-ment guidance for remedial soils work and general project services (procurement, administrative services and cost / schedule).
Prior to this assignment Mr. Boos served as project field engineer for the Midland project.
He was responsible for all field engineering activities at the jobsite in this position.
Prior to his assignment as project field engineer, Mr. Boos was an area engineer at the Midland jobsite where he coordinated and l ,
directed all field engineering activities for the construction of the auxiliary building.
l Mr. Boos came to the Ann Arbor Power Division l
in December 1972 as a senior civil design l engineer. He responsibilities included reviewing project civil designs and acting l
as the civil department's licensing engineer reviewing civil safety analysis report sections
- prior to submittal to the NRC.
l l Mr. Boos joined Bechtel in July 1968 as a l civil design engineer for the Power and l Industrial Division in San Francisco. His assignments as a civil design engineer and a civil field engineer sent him to Russellville, i Arkansas, and to Homestead, Florida, where, among other activities, he supervised the repair of a post-tensioned concrete containment dome.
February 1982
SS: STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WASHTENAW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland ?lant, Units 1 and 2)) 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ROBERT D. HANSON My name is Robert D. Hanson. I have been retained as a consultant by Bechtel Power Corporation in connection with structural analysis and design review for the Midland Project. I have a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engincering from the University of Minnesota and a Ph.D in Civil Engineering from.the California Institute of Technology. I am currently Professor and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Michigan, although this testimony is not offered in that capacity. I have over twenty-three years of experience in structural engineering. A copy of my resume is attached.
I have participated in the modeling and analysis of the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundations. As a result of my technical background and this work, I believe I am qualified to testify as an expert with respect to the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundations.
e I an jointly responsible with Alan Boos for the attached testimony.
I swear that the statements in this affidavit, the attached resume, and the testimony concerning the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundation are true and correct to the best of.my knowledge and belief.
,/
/2/ W Dr. Robert D. Hanson Signed and sworn before me thisw[ day of February, 1982
, bt w A, kr sq l Notary Public l Em ms?"A.~EBoss E
- E E g ". S [ ,E i
i l
Novmber 1981
- 1. Name: H7dSON, FOBERT DUANE
- 2. Department: Civil Engineering S.S.No.: 468-36-9153
'Ihe University of Michigan
- 3. Date of Birth: July 27, 1935 Citizenship: U.S.A.
- 4. Present Acadmic Pank: Assistant Professor, 1966-1969 Associate Professor, 1969-1974 Professor, 1974-Department Chairman,1976-
- 5. Degrees, with field, institution and date:
B.S. (C.E. ) University of Minnesota, June, 1957 M.S.C.E. University of Minnesota, July, 1958 Ph.D. (Civil Engineering), California Inst. of Technology, June,1965
- 6. Appointment fractions during present tema:
Acadmic Budget: 100% Research: 0%
- 7. Other teaching experience:
Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of Minnesoi.a, Septaber,1957 to June, 1958 Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of North Dakota, February, 1959 to June, 1961 Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, Septa ber, 1965 to June, 1966 UNESCO Expert and Chief Technical Adviser, International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 'Ibkyo, Japan, August,1970 to August, 1971
- 8. Full-time industrial experience:
Pittsburgh-Des bbines Steel Ompany, Des Fbines, Iowa, June,1958 to February, 1959, Engineering Trainee
- 9. Part-time industrial experience:
Magney, Setter, i n ch, Lindstrun & Erickson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Surmer,1959, Structural Engineer Ivan R. Jensen, Structural Engineer, Grand Forks, North Dakota, Sumer, 1960, Structural Engineer Self splayed as Structural Engineer, since 1961 in North Dakota and Michigan ,
! California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, Sumer,1965, Research Engineer
- 10. States in which registered:
North Dakota (inactive)
- Michigan l
l I
HANSCN, BOBERP DUANE
- 11. Consulting work in the past five years:
American Iron and Steel Institute - earthquake resistant design of steel bdMings U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Office of Federal Building Technology -
Evaluation of Seismic Design Codes Hydrunation Filter Co. - Seismic analysis of a filter systen Applied Technology Council - Developrent of a new building code for cartlquake resistant design City of Ann Arbor - Pridge safety study Consumrs Power Company - Stack vibration problen Bechtel Power Corp. - Nuclear power plant structural design General Electric Ctopany - Nuclear power plant structural design
