ML071710076

Dewatering and Repair of Erosion in Category I Backfill in Power Block Area, Final Report.

ML071710076
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle, 05200011
Issue date:	08/15/1980
From:	Gregory H Bechtel Power Corp
To:	Bailey J Office of New Reactors, Southern Co Services
References
+reviewedcja, AR-07-0924
Download: ML071710076 (75)

Text

VOGTLE 9510 DewaterinQ and Repair of Erosion in Category I Backfill in Power Block Area FINAL REPORT

.8,ugust 15, 1980

- 5.16 Final Report on Dewatering & -

Repair of Erosion in Category I tall ,;gtlmrf1 7i~~;g.~~"-ll11Bf""~~

August 15, 1980 Mr. Jim Bailey Southern Company Services P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202

Subject:

Plant Vogtle - Units 1 & 2 Backfill Erosion Report FileNo. X2APOl 'Y1~t-03-C3 Correspondence No. ACPM-G-3

Dear Jim,

Please find attached "Final Report on Dewatering and Repair-****

of Erosion in Category I Backfill in Power Block Area" for-'your Sincerez use during submittals to the NRC as required.

!?

H~r:rf III Assistant Construction Project ,-Manager HHG/mfk Attachment xc: D. E. Dutton w/a B. L. Lex w/a J. E. Mahlmeister w/o K. M. Gillespie w/o

w. M. Johnston, Jr. w/o

• PLANT VOGTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 FINAL REPORT ON DEWATERING AND REPAIR OF EROSION IN CATEGORY I BACKFILL IN POWER BLOCK AREA

• Prepared By BECHTEL POw~R CORPORATION and GEORGIA -POWER COMPANY Date: August l5, 1980 SUBMITTED AND APPROVED

• I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE II. EVALUATION OF TESTING AND REPAIR A. General B. Field and Laboratory Testing C. Evaluation of Specific Areas

1. Areas between Control Building Electrical Shafts Units 1 and 2 and Turbine Building

2. Area between Unit 1 Containment Tendon Gallery and Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel

3. Unit 1 Containment Area

4. Unit 2 Containment Area

5. Area between Unit 2 Containment Tendon Gallery and Electrical Tunnel

6. Electrical Tunnel, Unit 2, East Side III. FINAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS A. Containment Unit 1 B. Turbine Building Units 1 and 2 C. Control Building Shafts Units 1 and 2 D, Electrical Tunnel Urlit 1 E. Electrical Tunnel Unit 2 F. Containment Unit 2 - Partial Tendon Gallery G. Auxiliary Building and NSCW Towers IV. SURFACE WATER CONTROL A. External Run-Off Control B. Control of Storm Run-Off Within the Power Block Excavation C. Slope Protection D. Pumping Capacity

- i -

APPENDIX A. Field Testing and Sampling Procedures B. Laboratory Testing Procedures LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Plan of Power Block Showing Locations of Eroded Areas Figure 2 Standard Penetration Test and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test, Blowcounts versus Depth

- ii -

• LIST OF FIGURES, continued Figure 3

~

Standard Penetration Test and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Calibration Curve Figure 4 Typical Reworked Section of Turbine Building South Slope .

Figure 5 Typical Section Showing Extent of Disturbed Zone Removed in Control Building Shaft Area Figure 6 Electrical Tunnel East Wall - DCP Test Results Figure 7 Electrical Tunnel East Wall - DCP Resistance versus Depth Figure 8 Typical Section of Removed Disturbed Zone between Unit 1 Containment and Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel Figure 9 DCP Test Locations along Unit 1 Tendon Gallery Figure 10 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Resistance versus Depth for Unit 1 Tendon Gallery Figure 11 Typical Cross-Section in Unit 1 Containment Area Showing Extent of Disturbed Zone Removed Figure 12 DCP Test Locations along Unit 2 Tendon Gallery Figure 13 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Resistance versus Depth for Unit 2 Tendon Gallery Figure 14 Sketch Showing Procedure used to Repair Unit 2 Tendon Gallery Mudslab Figure 15 Plan Showing Erosion in July, 1980, Unit 2 East Electrical Tunnel Mudslab Figure 16 Plan Showing Locations of Settlement Monitoring Points Figure 16-1 Settlement versus Time for Containment Unit 1 Figure 16-2 Settlement versus Time for Turbine Building Units 1 and 2 Figure 16-3 Settlement versus Time for Electrical Tunnel Unit 2 Figure l6-4A Settlement versus Time for Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 Figure 16-4B Settlement versus Time for Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 (cont.i:nued)

Figure 16-5 . Settlement versus Time for Containment Unit 2

- iii -

• LIST OF FIGURES, continued Figure 17 Surface Water Control Figure 18 Trench Drain - Typical Section' Figure 19 Location of Dewatering Systems Figure 20 Location of Piezometers Figure 21-1 Water Level Contours - December "27, 1979 Figure 21-2 Water Level Contours - February 5, 1980 Figure 21-3 Water Level Contours - May 5, 1980 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Standard Penetration Test - Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Calibration Data Table 2 Summary of Sand Cone Density Test Data Table 3 Summary of* Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data Adjacent to Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel East Wall Table 4 Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data for Unit I Tendon Gallery Table 5 Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data for Unit 2 Tendon Gallery

- iv -

• FINAL REPORT ON DEWATERING AND REPAIR OF EROSION IN CATEGORY I BACKFILL IN POWER BLOCK AREA I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Heavy rainfall in early November, 1979, resulted in erosion of Category I backfill and caused a re-evaluation of groundwater controls. On November 14, 1979, it was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) that a potential reportable item under 10CFR50.55 (e) existed at Plant Vogtle concerning dewatering and erosion of backfill. Subsequent communications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission culminated in a summary submittal (Reference 1) on January 8, 1980, and a presentation of the summary to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on January 9, 1980, in Bethesda, Maryland.

The report outlined steps that had been initiated subsequent to the erosion to repair the affected areas and to facilitate resumption of backfilling operations in the power block area.

Also included in the report were a preliminary engineering evaluation of the affected and adjacent areas and recommended methods of repair. Following submission of the report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and concurrence by that agency with the proposed measures, backfill repair work was accomplished in all areas subjected to erosion. Implementation of the backfill repair procedures was started toward the end of January, 1980, and completed in August, 1980. During the period of the backfill repair operation, a Bechtel Power Corporation geotechnical engineer was on site to provide surveillance of the overall erosion repair and groundwater program. He also assisted in the interpretation of field test data and repair procedures. In addition, Bechtel engineering personnel and a Bechtel consultant made periodic site visits to review the repair work.

This document is written to describe the actual repair work, the associated testing, and the final engineering evaluation of the integrity of the adjacent structures. Existing and future erosion and groundwater control measures are also described *

• II. EVALUATION OF TESTING AND REPAIR A. General All erosion areas identified in the power block were repaired in accordance with the procedures specified in Reference 1, except where noted in Section II.C. In each case of variation from Reference 1, a description of the variation and technical justification for it is presented.

Prior to backfilling, field and laboratory testing was performed in each area which provided the basis for determining the depth of disturbed zone ,and depth to competent existing backfill.

B. Field and Laboratory Testing Field testing included the proving ring penetrometer, dynamic cone penetrometer, and sand cone density tests (ASTM D-1556). Laboratory testing consisted of the Modified Proctor compaction test (ASTM D-1557). All tests were performed in accordance with the procedures described in the Appendix to this Report.

Prior to testing, the dynamic cone penetrometer was calibrated against the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) for Category I backfill materials. A total of six SPT test borings were drilled in undisturbed Category I backfill to a maximum depth of 5-feet. 8PT tests were performed continuously from the surface down to 5-feet in accordance with ASTM D-1586. Adjacent to the SPT test borings, a total of ten dynamic cone penetrometer tests were made at 6-inch intervals in holes drilled down to a maximum depth of 4-feet. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 1. Test results are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Based on these tests, the calibration ratio of the SPT resistance to the Dynamic cone penetrometer resistance is roughly 1 for the range of blowcounts recorded. No correlation tests were made for the proving ring penetrometer. The use of proving ring and dynamic cone penetrometers was limited only to a qualitative evaluation of the backfill compaction. These tests were used only to determine the depth of competent fill and were not intended to determine the percent compaction. Final control testing was done using the sand cone test method in conjunction with the laboratory Modified Proctor compaction test. However, based on the experience obtained from the use of the proving ring penetrometer, a reading of 2 or greater indicated that the sand cone test method would show a degree of compaction greater than 97 percent. This criterion was used to determine the depth of disturbed zone in Category I backfill slopes where it was not possible to perform sand cone density tests.

• C. Evaluation of Specific Areas

1. Area between Control Building Electrical Shafts Units 1 and 2 and Turbine Building:

Erosion in this vicinity was identified as Areas 1,

~, 3, 15, 16 and 18 respectively (Figure 1). Areas 1, 2, 3, 15 and 16 referred to erosion areas along the Turbine Building south slope~ Area 18 referred to the area between the toe of the Turbine Building south slope and the edge of the Control Building shafts' mudslab. All these areas were repaired in accordance with the procedures specified in Reference 1.

The Turbine Building slope was reworked to a minimum of 1.5 horizontal to 1,0 vertical and then gunited for erosion protection (see Section IV). This involved removal of a portion of the Turbine Building muds lab and some Turbine Building base slab steel reinforcement bars. After reshaping the slope, the minimum distance from the top of the slope to the nearest edge of the existing Turbine Building base mat was apprxoimately 19-feet. This was consistent with the minimum distance specified in Reference 1.

Figure 4 shows a typical section of the reworked slope.

In Area 18, the depth of disturbed zone, as determined by proving ring penetrometer and sand cone tests, was approximately 2-feet. Sand cone density tests were performed every 20-feet along the perimeter in this area. Test results are summarized in Table 2, A typical cross-section through Area 18, showing the extent of disturbed material removed, is presented in Figure 5.

2. Area between Unit 1 Containment Tendon Gallery and Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel:

Erosion areas for repair in this area were identified as Areas 4, 5 and 6 respectively (Figure 1)

• Areas 4 and 6 refer to erosion along the slope adjacent to the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel east wall mudslab.

Area 5 refers to erosion in the backfill between the tunnel east wall and the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery.

Along the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel east wall, dynamic cone penetrometer tests were performed to a maximum depth of 4-feet below the bottom of the mudslab.

Prior to the tests, the mudslab was core-cut at the test locations approximately 2-feet from the edge of the wall, The locations of these tests are shown on F~9'ure . §~I?-~__ "l::!J.~_!"E:~':l1 ts pJotted ~I~ F~.<J~re 7_!_ Data

- 3 -

• relating to these dynamic cone penetrometer tests are presented in Table 3. The data indicate that with the exception of Test Locations 3A and SA, high resistances were obtained in the backfill adjacent to the tunnel wall. In addition, these resistances were observed to generally increase with depth.

In order to confirm the low driving resistances encountered at Test Locations 3A and SA, additional tests were run a few feet north and south of Test Locations 3A and SA. These tests are designated as 3B, 3C, SB and SC respectively. It appeared from these results that a zone of material of questionable compaction could exist in the vicinity of Test Location 3A at elevation 149.5' to 150.0'. In order to evaluate the percent compaction in this area on a quantitative basis, four sand cone density tests were performed at the elevation in question. These tests were run after removal of the east Electrical Tunnel muds1ab to within a foot of the base slab. For each sand cone density test, a laboratory Modified Proctor compaction test was run on material obtained at the test location. The results of these tests are shown in Table 2. The data showed values of relative compaction of 104.8, 102.2, 102.8 and 96.0 percent, respectively. Thus, it can be seen that the lower penetrometer resistances encountered at Test Location 3A were not indicative of an average degree of compaction less than 97 percent.

Sand cone density tests were performed a few feet from the east wall at approximately those locations where dynamic cone penetrometer tests were performed. In addition, four tests were conducted in the area between the Electrical Tunnel and Unit 1 Tendon Gallery bounded by coordinates N80+3S and N81+S0. Two tests were performed in the area between coordinates N79+8S and N80+3S. The results of these tests are shown in Table 2. A typical section showing extent of disturbed material removed in the area between the Electrical Tunnel and the Containment is shown in Figure 8.

The procedure used to backfill against the east wall was in compliance with the repair procedure specified in Reference 1, with the exception of the variation which is explained below.

The approved repair procedure specified hand-excavation to remove existing gunite and loose materials near the toe of the slope to a maximum height of 1.S-feet from the backfill surface. After repairing the exposed portion of the slope, the area was to be backfilled to

• correlation purposes. The sampling was attempted in accordance with the procedure described in the Appendix. Owing to the very dense condition of the underlying backfill, it was not possible to obtain undisturbed samples. The height of sample recovery ranged from 4 to 6-inches. Unit weights determined from these samples were abnormally low indicating sample disturbance. Therefore, these data were not considered representative of the in situ density of the backfill. Shelby tube sampling was discontinued after it was established that the small size of the sample, the manner in which it was extracted and the deformations and sample disturbance occurring as a consequence, rendered the results unreliable.

A total of 33 sand cone density tests were performed along the inside perimeter of the Tendon Gallery mudslab. These tests were made on the backfill surface after the mudslab had been removed to within 3-feet of the base slab. Additionally, some sand cone density tests were made in the area between the Tendon Gallery and the Reactor Cavity. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 2. Test results were satisfactory in all areas except for two isolated areas (approximately lO-feet by l2-feet) north and south of the Reactor Cavity. These areas were excavated down to the existing lean concrete fill and backfilled.

Dewatering of the backfill was achieved by a series of vacuum type wellpoints installed around the inside perimeter of the Containment Tendon Gallery. Five short-term piezometers were installed to monitor the water table inside this area. At the time backfilling operations were resumed in this area, the water table, as indicated by the piezometers, was at least 5-feet below the existing backfill surface.

Some typical cross-sections of the Containment area showing the extent of loose material removed are shown in Figure 11.

4. Unit 2 Containment Area:

Erosion in the Unit 2 Containment area was designated as Areas 14 and 17 (Figure 1) *. Area 14 referred to erosion below the Tendon Gallery muds lab on the west side. However, the construction of the Tendon Gallery had not begun on this section of the muds lab. Erosion in Area 14 was quite limited in extent. Repairs in this area involved removal of the muds lab over the eroded area, excavation to undisturbed material and then backfilling the excavation. Area 17 pertained to erosion below the mudslab of the partially built

• a maximum depth of I-foot. The procedure specified that all further stages of slope repair work and .

backfilling be done at height and depth increments of 1.S-feet and 1.0-foot respectively. Subsequent to *the erosion last year, the undisturbed Electrical Tunnel slope surface was protected by polyethylene sheeting, on which a layer of loose fill was placed.

The entire slope was t~en gunited. Apparently, no bond existed between the existing loose fill and gunite with Category I backfill because of the polyethylene sheeting. Consequently, the protection system became unstable when the lower section was removed, necessitating removal of the full height rather than in 1.S-foot increments.

The intent of the specified repair procedure was to prevent long-term exposure of the undisturbed fill slope prior to backfilling. This was satisfied, since backfilling was accomplished expeditiously in the east-west direction in slope lengths not exceeding 10-feet. This involved removing the gunite and loose fill to a height dictated by practical considerations but restricting the working slope to a segment 10-feet long, thus limiting the area exposed to possible erosion duripg the repair work.

Heavy compaction equipment was not permitted near the slope during the remedial work. It was used only after the adjacent 30-foot width of backfill had been raised to the same elevation as the top of the slope by the use of hand-compaction equipment.

In the other areas east and south of the slope, where erosion had taken place, all disturbed material was removed prior to backfilling. The piezometer readings in the area indicated the water table to be at least 2-feet below the existing backfill surface.

Backfilling was accomplished in accordance with the

.approved procedures.

3. Unit 1 Containment Area:

Erosion outside the Unit 1 Containment area was identified as Areas 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20 respectively (Figure 11. Area 7 had been repaired earlier in November, 1979 (Reference.l). Areas 8, 9 and 19 were repaired in accordance with specified procedures. The depth of the disturbed zone was determined by proving ring penetrometer probing. The disturbed fill was excavated to competent fill material and backfilled.

At least one sand cone density test was made in each of the above areas prior to fill placement. Area 20,

- S -

• which delineated a washout in the backfill below the-expansion joint opening between the Tendon Gallery Unit 1 and the Auxiliary Building north wall, was backfilled by pumping grout into the void. This work was done in accordance with the approved procedures and the grouting pressure was maintained below 5 psi.

For the inside area between the Tendon Gallery and the Reactor Cavity, no specific erosion areas were identified in Reference 1. However, it was stated in Reference 1 that all disturbed fill in the area would be excavated and removed by using field density testing and probing procedures. A minimum of three sand cone density tests were specified at equidistant locations around the inside perimeter of the Tendon Gallery mudslab. .

The NRC, in a letter to 'Georgia Power Company (GPC),

directed that for the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery an investigative approach similar to that proposed by GPC for Unit 2 be followed to determine the extent of any erosion around the Tendon Gallery foundation (Reference 2). For Unit 2 Containment, a number of dynamic cone penetrometer and sand cone density tests were proposed around the inside perimeter of the Tendon Gallery mudslab. Accordingly, a program of in situ density testing around the inside perimeter of the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery mudslab was developed by Bechtel for the purpose of verifying the competency of the backfill. Dynamic cone penetrometer tests taken at seventeen locations shown in Figure 9 were performed below the mudslab after core-cutting through it. These tests were made to a maximum depth of 3-feet.

A summary of the test results is in Table 4. Figure 10 represents a plot of the penetrometer blowcounts with depth.

The test data indicate that high blowcounts were obtained at all the test locations. These blowcounts ranged from 14 to 77 blows for l-3/4 inches penetration and increased with depth except in a few locations.

Sand cone testing, as discussed below, was done in this area and the results confirmed that the fill meets the compaction criteria even though lower cone penetration resistance with depth was recorded in a few locations.

Based on the correlation ratio obtained between the dynamic cone penetrometer and standard penetration resistances (Section II.B.), the data indicated that high Standard Penetration Test resistances could be expected below the mudslab.

Attempts were made to extract Shelby tube samples from the penetrometer test holes, so that the in situ density

• Q*fbackfil].*-be],*ow-themudslabcould be--determined for

• Tendon Gallery on the inside of the Containment area.

Extensive testing was performed in this area around the perimeter of the partial Tendon Gallery ~o ascertain whether the base slab had been undermined.

Dynamic cone, proving ring penetrometer, and sand done density tests were carried out as specified in Reference 1. No Shelby tube samples were attempted for the reasons stated in Section II.C.4.

Dynamic cone penetrometer tests were performed below the mudslab at a distance of approximately 1.5-feet from the edge of'the Tendon Gallery. These tests were run at 10-foot centers along the perimeter to a maximum depth of 3-feet. Test locations are shown on Figure 12. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 5 and shown plotted in Figure 13. As in Unit 1, the cone penetrometer resistances in Unit 2 were consistently high and increased with depth. The data indicate that the backfill immediately adjacent to the Tendon Gallery base slab was dense and, therefore, had not been subjected to erosion.

The Tendon Gallery muds lab extended to approximately 3.5-feet from the edge of the base slab and was removed to within 2-feet of the base slab. By means of the proving ring penetrometer, it was determined that disturbed material extended (horizontally) to a maximum of 4-inches under the sawed-off edge of the mudslab. After the mudslab was removed, thirteen sand cone density tests were made immediately at what was previously the interface between the muds lab and the backfill. Results of these tests are summarized in Table 2. Values of relative compaction ranging from 102.1 to 107.4 percent were obtained; these values confirmed the results yielded by cone penetrometer tests.

Immediately after the tests were completed, minor additional erosion occurred as a result of a rainstorm.

The area was retested and repaired in accordance with approved procedures. The maximum extent of disturbed backfill under the muds lab was increased to about 10-inches. This situation was remedied by the procedure illustrated in Figure 14 and outlined below.

a. All loose material was removed from below the mudslab and I-foot away from it. Proving ring penetrometer tests were made to assure that all disturbed material was removed.

b. A form was placed I-foot away from the edge of the mudslab.

~.Vlemo FROM From: Melba F~ Kicklighter TO TO To: TO TO o

O o

PREPARE REPLY FOR*

o NOT! AND FILE MY SIGNATURE o o NOTE AND RETURN TO ME TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION o o RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS PER YOUR REOUEST o o NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS SIGNATURE

!~!t fO I o o PLEAS! ANSWER FOR YOUR INFORMATION vfi-i:J-FOR YOUR APPROVAL INVESTIGATE AND REPORT did rar COMMENTS 7QC218A

• c. COncrete was placed to wit..1Un 2 to 3-inches of the bottom of the mudslab. .

d. The remaining 2 to 3-L"1ches, as stated in "c" above,

,vas dzypacked to assure t.'at no voids re.T'[1,ained unc.er the rnudslab.

cewatering of the bacKfill in Unit 2 Conta.i.nrrent ~ achieved by a series of ed.uctor ::.yp: rtlellpoints that were extended fran a line of wellpoint.-::i nurth of the Auxiliary Build.ing. The water table in the bad<fill was r:onitared by rreans of three s...'1ort-term piezorreters. At the time backfilling operations were resumed in the area, the water table had been effectively lowered ta at least 6-feet* below the fill surface.