- 12. Scientific and professional societies of which a marber:
American Society of Civil Engineers,1958-StrLh Division Comittee on Dynamic Forces Task Camittee on Piein Forces, 1972-80 Chairran, 1975-79; Marber of Cbntrol Group, 1972-80 Subconmittee on Steel Structures, 1970-1973 Structural Division Catmittee on Research 1980-Engineering Mechaaics Division Carmittee on Dynamics Chairran, 1973-75 Vice-Chairman, 1972-73, 1975-77 Marber, 1971-80 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1968-Vice-President, 1977-79 Board of Directors, 1976-79 1975 National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Ann Arbor)
Chairman, Steering Camittee, 1972-75 Marber, Program Cannittee, 1973-75 American Concrete Institute, 1975-'
American Society for Engineering Education, 1959-74 Seismological Society of America, 1967-77 Tau Beta Pi, 1957-Chi Epsilon, 1956-Sigma Xi, 1964-
- 13. Honors and Awards:
Ibrd Foundation Fellowship, 1961-65 Oberholtz Scholarship, 1963-64 G1 Tau Beta Pi " Outstanding Teacher" Finalist, 1967 Honorable Mention, 1972-73 l G1 ASCE Student Chapter " Outstanding Teacher" - 1968-69 and 1979-80 i Gi Class of 38E " Distinguished Service Award - 1969" Raymond C. Reese Research Isard, ASCE,1980 I
i l
i e
HMSCH, PGERP DUME
.I
- 16. Leaves of absence and sabbatical leaves while at Michigan:
Icave of Abserce: August 1970--August 1971; LNESCO Expert and Chief Technical Mvisor at the International Institute of Soiranology and Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan Sabbatical Icave: Winter Term 1974; To write portions of a book entitled: " Design of Earthquake-Resistant Steel Structures" Sabbatical leave: Fall Term 1981; To develop research background in seismic performance of precast and prestressed concrete buildings
- 17. Doctoral otmnittees for which I was chairman or co-chairman:
- Subhash C. Goel " Inelastic Behavior of Multistory Frames Subjected to Earthquake Motion" - May, 1968
- i William R.S. Fan "The Dampiry Properties and the Earthquake Response Spectrun of Steel Frames" - Atqust,1968 Norman W. Edwards "A Procedure for the Dynamic Analysis of Thin Walled cylindrical Liquid Storage Tanks Subjected to Lateral Ground Motions" - August, 1969 George H. Workman "'Ihe Inelastic Behavior of Multistory Braced Frame Structures Subjected to Earthquake Excitation" - August, 1969 Amin M. Almuti " Post-Elastic Response of Mild Steel Beams to Static and Dynamic Ioading" - August, 1970 Chang-Kuei Sun " Gravity Effect on the Dynamic Stability of Inelastic Syste:m" - December,1971 William H. Townsend "The Inelastic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete BeamHJolunn Connections" - August,1972 Addiscn B. Higginbotham "The Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Axially-L W Steel Members" - January, 1973 Lawrence F. Kahn " Reinforced Concrete Infilled Stear Walls for Aseismic Strengthening" - January, 1976 Duane L.N. Ice " Original or Repaired Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Soh. ==nhlages Subjected to Earthquake Icading" - April,1976 Dhavajjai Prathuangsit - Inelastic Hysteresis Behavior of Axially Pwh1 Steel Menbers with Ibtaticnal End Pestraints" - April,1976 Pritam Singh " M amic Behavior of Braces and Braced Steel Frames" -
June, 1977 Haluk M. Aktan "A Method to Analyze the Cyclic Behavior of Slender Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls" - July, 1977 Ashok K. Jain " Hysteresis Behavior of Bracing Members and Seismic Response of Braced Frames with Different Proportions"- August,1978 Martin E. Batts " Torsion in Buildings Subjected to Earthquakes" -
November, 1978 Abolhassan Astaneh " Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Double Angle Bracings with Gusset Plate Connections" - (expected April,1982)
HANSON, POBERP DUANE
- 18. Principal Publications (does not include printed discussions or reviews):
1965 " Post-Elastic Dynamic Response of Mild Steel Structures," Ph.D. Thesis, California Inst. of Technology, Pasadena, June,1965
" Static and Dynamic Tests of a Full-Scale Steel-Frame Structure,"
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory Report, Califontia Inst. of Technology, Pasadena, August, 1965 1966 "Cmparison of Static and Dynamic Hysteresis Curves," J_. Engineering Mechanics Div., ASCE, 92_:87-113, No. D15, October,1966
" Post-Elastic Dynamic Response of Steel Structures," Proc. offJapan Earthauake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, October,1966, pp. 221-6 1967 "An Application of an Electro-Optical Transducer to a Dynamic Testing of Sandwiched Honeycmb Materials" (with John M. Ohno), Sixth Symposium on Nondestructive Evaluation of Aerospace Systems Cmponents and MateriHs, San Antonio, Texas, ApriU 1967, pp.129-58 1969 he Venezuela Earthquake of July 29,1967 (with Henry J. Degenkolb),
American Iron and Steel Institute, 1969, 176 pp.