5. Area between Umt 2 Containment Tendon Gallery and Electrical Tunnel:

'Erosion in this area was identified as Areas 10,li, 12, and 13 (Figure 1). Areas 10 and II Wei.'"e repaired in late 1979, as described in Reference 1. Areas 12 and 13 were repaired. in February, 1980, ip accordance with approved procedures.

Heavy rains on Saturday, Marcb. 8, 1980, caused additional erosion along the west wall of Um t 2 Electrical Tunnel whic1.

was repaired as described in Reference 3.

6. . Electrical Turne1, unit 2, East Side:

• c. Concrete was placed to within 2 to 3-inches of the bottom of the muds lab.

d. The remaining 2 to 3-inches, as stated in "c" above, was drypacked to assure that no voids remained under the mudslab.

Dewatering of the backfill in Unit 2 Containment was achieved by a series of eductor type wellpoints that were extended from a line of wellpoints north of the Auxiliary Building. The water table in the backfill was monitored by means of three short-term piezometers. At the time backfilling operations were resumed in the area, the water table had been effectively lowered to at least 6-feet below the fill surface.

5. Area between Unit 2 Containment Tendon Gallery and Electrical Tunnel:

Erosion in this area was identified as Areas 10, 11, 12 and 13 (Figure 1). Areas 10 and 11 were repaired in late 1979, as described in Reference 1. Areas 12 and 13 were repaired in February, 1980, in accordance with approved procedures.

Heavy rains on Saturday, March 8, 1980, caused additional erosion along the west wall of Unit 2 Electrical Tunnel which was repaired as described in Reference 3.

6. Electrical Tunnel, Unit 2, East Side:

An additional erosion area occurred below the mudslab of the Electrical Tunnel, Unit 2, in July, 1980.

This erosion, which was caused by construction water, extended approximately 1.S-feet below the tunnel base slab for a distance of approximately- O.S-feet. The area was repaired in accordance with approved procedures *

• III. FINAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS A preliminary evaluation of the effects of the backfill erosion on the structural integrity of each structure in the power block area was submitted in Reference 1. It was concluded that no undermining of Category I foundations had occurred as a result of the erosion caused by the rainfall of early November, 1979. This applied to all structures except for the Containment Unit 2 Tendon Gallery, where additional information was required for an evaluation of its structural integrity.

During the period of erosion repairs, additional information was developed to support the preliminary conclusions arrived at in Reference 1 and to evaluate the structural integrity*of Containment Unit 2 Tendon Gallery. This information consisted of settlement data, field test data, and visual inspection of backfill surface following removal of mudslab. Based on these data, it has been concluded that no undermining of Category I foundations had occurred as a result of the erosion caused by the rainfall of early November, 1979, including the Containment Unit 2 Tendon Gallery. -

A final evaluation of the integrity of the foundation of each structure is presented below.

A. Containment Unit 1 Inside the Containment area along the inside perimeter of the Tendon Gallery foundation, extensive field testing revealed that the backfill adjacent to the foundation was in a very dense condition. The relative compaction of the backfill as obtained from sand cone density tests ranged from 96.9 to 106.8 percent (Table 2). Dynamic cone penetrometer tests indicated high resistance, and these resistances increased with depth (Table 4, Figure 10).

These test results were supported by visual inspection of the backfill surface beneath the Tendon Gallery foundation mudslab. After the mudslab had been removed to within 3-feet of the foundation base slab, inspection revealed no evidence of any erosion features in the fill. The fill surface and slope against the muds lab were devoid of any erosion channels; nor was there any evidence of loss of density. It has been concluded that no piping of fines occurred below the Tendon Gallery foundation. If piping had occurred, it would have manifested itself in the form of erosion adjacent to the Tendon Gallery foundation mudslab.

Two settlement markers were installed to monitor settlement of the Tendon Gallery foundation. These markers, designated as Nos. 323 and 324, were located as shown on Figure 16. A plot of settlement versus time for the

-period J*anuary~~.-t-hroughJ'u+/-y~l,-T9-B-O, -. -i-s-s-h-own* on--

• Figure 16-1. The plot indicates that the observed settlements to date are small. The maximum settlement recorded is on the order of 0.26 inch, which is reasonable considering the current loading and the limits of the survey accuracy.

The effect of the erosion on the outside of the Containment area on the integrity of the Containment structure was evaluated in Reference 1. All these were localized areas and were repaired as described in Section II.C. As stated in Reference 1, no damage was caused to the Tendon Gallery foundation as a result of erosion in these localized areas.

In summary, the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery wall foundation was not jeopardized by the heavy rainfall of early November, 1979. It has been concluded from field test data and visual observations that no erosion occurred below the Tendon Gallery base slab.

B. Turbine Building Units 1 and 2 The Turbine Building foundation base slab was not subjected to any erosion. The erosion that occurred was confined to the south slope, off the south side of the Turbine Building mudslabs. Erosion gulleys extending to a maximum of 4-feet below the muds lab caused cracking to occur in. the mudslab. During repair all cracked sections of the muds lab were removed and the erosion gulleys were cut back to sound material at a slope of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical.

All other sections of the Turbine Building south slop~

that were steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical were reworked to 1.5 horizontal to 1~0 vertical and then protected from erosion by guniting. The minimum setback distance from the top of a 1.S-horizontal to 1.0 vertical-slope to the edge of the existing Turbine Building base slab was determined by a slope stability analysis to be approximately 20-feet (Reference 11. This requirement was met even though the nonconforming slope had to be cut back substantially to satisfy the design criteria for temporary Category I fill slopes.

Settlement of the Turbine Building base slab was monitored by two settlement markers, Nos. 308 and 310 (Figure '16)

• Readings were taken on a weekly basis during the period January 1 through July '1, 1980. These readings are shown plotted on Figure 16-2. The maximum observed settlement is on the order of 0.16 inch, which is reasonable considering the current loading condition and the limits of the survey accuracy.

• In summary, the Turbine Building base slab was not undermined by erosion. The affected sections of the muds lab have been removed and the slope reworked to conform to the specifications.

C. Control Building Shafts units 1 and 2 Erosion of backfill in the Control Building shafts area occurred at least 2-feet away from the permanent foundations. Visual inspection showed that the foundations were not affected by erosion. All disturbed areas in the proximity of the Control Building shafts were repaired in accordance with the specified procedures.

Settlement in these areas is discussed under Items "0" and "E" below.

D. Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 Along the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel east wall, the data obtained from cone penetrometer and sand cone density tests indicated that the backfill adjacent to the tunnel foundation was in sound condition. The disturbed material in the two erosion areas along the slope adjacent to the foundation was carefully removed by hand excavation and the areas backfilled in accordance with the procedure described in Section II.C.2. A visual inspection made prior to backfill revealed that the zone of erosion in both areas did not extend to below the tunnel foundation.

Based on a slope stability analysis done earlier for the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel foundation, it was determined that there was no potential for a deep-seated slope failure in the backfill (Reference 1). Minor surface ravelling could have occurred in areas where the slope protection system had been removed. It was further determined that even if minor sliding should occur close to the foundation, the integrity of the existing tunnel would not be affected because of the rigidity of the foundation slab. Visual inspection showed no evidence of ravelling of undisturbed Category I backfill in areas where gunite protection had been removed. Any potential for sloughing or ravelling of the slope was precluded by expeditiously backfilling to the top of the slope.

Prior to backfilling against the slope, two additional settlement markers (423-l-A and 423-1-B) were installed along the east wall approximately 30 and 60-feet north of an existing marker No. 423-1 (Figure 16). These two markers were read on a daily basis from the time the slope protection system was removed until backfilling to the top of the slope was completed. In addition, settlement markers 423-1 and 420-1 were read on a weekly basis from

• January, 1980, onward. Plots of settlement versus time for the markers are shown on Figures 16-4A and l6-4B.

The maximum recorded settlement was on the order of 0.2 inch, which is reasonable considering the current loading and the limits of the survey accuracy.

In summary, both field test data and visual observations indicate that the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel foundation was not affected by erosion adjacent to the foundation. The erosion was outside the limits of the existing foundation and was successfully repaired to conform to the specifications.

E. Electrical Tunnel Unit 2 The effect of the four erosion areas along the Unit 2 Electrical Tunnel west wall (Figure 1) on the tunnel foundation was evaluated in Reference 1. The erosion was limited to the tunnel foundation mudslab except in one instance (that which occurred in September, 1979) where it extended about a foot below the foundation itself. The erosion was subsequently repaired in accordance with the specified repair procedures

• The additional erosion that occurred along the west wall in March, 1980, was evaluated and repaired as described in Reference 3.

The erosion along the east wall which occurred in July, 1980~ was evaluated and repaired in accordance with app~oved procedures.

A plot of settlement versus time for the Unit 2 Electrical Tunnel foundation is shown on Figure 16-3. Small settlements, on the order of 0.2 inch, were recorded, which are reasonable considering the 'current loading condition and the limits of the survey accuracy.

It was concluded that the erosion had not affected the permanent foundation.

F. Containment Unit 2 - Partial Tendon Gallery There were two specific areas of erosion in the Containment Unit 2 area. Area l4was at least 50-feet away from the west end of the partially built Tendon Gallery wall (Figure 1). This area was repaired as described in Section II.C.4.

Area 17 pertained to the area surrounding the completed segment of the Tendon Gallery wall foundation. Extensive testing was performed in' the area adjacent to the Tendon Gallery foundation. The test data obtained showed that

• the backfill adjacent to the foundation was dense. Visual inspection revealed that some erosion had occurred at the edge of the muds lab along a few sections of the inside perimeter. A portion of the mudmat was removed and by means of the proving ring penetrometer it was established that the erosion extended to approximately 18-inches from the edge of the foundation. It was concluded that this erosion was caused by run-off flowing along the periphery of the Tendon Gallery wall and flowing away toward the Auxiliary Building. The fill surface and slope against the mudslab were devoid of any erosion channels, nor was there any evidence of loss of density. It has been concluded that no piping of fines occurred below the Tendon Gallery foundation. If piping had occurred, it would have manifested itself in the form of erosion adjacent to the Tendon Gallery foundation mudslab.

Minor addi tiona.l erosion occurred below the mudmat due to rainfall that occurred immediately after the evaluation tests were complete. However, the zone of disturbed material was at least I-foot away from the Gallery foundation. The disturbed material was excavated, and the area was backfilled following approved repair procedures.

Three settlement markers had been installed to monitor settlement of the Tendon Gallery foundation. These markers, designated as Nos. 425, 426 and 427, were located as shown on Figure 16. A plot of settlement versus time for the period January 1, 1980, through July 1, 1980, is shown on Figure 16-5. The data indicate that a maximum settlement of 0.17 inch was recorded, which is considered reasonable for the current loading condition and the limits of the survey accuracy. It was concluded from field test data and visual observations that the Unit 2 Containment Tendon Gallery was not affected by erosion adjacent to the foundation.

G. Auxiliary Building and NSCW Towers The Auxiliary Building and NSCW Towers were founded on the marl formation. The Auxiliary Building base mat is approximately 22-feet below the top of the marl. The NSCW Towers are founded approximately 3-feet below the marl surface. Therefore, none of these structures were affected by the erosion in the backfill.

• IV. SURFACE WATER CONTROL Several steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of significant erosion due to rainfall. These steps include increasing the protection against externally generated storm run-off entering the power block excavation, preventing the uncontrolled flow of storm run-off within the power block excavation by use of temporary ditches and berms; increasing the use of slope protection, and increasing the capacity for

,J;?umping storm run-off out of the power block excavation-:~s backfill progresses, the pumping scheme and capacities will be altered to meet any new requirements caused by the changing configur~tion of the backfill.

A. External Run-Off Control The effective height of the berm surrounding the top of the power block excavation, including the crests of ramps entering the excavation, has been raised approximately 2-1/2 feet. This has effectively precluded the entrance of externally generated storm run-off into the excavation.

B* Control of Storm Run-Off Within the Power Block Excavation All backfill surfaces are sloped so that run-off flows away from fill slopes and away from buildings to swales which flow to sumps. Run-off collected in the sumps is pumped out of the excavation to existing discharge piping and discharge channels which flow away from the excavation.

An l8-inch berm is provided at the top of the fill slope south of the Turbine Building to prevent run-off from flowing to lower elevations.

C. Slope Protection Gunite has been applied to all long-term exposed slopes in an. extensive program to prevent erosion in the event of heavy rainfall. Short-term slopes are protected with plastic sheeting.

D. Pumping Capacity Run-off is removed from the power block excavation at three primary locations. Water collected in the Turbine Building area is pumped from a sump in the northeast corner of the excavation. Isolated areas which cannot drain around the Turbine Building are pumped to this sump.

Run-off collected in the southeast corner area is pumped from this area. The remaining areas, which constitute a majority of the total area, drain to and are pumped from several sumps in the southwest. area of the power block *

• Figure 17, Surface ~V'ater Control, shows the location of t..."".e sumps along with pumping capaci t::j

• The pumping system in the nort."east corner is capable of pumping ~ Five pumping systat's located in the southwest area 0 . the p:;wer black have .

a total capacity of .,§.~7...~~f!\' Two syste1lS located in the south-east area have a to"eaTcapacity of 2625 ~. The total capacity of all systems is D:.L,~..QQ.,.gpn. The 15"UffiP""'Capacities sbJwn on Figure 17 are as-bUIItccir;chtions , ~,fLm.aY be" ; '1crea.s~

Calculations were made based on 5-inches of rainfall to detez:mi.ne the amount of water that would collect in t.'1e p:;wer block and the lengt.1-l of tirre necessary to rerove t...'1is run-off from the ;ewer block. A la-year stODTt with a duration of 12-hours would produce C t ("f,.' /c:.\, l\ 4. 5-inches of rai..."fall i a 50-year storm with a duration of *24-hours I

\.I wculd provide 10-L'1ches of rainfall. Figure 17 shews the anount of t">1 r t~\~, ~>,

rai.'1fall. arid the lehgth of time needed to rerrove the run-off from

....j each area. The~e figures are. based on having approxi."t1atelY...".i~9"Q.~

V1 S 00 'i P1'.1'\ t:>\ C\ ,,,.) ~~~ga\l,~gJ.,.J;;~~~~a~er,.e."lueriJ:lg" . "the,,-pow.~J?,~.?.s:~1< and shew that the

\)" "J..,j ~_~tiD.;J-.. sYs.tgn**,*~ ..ae.~1::~X . ~~,~>oRQth".,ffi~,,"~9:.x~.!,, ..~~::hgJJ.~.

storm _~j;hg.,~O-year,**24*~f'.our stonn., Several areas of tb.e p:>wer

-EroC".t{'rray also be"-ut'.rr:i"zeoMto*"'storerainfall for later rem:::inil.

The northeast stmTfl has a capacity of approximately 450, 000 gallons, the southwest area has a storage capacit::j of approx.:ilnately 1. 7-million gallons, ar.d the Auxiliary Building and its sunps It'ay store 200,000 gallons without causing any harm to equi~t.

\

\

I

~

\ .. ) i l

{

)

f "j I"'-.J

• ...16- .

• Figure 17, Surface Water Control, shows the location of the sumps along with pumping capacity. The pumping system in the northeast corner is capable of pumping 2000 gpm; Five pumping systems located in the southwest area of the power block have a total capacity of 6575 gpm.

Two systems located in the southeast area have a total capacity of 2625 gpm. The total capacity of all systems if 11,200 gpm. The pump capacities shown on Figure 17 are as-built conditions and may be further optimized.

Calculations were made based on 5-inches of rainfall to determine the amount of water that would collect in the power block and the length of time necessary to remove this run-off from the power block. A 10-year storm with a duration of 12-hours would produce 4.5-inchesof rainfall; a 50-year storm with a duration of 24-hours would provide 10-inches of rainfall. Figure 17 shows the amount of rainfall and the length of time needed to remove the run-off from each area. These figures are based on having approximately 4500 gpm of groundwater entering the power block and show that the existing system can adequately handle both the 10-year, l2-hour storm and the 50-year, 24-hour storm. Several areas of the power block may also be utilized to store rainfall for later removal. The northeast sump has a capacity of approximately 450,000 gallons, the southwest area has a storage capacity of approximately 1.7-million gallons, and the Auxiliary Building and its sumps may store 200,000 gallons without causing any harm to equipment *

• V. SUBSURFACE WATER CONTROL A. Mon"i toring

1. Backfill Piezometers Continuous monitoring of subsurface water conditions has been performed both inside and outside the power block excavation, In addition to the previously existing piezometer network located outside the excavation, a number of new piezometers were placed in the Categoryr backfill. These consisted of long-term piezometers extending through the backfill to the marl and short-term piezometers which extended a few feet into the backfill in critical areas. These piezometers were monitored to insure that the water table was located sufficiently below the backfill surface to conform to the specifications during' backfill operations, The groundwater elevations read in these piezometers indicated sources influencing the groundwater inside the excavation. Gradients and corresponding directions of flow obtained from the piezometer data indicated

_~~.~~&tt~~~~~ffaiE*ftr~'~'e;S¥e~*s,~*~~"~~t~~~aT;~'~~~~"~*~t,~~'s?,ID"",~

entering the power block past the perimeter filter blanket and dewatering system. Piezometer locations are shown in Figure 20.

2. Wellpoint Piezometers Wellpoint piezometers were installed along the wellpoint lines in order to monitor the performance of the wellpoint system, as well as to provide additional water level data. These piezometers were installed in the same manner as the wellpoints except that the eductor was not installed. The performance of the wellpoints is discussed in Section V.B., Dewatering Systems,

3. Wellpoint Discharge During the operational periods of the various wellpoint systems, the discharge water was monitored to insure that no significant amount of sand-size particles was being pumped out of the backfill. The testing of discharge samples was done in accordance with the procedure described in Reference l.

Samples were first visually examined as specified in Reference l, Samples failing to meet the visual

• criteria were tested in accordance with ASTM D~1888 using a 40 to 60 micron filter to determine the amount of sand particles and a 0.45 micron filter for total suspended solids.

The criteria used limited the amount of sand particles in the discharge water to 5 ppm and total suspended solids to 50 ppm. Frequent visual and laboratory testing on wellpoint discharge water indicated that the criteria for sand particles and total suspended solids were satisfied.

B. Dewatering Systems

1. Types There are basically three types of dewatering systems utilized to control groundwater in the power block excavation. The three types are eductor wellpoint systems, a vacuum wellpoint system, and trench drain systems. The eductor (also called ejectorl systems were used for dewatering the following areas:

(1) the area along the north wall of the Auxiliary Building and later extension to Containment Unit 2, (2) slopes east of Containment Unit 1, and (3) slopes adjacent to Containment Unit 2. The eductor type system was chosen for these areas because of its ability to pump from depths exceeding that of the conventional vacuum wellpoint installation (18'+)

• The eductor system utilizes a double manifold, one a supply and the other a return line, which circulates water through eductors which are connected to the wellpoint. This results in the development of a vacuum at the wellpoint elevation rather than at the ground surface. Eductor wellpoints were installed in maximum 10~inch diameter holes drilled with rotary equipment using Revert. Appropriately graded filter material was installed.

A vacuum wellpoint system was installed inside the Containment Unit 1 area to lower the groundwater in the backfill. This type of system is applicable where the depth of water does not exceed lS'+, since it employs the use of a conventional vacuUm wellpoint pump which applies the vacuum at the header -manifold level. Installation of the wellpoints was similar to that used for the eductor systems.

Trench drains were installed in the marl in areas where backfill had not yet been placed. Their function is to control future groundwater build~up in the backfill due to rainfall. Trench drains were installed southeast

~ 18 ~

• of the Auxiliary Building and are presently being planned for installation southwest of it. Attempts to install a trench drain along the toe of the slope directly east of Containment Unit 1 were abandoned in favor of the eductor wellpoint method due to the difficulty caused by wet conditions along the toe of the slope. A typical detail of the trench drains used is shown on Figure 18.

2. Specific'Locations Approximately 30-feet north of the north wall of the Auxiliary Building an eductor system, consisting of 51 eductor wellpoints on 5-foot centers, was installed to dewater the area for backfill operations. This system was later extended into Containment Unit 2 by the addition of 47 eductor wellpoints on 5-foot centers.

Along the inside perimeter of Containment Unit 1 a vacuum wellpoint system, consisting of 52 wellpoints on 5-foot centers, was installed. This system satisfactorily lowered the water level to permit backfill to proceed in this area. .