"Se Effect of Minimum Cross Bracing on the Inelastic Response of ht:lti-Story BuiMings," (with W.R.S. Fan), Proc. of IV World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, A4:31-44, January, 1969 "Se July 29,196, Venezuela Earthquake Iessons for the Structural Engineer" (with Henry J. Degenkolb), Proc. of IV World Cbnf. on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, J2: 90-106, January, 1969 1970 he Gediz Turkey Earthquake of 1970, (with Joseph Penzien), National Acad sy of Sciences, 1970, 81 pp.
" Post-Elastic Response of Mild Steel Structures" (with Amin M. Al-Muti),
Proc. of Third Japan Earthquake Engineering Sympositzn, 'Ibkyo, November, 1970, pp. 643-50
" Earthquake Engineering Research - University of Michigan," Proc. U.S. -
i Japan Seminar on Earthquake Engineering, Sendai, Japan, Septm oer, 1970, pp. 267-277 1971 " Seismic Behavior of Multistory Braced Steel Frames," (with S. C. Goel),
Report UMEE 71R2 on AISI Project 144, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor l
1972 " Seismic Behavior of Multistory Braced Steel Frames," (with S. C. Goel),
Steel Research for Construction, AISI Bulletin No. 22, April,1972, 69 pp.
1973 " Behavior of Liquid-Storage Tanks," The Great Alaska Earthcuake of 1964:
l Engineering, National Acadsy of Sciences, Washingtcn, D.C.,1973, l pp. 331-339 l
" Gravity Effect on Single-Degree Inelastic Systs," (with C. K. Sun and l G. V. Berg), Journal of the Engineering Mecha: tics Division, ASCE, Vol.
99, No. Dil, February,1973, pp.183-200
" Static and Dynamic Yielding of Steel Bea: 5," (with A. M. Almuti), Journal
- of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, Mo. ST6, June,1973, pp.
T273-1285 1
. . . - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .- . . . . =_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ __
l
, . -
- l l
l HANSCN, IOBERP DUANE j Principal Publications (continued) l
" Seismic Behavior of Staggered Truss Framing System-Design Procedure for
- Earthquake Ioading," (with S. C. Goel and G. V. Berg), Report UMEE 73R2 I
for AISI Project 175, University of Michigan, January, 1973, 86 pp. _
l " Dynamic Behavior of Hotel Managua Intercontinental in the Managua Earthquake of DC +r 23,1972," (with H. M. Aktan), PrMinos of,
- the Man g , Nicaragua Earthquake Conference, Vol. II, p. 586-603, j EERI, San Francisco, November, 1973 i " Behavior of the INALUF Office Building in the Managua Earthquake of a C+ -;M 23,1972," (with S. C. Goel), Proceedings of the Managua Nicaragua Earthquake Cbnference, Vol. II, p. 604-620 - EERI, San
. Francisco, November,-1973 1.
4 1974 " Seismic Behavior of Maltistory Braced Steel Frames," (with S. C. Goel),
- Journal of the Structural Divisicn, ASG, Vol.100, No. ST1, Proc.
lj Paper 10 W8, January, 1974, pp. 79-95 I "Aaaiamir Design of Staggered Truss Buildings," (with G. V. Berg),
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.100, No. ST1, Proc.
[.
Paper 10 H 9, January, 1974, pp. 175-193
'1 " Engineering Iassons Taught by Earthquakes," (with G. V. Berg), Proceed-ings Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol.1, ItIne, i Italy (EDIGRAF), April, 1974-pp. 82-93
" Seismic Behavior of Multistory 3 raced Steel Frames," (with S. C. Goel),
Prwings Fifth Nbrld Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, i,F ~
Rome, Italy (EDIGRAF), April,1974, ppt 2934-2943
't "Aseismic Design Procedure for Staggered Truss Framed Buildings," (with l G. V. Berg), Prwings Fifth World Cbnference on Earthquake Engi--
- neering, Vol. 2, Itzne, Italy (EDIGRAF), April,1974, pp. 2301-2304 a
1975 " Characteristics of Steel Menbers and Gw-3ctions," Prmaadings, U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan, EERI, June 1975, pp.755-267
" Repaired Beam-Colutn Subasserblages Subjected to Earthquake Type Ioads,"
(with D.L.N. Iee and J. K. Wight), Proceedings, Fifth European Confer- .
ence on_ Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, SeyL::ser,1975, Vol.
2, Paper 95, pp.1-T4 -
" Inelastic Cyclic Behavior of Axially LW Steel Menbers," (with L. F.
, Kahn), Prmaadings, Fourth Japan Earthquake Engineering Syttposium, _ ,
Tokyo, Japan, Novenber,1975, pp. 959-966 '
a, 1976 " Inelastic Cycles of Axially LW Steel Members," -(with L. F. Kahn),
Journal of_ the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. -102, No. STS,- May, 2 1976, pp. 947-959 i " Axial Hysteretic Behavior of Steel Members," (with A. B. Higginbotham),
Journal o_f_ f the Structural. Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. ST7, July, 1976, pp. 1365-1381 !