Along the top of the slope east of Containment Unit 1 and along the top of the slope west of Containment Unit 2, two additional eductor systems were installed.

These systems consisted of 50 eductor wellpoints on 5-foot centers on the east side and 82 eductor wellpoints on 5-foot centers on the west side. These wellpoints satisfactorily dewatered the east and west slopes to permit backfilling against the slopes.

At the southeast corner of the Auxiliary Building a trench drain was installed at the toe of the new backfill slope. This trench drain will minimize future seepage from the toe of the slope, so that backfill operations may continue when needed.

At the southwest corner of the Auxiliary Building another trench drain is planned. The toe of the future slope will be placed over the trench. This will permit backfilling against this slope at a later date.

The locations of the above dewatering systems are shown on Figure 19.

3. System Performance Discharge rates from the various wellpoint installations, both eductor and vacuum types, were quite low, generally less than 5 gpm fr~m a system. This was due mainly to

• the relatively low permeability of the backfill.

Even though discharge rates were significantly less than originally anticipated, prolonged pumping produced noticeable drawdown in the vicinity of the wellpoints.

Permeability of Backfill - A preliminary estimate of backfill permeability based on a consideration of grain size was about 0.01 ft./min. Pumping rates based on this permeability were estimated to range from 36 gpm initially down to 13 gpm after prolonged pumping (Reference 1). Actual pumping rates of the various installations were significantly less than these amounts, apparently due to the backfill having a lower permeability than estimated. Later field permeability testing, using falling head tests on previously installed piezometers, indicated typical backfill permeabilities to range from about 3xlO- 4 to 7xlO- 4 ft./min. The most reasonable explanation for these relatively low permeabi1ities is the high degree of compaction of the backfill, notwithstanding that the backfill is generally quite clean (less than 10%

passing a #200 sieve)

• Drawdown Influence - Due to the relatively low permeability of the backfill material, the drawdown effected by the wellpoint dewatering systems was restricted to the immediate vicinity of the wellpoints.

Maximum drawdown along a line of wellpoints, based on observations made on wellpoint piezometers, was about lO-feet decreasing rapidly with distance from the wellpoints. It is doubtful that any drawdown was exerted beyond about 50-feet away from a line of wellpoints. Figure 21 illustrates groundwater elevations, with approximate contours, for 12/27/79, 2/5/80 and 5/5/80 *

• - 20 -

• VI.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS All erosion in the power block backfill was satisfactorily repaired according to procedures submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Georgia Power Company, with the exception of minor deviations that were necessitated by practical considerations.

Extensive field and laboratory tests were performed to verify the extent of disturbed material in the eroded areas, These tests were used to verify the competency of the backfill adj~cent to the foundations of various Category I structures.

The evaluation of the effect of erosion on Category I structure foundations was based on data developed during testing, settlement readings and visual observations made during the entire period of repair.

The field testing and evaluations described in this Report provided adequate data which defined the disturbed zones in the Category I backfill. All erosion was successfully repaired. This evaluation has established t~at there is no detrimental effect on the existing structures as a result of the heavy rainfalls of early November, 1979 *

References:

1. Letter, with attachments, from D. E. Dutton to J. P, O'Reilly of the NRC, dated January 8, l~80.

2. Letter from J. P. O'Reilly of the NRC to J. H.Miller, Jr. of GPC, dated February 8, 1980.

3. Letter, with attachment, from D. E. Dutton to J. P. O'Reilly of the NRC, dated April 30, 1980.

• APPENDIX A. FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

1. Procedure for Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test In order to perform dynamic cone penetrometer tests, the mudslab was first core-cut at the test locations.

A hand auger was then used to auger to a depth of I-foot, at which depth the cone penetrometer device was lowered into the hole. The cone was driven at least 2-inches into the hole to insure that-it was properly seated. The number of blows required to seat the cone was recorded. After seating, the cone was driven a further 1-3/4 inches into the hole and the number of blows recorded as the penetrometer resistance value. Driving was accomplished by means of a IS-pound steel ring weight dropping a height of 20-inches on an E-rod slide drive (see attached sketch). The hole was then augered down to depths of 2, 3 and 4-feet and the test repeated at each depth. All tests were run above the water table to insure that the test results were not influenced by inflow and soil softening inside the bore hole.

All dynamic cone penetrometer tests were performed by GPC Quality Control personnel.

2. Procedure for Proving Ring Penetrometer ~est Proving ring penetrometer tests were performed at specified locations to determine the depths of disturbed zone in the backfill. The tests were performed at depth intervals of 6-inches as required to reach competent material. Testing was accomplished by pushing the penetrometer into the soil perpendicular to the surface at a uniform rate until the top of the penetrometer cone was reached. At this point the proving ring dial was read. If the reading indicated a disturbed zone, the testing was continued to greater depths. This was done by shovelling away the disturbed material and testing at approximately 6-inch depth intervals until competent material was reached. At this point the penetrometer was moved to another specified test location.

All proving ring penetrometer tests were performed by GPC Quality Control personnel

• A-l

• 3. Procedure for ~and Cone Density Tests All sand cone density tests were performed by GPC Quality Control personnel in accordance with ASTM D-1556.

Moisture content determinations, as part of the sand cone density test, were made in accordance with ASTM D... 22l6.

4. Method of Shelby Tube Sampling As part of the backfill testing program for the Unit 1 Containment Building Tendon Gallery foundations, Shelby tube samples were taken at selected locations along the inside perimeter of the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery. These samples were extracted from holes that were hand augered

• to a total depth of approximately 3-feet below top of muds lab for the purpose of performing dynamic cone penetrometer tests.

A sketch showing the Shelby tube sampler used in sample extraction is included in the Appendix. A 3-inch diameter, 30-inch long Shelby tube was attached to a 2-foot length of pipe by means of a heavy adaptor. The driving head was then screwed into the pipe. A flat plate was welded on top of the driving head, The entire assembly was then lowered into the hole and driven by means of a lO-pound sledge hammer.

Immediately following completion of the first dynamic cone penetrometer test (at depth of l2 ... inchesl, the hole was augered down a further 6-inches. No drilling mud was used. The Shelby tube was then seated in the hole and driven by successive blows of the sledge hammer. A total of four Shelby tube samples were attempted at a depth of approximately 2-feet. Samples were recovered in three of the four attempts that were made. The height of recovery ranged from 4 to 6-inches. Following extraction, the samples were transported to the laboratory, where density determination was made by the following procedure:

The volume of the sample inside the tube was determined by first measuring the distances inside the tube from the top of the sample to the top of the tube and the bottom of the sample from the bottom of the tube. These distances were subtracted from the total length of the tube sampler and then multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the tube. with the volume of sample thus obtained, the sample was pushed out of the tube and weighed. Amoisture content determination was made on the sample. The dry density of the sample was then computed.

A-2

• B. LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES The Modified Proctor Compaction Test was the only type of laboratory compaction test performed during the period of backfill erosion repairs. This test was performed byGPC Quality Control personnel in the field soils laboratory.

Moisture content determinations, as part of the Modified Proctor Compaction Test, were made in accordance with ASTM D-2216

• A-3

• E-ROD

~PULLOUT ANVIL

,,-15 POUND STEEL WEIGHT

_ _- - I . - - L - - .

20" FALL

, , - - DRIVING ANVIL SLIDING DRIVE HAMMER 3, II I '8 CONE POINT o

• GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. YOGT1.E NUCL£AR PlANT

.*SKE-tcli-SHOwlNGOYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER SCALE: CRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 A -I

DRIVING HEAD Ft 6 11 DIA.x III

" - - - N ROO PIN 1 1 1-011I"41----- 0' N ROO SUB SHELBY TUBE ADAPTOR

-OPEN

...-- -ALLEN HEAD RETAININ3 BOLTS

• ~

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PUNT SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER SCALE: DRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 A-Z I

N95+00 I

TURBINE BUILDING I II EIOO+OO

~N I E97+50 ERQSION GWLLY.

NeJtl~f 12/4/79 I .EROSION

/NCR 484 9/5/79 (3)

J (I!>>

82+50 SLOPE TOO STEEP NCR 331 4/'fY79 (I)

(13) !J~~SION !BELOW t.U>

JeW 601 11/6/79 REACTrn REAClOR I CQ\JTAINMENT 2 CONTAINMENT ill (17) EROSION PROTECTION FOR MUDMAT a.I58.0 N80+00 EL. 134.0

"" .l100'm BELOW i

" '\ ERa SiaN BELOW FQlKlATION NCR 600 Iltt/79 (12) i r.I\SH BElOW MUD WASKlUT BEl<JN MAT/' NCRj6l6S14 MAT NCR 639 NCR 614 11113/7'9 (14) \ 8/13 79 a 9/18/7'9 12M7'9 (19)

(let a (II)  :

\

\ AUXILIARY BUIL£lNG

\

\

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEM PLANT PLAN OF POWER BLOCKi SHOWING LOCATIONS OF ERODED !AREAS j

SCALE: 1"= 80' I DRAWING NO; ~EV.

e; JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE I  !

e

o .. SPT VAUE o DCP VAWE e SPT-DCP VALUES OVERLAFPING 2

RANGE OF STANDARD; PENETRATION TEST SPT VAUJES IN RANGE OF DYNAMIC CONE BLOWS PER FOOT I-w PENETROMETER rocP)V~S IN BLOWS PER 1.15 INCHES .

~ 3 z

I:

I-0..

W 4 o 0 00 0 00 o

I 5

20 40 BLOW COUNT 60 80 GEORGIA POWER CO""PANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETROME~ER TEST BLOWCOUNTS VS. DEPTH !

SCALE: DRAWING NO~ ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 2

60 0

z W

. 50 0

Z

~

en (J) 40 wen O:::w a:::J:

WO t-~

WID 0:::,

!:r--

o . 30 t-en o VALUES AT DEPTH I. O' W:=

ZO A VALUES AT DEPTH 1.5' W...J a.m o VALUES AT DEPTH 2.0' w 20 VALUES AT DEPTH 3.d' z ¢ 0

• VALUES AT DEPTH 3.5;1 0

0 A VALUES AT DEPTH 4.Q'

~

<<z

>- 10 0

10 '20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY STANDARD PENETRATION' TEST RESiSTANCE , Np ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT BLOWS/FOOT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST AND DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

. TEST CALIBRATION CURVE .

SCALE: DRAWING NO. REV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE* 3

NORTH

=:=

TURBINE BUILDING MUDMAT EL.leS GUNITE PROTECTION S"MUDSLAB CATEGORY 1 BACKFILL 1.5 EL.158

- '" =- III -_ II{

111 ~

NOT TO SCALE GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTlE NUCLEAR PLANT TYPICAL REWORKED SECTION OF TURBINE BUILDING SOUTH SLOPE SCALE: DRAWING NO. nEV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 4

NORTH ELECTRICAL 154.8 TUNNEL UNITS 162.

DISTURBED N 82 + 32 ZONE REMOVED E 96 + 65 NOT TO SCALE i GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

~LVIN w. VOGTLE NUCLE"R PLANT TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING. EXTENT OF DISTURBED ZONE REMOVED IN CONTROL BLDG. SHAFT' AREA SCALE: DRAWING NO; ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 5

• N e'-A EAST WALL OF UNIT I EL ECTRICAL TUNNEL e7-A e 6-A

.4-A

• DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS RUN ON 2/12/80 e 5-8 e ADDITIONAL DYNAMIC CONE e 5-A PENETROMETER TESTS RUN e 5-C ON 5/12/80 AND 5/13/80

• PLAN SHOWING LOCATIONS OEDYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS ADJACENT TO ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. YOGTl.E NUCLEAR PlANT El.ECTRICAL TUNNEl. EAST WALL OCP TEST LOCATIONS DRAWING NO.

SCALE: I'IEV.

JOII NO. 9510 FIGURE 6

• 90 80 NOTE; SEE DISCUSSION IN SECTION TII~C- 2 FOR EVALUATION OF THE TEST DATA.

70 w

(.)

z 60

~

en

• enw*

• a: en a: w RANGE OF UJ~ 50

(.)

UJ~ PENETROMETER

ELC) 0,...

a:

• RESISTANCE VALUES *

)-

wa: ~ MEAN PENETROMETER ZI.LJ I.LJQ.

40

• RESISTANCE VALUES .

Q.

en

r*

UJ~

zo o...J *

(.)1%)

(.)

30 2.

~

~-

z b

• 20 10*

• o GEORGIA POWER COMPANY 2 :3 4 ALVIN W. YOGT1.E NUCLEAR PUNT DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER RESISTANCE DEPTH (FEET) ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL DC? RESISTANCE VERSUS DEPTH*.

VERSUS DEPTH ALONG SCALE: CRAWINGNO. F:'I.

ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 7

SLOPE VARIES FROM O.74H: IV TO 2.25 H: IV (SEE REFERENCE I)

ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNIT EROSION

1. 1 PROTECTION

• • . '-~'." .

/1/ E /11 ~ /11 '1

) 153. 5

-;. "F "F

TENDON GALLERY 1'1 ~---- UNIT t+ I MUDSLAB 11 DISTURBED 6 MUDSLAB ZONE NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING EXTENT OF DISTURBED GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTlE NUCLEAR rLANT ZONE REMOVED IN AREA BETWEEN UNIT I ELECTRICAL TYPICAL SECTION OF REMOVEDI TUNNEL AND CONTAINMENT. DISTURBED ZONE BETWEEN UNIT # I CONTAINMENT 6 UNIT '** I ElEe.' TUNNh SCALE, DRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 8

• o 8

- I 04

--f-- -1'E')

- (")

o

~

13 0

- ----1--1---+-+-

z  ::tJ j;! rr1 Z ~

s:

rrl

-f o

z  :::0

-4

(")

o C>>Z o DYNAMIC CONE  :::0_~

rrlZ PENETROMETER TEST LOCATIONS

~~

-4Z GEORGIA POWER COMPANY O-t ALVIN W. VOGTlE NUCLEAR PUNT

a DC? TEST LOCATIONS ALON.G UNIT.JTENDON_GALLERY... -

SCALE: DRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 9

70 0

lJJ 60

• MEAN PENETROMETER z

~  : 0CRESISTANCE VALUES 2°/;

~

(J) lJJ a::

50 a::

....UJ lJJ 2.

~(J) a:: LL1

• 2e

....  ::I:

I IJJ~

~~

40 *

• IJJ-za::

• OW 00.. * *

• Q(J)

~~

<to 30 z~

6 2.

20 RANGE OF PENETROMETER RESSTANCE VALUES 10 2 3 4 DEPTH (FEET)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PlANT D"I'NAMIC CONE PENETRATOR RESISTANCE VERSUS DEPTH FbR*UNITf TENDON GALLERY SCALE: , CRAWING NO. IREV.

JOB NO. 9510 F1GURE 10

CONTAINMENT SEE DETAIL TENDON GALLERY SEE TENDON GALLERY DETAIL 1

EL. 142 - 6" EL. 143'-0" . EL.143'-0" MUD~T

~ 6" T. G. MUDMAT 1

EL. 143 -6" DISTURBED ZONE REMOVED TENDON GALLERY 3'-0" 6" MUDSLAB EL. 142'-0" DETAIL 1 DIST URBED ZONE REMOVED NOT TO SCALE GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT TYPICAL CROSS SECTiON IN UNIT I CONTAINMENT AREA SHOWING EXTENT OF DISTURBED ZONE REMOVED SCALE: DRAWING NC). ~EV.

JOB 1'10.9510 FIGURE] 'I

• NORTH

• a 3

CONTAINMENT UNIT 2 N 80 +' 00 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. YOGnE NUCLEAR PUNT

• 0 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER DCP TEST LOCATIONS ALONG I- UNIT 2TENO-ON- GALLERY TEST -LOCATIONS SCALE: DRAWING NO. _~EV.

JOB NO. -9510 FIGURE 12

---

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

140 NOTE: SEE DISCUSSION IN SECTION m-C-4 lIJ 120 u

z

~

(J) f3 cr:(J) a: w W%

100

~~

~;;; *

/

l;j~

Z- *

~15

~~

Q.

80 1/

/ ~N PENETRat1ETER RESlS~NCE VAWES uo u.J ~

/:

_en

E 60 z

I *

~

0 40 RANC£ OF PENETROMETER RESISTANCE VAWES 20 234 DEPTH (FEE" GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALYIN W. YOGTLE NUCLEAR PUNT DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER

-RESISTll'la::-\iERSUS-tEP'tH FOR UNIT 2 TENDON GAU.ER'f SCALE: DRAWING Ho. ~EV.

JOII NO. 9510 FIGURE 13

TENDON GALLERY

1. 2 DRY .PACK CONCRETE CATEGORY BACKFILL ,

I GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT NOT TO SCALE SKETCH SHOWING PROCEDURE USED TO REPAIR UNIT 2 TENDON GALLERY MUDSLAB SCALE: DRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO~ 9510 FIGURE 14

N TUNNEL MUD SLAB SLAB 0.6' O!4' 0.2' t

I.. . I. 8' ~I of O. a l ., .

ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNIT # 2 SUMP GfORQIA POWER COUPMIY ALVIN W. Y08TU HUCLtAR rLAHT PLAN SHOWING (1'I0SION IN UULY 11'00 UNIT 2 ELECTft'CAL TUNNEl; MUOSLAB SCAU, DRAWINQ '10. [v.

JOI NO. "10 FIGURE "

~

LEGEND...

• 308 *310

• 000- SETTlEMEm" MMKER AN> MJMBER TURBINE ElJILDING REACTOR REACTOR CONTAINMENT 2 CO'JTAINWENT I 423-2 y

EL. 134.0 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT PLAN SHOWING LOGAr-IONS OF SETTLEM£NT MARKER POINTS SCALE: DR!\WING NO. EV.

JOB NO. 95tO FIGURE 16

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOL

• WSP NO. 324 o WSP NO. 323 o INDICATES OVERLAP

_ _ LINE CONNECTING WSP NO. 324! POINTS

+2.0 I LINE CON'NEC,rINC I

_____ WSP NO. 323 P(OINTS (i) + .0 w

r.:

u z

t- ,

Z 0  ;

w

E w

-J .-

t-t-

w en _I .0 ,

-2 .0 - - ...

I 1 I JAN. I, FEB. I MAR.l APR. I MAY I JUN. I JUL.I, 1980 DAYS ,1980 GEORGIA POWER coMPANY

~LYIN W. YOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT SETTLEMENT VERSUS :TIME FOR CONTAINMENT UNIT I SCALE. DRAWING NO; ~EV.

JOB 1'10.9510 FIGURE 16-1

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

• WSP NO. 308 o WSP NO. 310

+2 D _. @

I ....UlvA 1 r;;,;, v y r;;,nLHr I-

_. l- I-LINE CONNECTING .~. I-l-

WSP NO. 308 POINTS: I-I

_____ LINE CONNECTING f-

<' u; + I D WSP NO~ 310 POINTS I-IJJ

.:1: -

,0 Z

t-Z IJJ

)

- .. - . - I-

• - P-f-

?-

w

-.J t- -

t-W en _ I. 0

• f-

-2.a I I I I I JAN. I. FEB. I MAR.l APR. I MAY I JUN. I JUL.I.

DAYS 1980 1980 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

~LVIN w. VOGTlE NUCLE"R PLANT SETTLEMENT VERSUS iTIME FOR TURBINE BUILDING UNITS I 6 2 SCIILE:. DRAWING NO~ ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 16-2 e

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOL

• WSP NO. 420-2 o WSP NO. 423- 2

(!) INDICATES OVERLAP

+2~.O -

~II~L. ,",VI 111111-'" ...... '"

T WSP NO. 420-2 POINTS I I I

- _____ LINE CONNECTINGG WSP NO. 423;..2 POINTS

-tl .0 en l1J

I:

o

-z

~

I- )

~

l1J -

E w -,

-..J l- - -- -

I-l1J - -

en -I 0

-2 .0 I I- I I JAN. I, FEB. I MAR.l APR. I MAY I JUN. I JUL.I, DAYS 1980 1980 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

~lYIN W. YOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT SETTLEMENT VERSUS TIME FOR ELECTRiCAL TUNNEL UNIT 2 SCALE: DRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 16-3

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOL

• WSP NO. 420-1 o WSP NO. 423-1

@ INDICATES OVERLAP

+2.0 LINE CONNECTINC WSP NO. 420-1 POINTS I I

_ _ _ _ LINE CONNECTING W~P NO. 423~1

+1 .0 en lJJ

J:

U

~

I-Z u* * . . ....

lJJ

~ *.

lJJ

...J -

l-I-

lJJ en - I ,0

-2 .0 I I I JAN.I, FEB. I MAR.l APR. I MAY I JUN. I JUL.I, DAYS 1980 1980 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