I " Nonlinear Building Response by the Characteristics Method," (with T.
Nishikawa and M. E.' Batts), Proceedings of the Review Meeting US-Japan Cooperative Research Program M EarthcuaE Engineering, Ibkyo, Japan, 1976, pp. 310-332 +
r t >
.,n. - - ~ , -,n.,,.,,..,,,. ,,_,,,,,,-.,n-. n.-, ,-,.n- - , - , ,,- , , , , e- ,. w,,,,,a.,, -
w,.-- ~
!. HANSON, ROBERP DUAND Principal Publications (continued)
] " Repair and Rehabilitation of Rainforced Cbncrete Structures," (with D.L.N. Ice and J. K. Wight), Proceedings o_f _the f Review Meeting US-Japan
- Cooperative Research Program in Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1976, pp. 371-396
!' 1977 " Reinforced Concrete Connection Hysteresis Icops," (with William H.
Townsend), Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, Publication
! SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,1977, pp. 351-370 i
! " Inelastic Seismic Response of Turbine Buildings," (with Frank J. Hsiu),
! Transactions of the 4th International Conference on Structural Mechanics 1
in Reactor Te3nology, Vol. K(a), San Francisco,~A~ugust,1977, pp. K4/3-1 i to K4/3-12
! "IC Beatte-Coltan Joints under Large Ioa/i Reversals," (with Duane L.N. Ime j and James K. Wight), Journal o_f f the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.103, No. ST12, Proc. Paper 13405, December, 1977, pp. 2337-2350 i " Repair, Strengthening and Rehabili' cation of h4MNgs-Reommendations 7
for Needed Research," Wo_rkshop Report, UMEE 77R4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, 50 pp.
1 l 1978 " Axial Hysteresis Behavior with End Restraints," (with Dhavajjai Prathuangsit and Subhash C. Goel), Journal _of_ the Structural Division,
- ASCE, Vol.104, No. ST6, Proc. Paper 13831, June,1978, pp. 883-896 i " Inelastic Response of Restrained Steel Tubes," (with Ashok K. Jain and
'Subhash C. Goel), Journal of_ the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol.104, No. ST6, Proc. Paper 13832, June, 1978, pp. 897-910 1
l 1979 "Infilled Walls for Earthquake Strengthening," (with Iawrence F. Kahn),
i Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. ST2, Proc.
Paper 14364, February, 1979, pp. 283-296 l3 1980 " Nonlinear Cyclic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Plane Stress Merrbers,"
(with Haluk M. Aktan), Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected M Wind and Earthquake Forces, Publication SP-63, American Concrete
, Institute, Detroit, 1980, pp. 135-152
" Hysteresis Models of Steel Metbers for EartFquake Response of Braced Frames," (with Ashok K. Jain), Prm= dings of the Seventh World Confer-ence on_ Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, TEkey,1980, Vol. 6, pp..
- t. 463-470 1981 " Approximate Lateral Analysis for Wall / Frame Reinforced Concrete Build-ings," (with Shi-wei Wu), Proceedings o_f the US/PRC Workshop on Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Ann
~
Arbor, Michigan,1981 (in pres)
!' " Design and Analysis of the Pseudo-Dynamic Test Method," (with N. H.
McClamroch and J. Serakos), Research Report UMEE 81R3, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan, Septernber 1981, 61 pp.
i
?2 i;
i i
o.**
SS: STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WASHTENAW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM !
) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY' )
) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)) 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID M. GRIFFITH I, David M. Griffith, being first duly sworn on oath, state that a copy of the prepared testimony of Mr.
Alan Boos and Dr. Robert Hanson on the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundations was served upon all persons shown in the attached service list by deposit in the United States mail, first class, excluding where marked by an asterisk, in which case service was by Federal Express, this fourth day of February, 1982.
Yti lJ l Ll ~
David M. GriQyth' Subscribed and sworn to before me this goday of February, 1982 hl/Gl
- ff0) U Notary Public W,A 0. iiLU.'.1 Neury Pub l'c I JW:.r:W CCZtI E'!0N90 My CornWce . ; no. .mter 13.19FA
SERVICE LIST Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Attorney General of the Appeal Panel State of Michigan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Carole Steinberg, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Div. Mr. C.R. Stephens 720 Law Building Chief, Docketing & Services Lansing, Michigan 48913 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Office of the Secretary Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Ms. Mary Sinclair Chicago, Illinois 60611 5711 Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Wendell R. Marshall RFD 10
- William D. Paton, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Washington, D C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C. 20555
- Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 6152 N. Verde Trail
- Admin. Judge Ralph S. Decke r Route No. 4, Box 190D
- Jerry Harbour Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Carroll E. Mahaney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Babcock & Wilcox Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 James E. Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
' -