~LYIN W. YOGTLE NUCL~AR PLANT SETTLEMENT VERSUS :TIME FOR ELECTRiCAL TUNNE!L UNIT I SCALE: DRAWING Nq. nEV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE ; 16-4A A

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

• WSP NO. 423-IA o WSP NO. 423-18

_ LINE CONNECTING WSP NO. 423-IA POINTS

+20* 'i i I I I I I i I Ii' I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii LtD II. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- LINE CONNECTING, WSP NO. 423-18' POINTS llillilllllllllilil

+ 1.0 l:tUtt:t=l+t:+l=m:J:++l+R=R+tmi=t=FFm++tH+t+ttt+tH-fJ+/-+/-::l+/-tt+/-:t:fj+/-:tfjt+/-tttt+/-t+/-t+/-ttltttijjtt:t:tttt::1 (f)

W

J:

U Z

t-z o w

E w

.J t-t- _ _ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -l-+-!----H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !-!--H-++*H-H- I I I I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIII

~ _ I. 0 ~t+I=t=J-.::l+J+=I=PUrTTill-T I I I I I I -j-III i H-H-H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ii' , i ,-"

- 2Q.Ollillil::HJ:i+/-+/-+/-+/-:I;f+/-+/-:l:f+/-f+/-t+/-+/-f+/-+/-:t+/-l:+/-+/-I+/-t+/-+/-f+/-+/-+/-tlrf+/-i+/-+/-+/-+/-.ttf+/-tjti+/-i+/-tlilltttJt::tti:t1y1ttttttttti:ttl:t1i JAN. I" FEB. I MAR.l APR. I MAY I JUN. I JUL.I, DAYS 1980 1980 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

~lVIN W. VOGTlE NUCLEAR PLANT SETTLEMENT* VERSUS TIME FOR ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNIT I SCALE: DRAWING NO; ~EV.

FIGURE 16-48 JOB NO. 9510 A

EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

• WSP NO. 427 o WSP NO. 425

6. WSP NO. 426

+2.0 @ INDICATES OVERLAP

- P

+1 0 (f)

W I

U --

Z t- J Z 1 W

~

W

-1 t-t-

W (f) -IIQ

-2 .0 I

I I JAN. I, FEB. I MAR.l APR. I . MAY I JUN. I JUL.I, 1980 1980 DAYS GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

~LVIN W. VOGUE NUCLEAR PLANT SETTLEMENT VERSUS TIME FOR CONTAINMENT UNIT 2 SCALE, DRAWING NO. rEV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 16- 5 a

AS PERMANENT BACKFILL PROGRESS

1. 9 STONE FILTER MATERIAL ~ EXTEND 2 11

<t PVC' GROUT PIPES ON COMPACTED TO 97% OF MAX. ,-- 20 FT. CENTERS AS REQUIRED.

DENSITY USING PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED.

1!..01l

• H

///~,

, MARL

.y 1'-0" 1'-0" MIN. OIERLAP

/'/--=-

FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI 140 LAP MATERIAL MIN. 2 FEET @ SPliCES ALONG TRENCH LENGTH.

MARL ELEV, VARIES CONCRETE GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGlLE NUCLEAR PLANT TRENCH DRAIN TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: DRAWING NO. ~EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 18

1.5 MILLION GALS..

(12.5 hrs.)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALYIN W. YOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT SURFACE WATER CONTROL 3.1 MILLION GA~---_-+-.j.'-....t (11.5 hrs.)

SCALE, DRAWING NO.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 17 1600 gpm 800 gpm

NORTH TURBINE BLDG.

CATEGORY I -¢::::t"1 "

BACKFILL EL. 185 CONTAINMENT UNIT it I

\f\CUUM SYSTEM 000 to roO LIMIT OF EXCAVATION 0

AUXILIARY BLDG.

INSTALLED o

TRENCH DRAIN EL.130 EL.130 I I ELI60 140 -------~

160 180

---

200 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ALVIN W. VOGUE NUCLEAR PLANT LOCATION OF DEWATERING SYSTEMS SCALE: DRAWING NO. EV.

JOB NO. 9510 FIGURE 19

LT-l

-~ LEGEND:

, 185.5 IT-2 ~

" LT-3~

I

~ LONG TERM PIEZOMETERS

• SIIORT TERM PIEZOMETERS TURBINE BUILDING I LT-5 ~

L I~

LT-6 ~

I

-v v v ----------

LT-1 ~ L1 .. , *. j',

,~;,.

LT-8 ~

REACTOR CONTAJINMENT 2 REACTOR

.,,-:\' - - .s:~'"-

CONTAINMENT

~_~, LT-II ~

EL. 158,0 ~

~

\ EL. 158 LT-9~ \

\..- -,

'.h I

I

'I / )'\~

I

,,-L.. I I I

/ r 5T-16 El. 134.0

• .,a~.", "".,It ttl"""'"'ru'"

ilLY'" ". 'OlfLI "\feUIl" LOClITlO'f Of' rIEIO"(1['"

orltfl

,.,. flO. ""

I I i

--' I E 95+00 E 10;0+00 E.L. 185.5 Ii NB3 + 91.70 I;

r E 97+ 05. ao I LT-2 NB2.J.23.60

"~6+65.51

~OO /  :

I.fJ~~.

I - '1

~ 1'11. 91-- -----. .. _

. - .. --~. ---- .

I r-7t"{ \

I

,J'If '41.7

'JeJ 1.50 .REACTOR CONTAINMENTI 2

'1.0

~ N80+34.00

/

~.

E93+26.5 LT*g .*

. 140.4' I --~~

",  ;.,.\... ',

____~. K.'r: .

. _. . '*1"'1'.-, ..\.~/

- mh flo 185.5 WEL 137 -----:------=__ - ---........

r e . -_ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - .

LT -2 1/f;i'57.5

---1 I '-I. . ,

.I\~n~.~

, r LEOUID:

- WEL 138 LT -3 A ,,\ '5

- ',..111 7.8

,~ W~I _ 'lllmmnl'IIC£ WIITER F1£VIITION WEL 139 -- ..........

_ - - - - - - - - - W E L 140 TURBINE BUILDING

\.

---

_..*rtlwt_ CIIMI,"

EL. 134.0 nro,"~

AlY'!fJ"",!!'!I.!lt "Uel~~

WATER LEVEL CONTOURS fEll. 9,1980 AUXILIARY BUILDING

EL. 185.5 LT-2 ......

....y EL.I38!..0" LT-' /1' d-

_____~ 137.7

~

/ ' - '~G 8 I LEGEND:

WEL _ SUOSURFIICE WIITER ELEVATION 138.2 \J1 ST _ SHonT -rEAM PlnOMETER,lIPPROX, 6' DEEP LT - LONG TEnM PIEZOME TER ,LENGTH VARlES- EL.140'-0" - - II* r..

2' INTO MARL I o - NO READING - ORY PIEZOMETER III - WATER ELEVIITION ON 5 - oS - 80 TURBINE BUlll0lNG EL.142'-O"

-to , .. ,

EL. 144'-0" y . .. , V'"

II. ,

"-.J r/

LT-8 ~

1.\2.2 141.3 REACTOR / ".

CONTAINMENT I LL. /58.0 LT -9 j f ,

140.8 * ~)IJ' Wlll'[R LEVEl CONToonS

• MAY 5,1980

,, IUllJ

, _I'll""

AUXILIARY BUILDING

TABLE 1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST, CALIBRATION DATA a) Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data Depth Test Designation (ft. ) CP-l CP-2 CP-3 CP-4 CP-5 CP-6 CP-7 CP-8 CP-9 CP-10 1.0 26 26 27 29 25 24 24 33 17 19 1.5 31 31 34 34 30 38 31 45 29 --

2.0 40 38 40 36 55 42 46 46 48 43 3.0 56 58 62 51 57 49 46 57 54 69 3.5 62 54 70 55 60 64 -- -- -- --

4.0 62 70 62 55 60 69 47 52 66 76 b) Summary of Standard Penetration Test Data Depth Test Designation (ft. ) SPT-l SPT-2 SPT-3 I SPT-4 SPT-5 SPT-6 0.5-1 (set) 6 5 5 7 6 7 1.0 24 26 25 26 27 26 2-2.5 (set) 6 15 14 16 14 15 2.5 59 55 55 57 57 57 3.5-4 (set) 20 21 21 25 21 22 4.0 86 97 96 94 89 87 c) Correlation Curve Values Average SPT Average DCP Depth Values, Blows/Ft. , Values, Blows/1. 75 Inches (ft. ) Np Nc Remarks 1.0 26 25 Values 1.5 38* 34 Plotted in 2.0 47* 44 Figure 3 3.0 69* 56 3.5 80* 60 4.0 92 -62

• interpolated values

TABLE 2

SUMMARY

OF SAND CONE DENSITY TEST DATA Yw W

Yd

'Yd (max)

=

=

=

=

Wet D . t y

= Moisture Content Dry Density Maximum Proctor Dry Density Optimum Moisture OMC Content Field Test Laboratory Test Test Elev. Coordinates Yw W Yd Yd lmaxJ -uMC Percent No. (Ft. ) N E (pcf) (%) (pcf) (pcf) (%) Compaction Remarks UNIT 1 CONTAINMENT 1644 .141.8 79+79 98+74 120.7 11.2 108.5 108.9 12.2 99.6 Test Nos. 1644 through 1645 141. 6 79+71 98+60 120.3 8.8 110.6 107.0 13.0 103.4 1658, 1722 through 1731,

• 1646 141. 4 79+69 98+42 122.6 10.1 111. 4 105.2 13.0 105.9 1734 through 1739, 1744 1647 141. 6 79+60 98+26 121.1 9.3 110.8 106.7 12.5 103.8 and 1774 were performed 1648 142.1 79+55 98+12 125.2 10.1 113.7 108.3 11.2 105.0 adjacent to the Unit 1 1649 142.5 79+66 97+96 123.1 11. 8 110.1 105.7 12.8 104.2 Tendon Gallery foundation 1650 142.9 79+80 97+90 127.3 10.7 114.9 109.2 12.3 105.2 below the muds1ab. Test 1651 142.1 79+96 97+81 126.5 13.6 Ill. 9 105.6 13.1 106.0 Nos. 1659, 1682 and 1684 1652 142.5 80+13 97+82 124.1 16.5 106.5 109.9 11.8 96.9 were performed north of 1653 142.4 80+30 97+90 127.1 15.1 110.4 107.5 14.5 102.7 Reactor Cavity to 1654 142.8 80+38 98+05 125.2 15.2 108.9 105.3 11.2 103.4 determine extent of 1655 142.4 80+50 98+18 123.7 15.0 107.6 105.7 13.9 101. 8 disturbed zone. Test 1656 142.6 80+50 98+53 126.6 13.5 111. 5 107.0 12.8 104.2 Nos. 1680 and 1683 were 1657 142.7 80+53 98+35 124.7 16.0 107.5 105.0 13.5 102.4 performed south of the 126.5 16.2 108.9 108.0 12.8 100.8 Reactor Cavity. Areas 1658 .142.0 80+41 98+67 114.4 13.2 101.1 107.3 12.4 94.2 represented by Test Nos.

1659 141. 8 80+29 98+80 128.3 14.6 112.0 106.2 13.8 105.5 1659 and 1683 were 1680 137.1 79+81 98+57 excavated down to lean 1682 138.8 80+21 98+58 116.7 10.8 105.3 106.3 11.5 99.1 121. 0 17.1 103.3 108.2 12.0 95.5 concrete fill and then 1683 137.5 79+81 98+79 backfilled.

1684 139.4 80+23 . 98+37 124.1 11. 3 111. 5 106.5 13.0 104.7 1722 141. 9 79+69 97+88 126.2 12.8 111. 9 105.6 13.4 106.0 1723 141. 6 80+05 97+79 123.8 17.6 105.3 103.3 13.5 101. 9 1724 142.2 79+86 97+81 120.9 14.4 105.7 106.2 . 14.1 99.5 1725 142.0 79+48 98+17 125.7 10.3 114.0 107.8 13.3 105.8 1726 142.1 79+56 98+01 124.9 11.0 112.5 108.6 14.9 103.6 1727 ,142.1 79+44 98+35 122.1 10.1 110.9 105.9 11. 9 104.7 1728 142.0 79+48 98+53 122.1 9.0 112.0 104.9 14.1 106.8 123.9 10.4 112.2 106.0 13.0 105.8 1729 141. 8 80+54 98+44 125.5 14.7 109.4 107.0 14.1 102.2 1730 142.0 .80+23 97+84

.** continued .**

TABLE 2, continued Page 2 Summary of Sand Cone Density Test Data Field Test Laboratory Test Test E1ev. Coordinates 'fw W Yd Yd (max) OMC Percent No. (Ft. ) N E (pcf) (%) (pcf) (pcf) (%) Compaction Remarks

1731 141.9 79+70 98+82 123.6 10.9 111.5 106.8 13.8 104.4

. 1734 141. 7 80+38 97+94 122.9 17.0 105.0 103.1 14.5 101. 8

1735 142.0 80+50 98+08 126.7 11. 8 113.3 108.8 10.8 104.1 1736 141.9 80+55 98+26 124.1 10.0 112.8 106.4 14.2 106.0 1737 141. 8 80+49 98+62 126.2 14.2 110.5 106.5 12.4 103.8 1738 141.9 80+38 98+77 126.7 13.7 111.4 106.5 13.0 104.6

.""' 1739 141. 7 80+22 98+87 . 125.8 . 12.6 111.7 106.2 14.3 105.2

1744 142.3 79+99 97+79 120.0 17.1 102.5 103.8 12.5 9R.7

, 1774 141.2 79+54 98+68 120.3 9.8 109.6 104.9 14.0 104.5 UNIT 2 CONTAINMENT

. 2095 141.4 80+47 94+69 125.5 17.2 107.1 103.9 15.0 103.1 Test Nos. 2095 through 2096 142.1 80+51 94+77 127.7 16.6 110.0 104.5 12.0 105.3 2098, 2101 through 2110, 2097 142.1 80+5~ 94+85 125.9 18.3 106.4 102.5 10.5 103.8 and 2112 were performed 142.5 80+05 95+51 120.2 11. 4 107.9 104.4 13.5 103.3 adjacent to the Unit 2 2098 80+55 94+95 126.8 16.8 108.6 103.5 11.5 104.9 Tendon Gallery foundation 2101 142.1 80+56 95+04 127.3 14.5 111.2 103.5 12.0 107.4 below the muds1ab. Test 2102 142.2 95+13 124.3 13.7 109.3 104.3 9.0 104.8 2074 was performed north 2105 142.3 80+52

, 2106 95+21 122.8 14.5 107.2 104.5 12.3 102.6 of the Reactor Cavity to 142.4 80+49 122.1 13.2 107.9 105.2 12.3 102.6 verify existing fill

,2107 142.3 80+45 95+29 95+36 124.3 13.2 109.8 106.3 12.2 103.3 compaction.

, 2108 142.3 80+38

, 2109 141. 8 80+31 95+42 124.1 12.5 110.3 108.0 10.1 102.1 I' 2110 141.8 80+23 95+46 95+50 127.9 128.5 12.9 14.3 113.3 112.4 110.1 108.3 9.5 10.3 102.9 103.8 2112 142.3 80+14 80+02 95+30 135.3 11. 5 121. 3 106.9 12.2 113.5 2074 137.9

, NORTH OF CONTROL BUILDING SHAFTS UNITS 1 AND ;:

107.8 13.5 103.0 Area represented by Test 1542 151.7 82+27 96+38 129.0 16.2 111.0 106.0 104.7 14.5 101. 2 Nos. 1544, 1545 and 1546 1543 151. 5 82+25 96+59 125.0 17.9 was excavated down to 96+24 124.4 13.7 109.4 112.2 10.5 97.5 1544 152.2 82+07 competent material and 81+88 96+24 127.0 17.6 108.0 112.2 10.5 96.3 1545 152.2

• • • continued *.*

TABLE 2, continued Summary of Sand Cone Density Test Data

• Page 3 Field Test Laboratorv Test Test E1ev. Coordinates Yw W Yd Y d (max) OMC Percent No. (Ft. ) N E (pcf>' (%) (pcf) (pcf) (%) Compaction Remarks

,1546 151.8 81+68 96+24 123.4 19.3 103.4 104.7 14.5 98.8 retested as designated by

'1547 151.0 82+07 96+24 132.6 12.4 118.0 113.0 13.5 "104.4 Test Nos. 1547, 1548 and 1548 151. 4 81+88 . 96+24 128.8 20.0 107.3 108.8 10.5 98.6 1549 respectively.

1549 151.2 81+68 96+24 127.5 17.6 108.4 108.8 10.5 99.6 1572 156.3 82+23 96+80* 118.0 16.0 108.9 107.0 14.0 101.8 1560 152.9 81+65 96+96. 114.8 11.5 103.0 96.1 12.5 106.2 1561 153.1 82+01 96+96 122.7 15.7 106.1 96.1 13.0 110.4 WEST OF UNIT 2 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL 1605 153 *. 0 80+99 95+97 123.4 11. 9 110.3 104.3 11. 0 105.8

'1606 153.1 81+22 96+07 116.4 11.5 104.4 103.7 12.5 100.7 1617 147.6 80+43 95+70 119.9 9.2 109.8 105.8 13.0 103.8 1618 147.7 80+18 95+74 121.6 10.8 109.7 105.8 13.0 103.7 1668 154.7 81+66 95+83 121.8 11.9 108.8 106.3 12.8 102.4 1669 154.6 81+60 96+22 121.2 15.3 105.1 104.7 13.6 100.4 1699 146.3 80+12 95+86 121.4 10.0 110.4 104.6 13.9 105.5 EAST OF UNIT 1 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL 117.8 8.1 109.0 107.5 14.4 101. 4 Test Nos. 2018, 2019, 2020 1997 152.1 80+22 97+26 116.4 9.4 106.4 106.2 13.0 100.2 and 1986 were run adjacent 1998 152.3 80+52 97+25 117.7 8.7 108.3 106.9 13.0 101.3 to muds lab to determine if 1999 152.4 80+82 97+25 15.7 107.4 98.1 13.0 109.5 a zone of low compaction 2000 152.1 81+12 97+25 124.3 15.2 107.5 106.3 15.1 101.1 existed at the dynamic 2001 152.5 81+42 97+27 123.8 11.4 110.9 105.8 14.4 104.8 cone penetrometer test 2018* 149.8 80+92 97+27 123.5 97+27 111. 5 R.6 102.7 100.5 17.6 102.2 locations. All other 2019 149.6 80+98 tests were performed 2020 149.6 80+95 97+27 110.6 R.4 102.0 99.2 17.3 102.8 8.4 110.2 106.2 12.7 103.8 adjacent to the muds lab 2021 152.3 80+35 97+27 119.5 9.9 94.4 98.3 17.0 96.0 and in the area between 1986 150.0 80+83 97+26 103.7 106.0 11.2 104.6 the east wall of the Unit 1797 146.3 80+57 97+37 128.9 16.2 110.9 107.7 13.5 101.2 1 Electrical Tunnel and 1824 146.6 80+77 97+36 123.2 13.0 109.0 106.6 13.1 104.1 west of unit 1 Tendon 1836 148.4 80+80 97+76 126.8 14.2 11)..0 122.9 11. 3 . 110.4 104.6 14.4 105.5 Gallery.

1822 146.6 80+89 97+36 1841 145.8 80+92 97+53 127.8 14.6 111.5 106.9 11.5 104.3

• TABLE 3

SUMMARY

OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA ADJACENT TO UNIT 1 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL Test Depth Blows to Seat Blows to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches "Remarks l-A 1.0 36 Test performed on 2.0 40 2/12/80. Blows 3.0 52 to seat not 4.0 95 recorded.

2-A 1.0 25 Test performed on 2.0 32 *2/12/80. Blows 3.0 59 to seat not 4.0 56 recorded.

3-A 1.0 13 Test performed on 2.0 15 2/12/80. Blows 3.0 19 to seat not 4.0 10 recorded.

3-B 1.0 16 32 Located approxi-2.0 16 47 mately 5 feet 3.0 17 49 north of DCP Hole 4.0 10 36 No.3-A. Test performed on 5/12/80.

3-C 1.0 12 21 . Test performed on 2.0 15 27 5/12/80. Located 3.0 15 23 approximately 3 4.0 7 11 feet south of DCP 4.4 5 10 Hole No.3-A.

4-A 1.0 31 ~est performed. on 2.0 32 2/13/80. Blows 3.0 46 to seat not*

4.0 58 recorded.

5-A 1.0 14 Test performed on 2.0 18 2/13/80. Blows 3.0 17 to seat not 4.0 24 recorded.

5-B 1.0 13 19 Test performed on 2.0 21 34 5/13/80. Located 3.0 21 48 approximately 3 4.0 14 37 feet north of DCP 4.6 12 37 Hole No.5-A.

• • . continued ***

• TABLE 3, cont~nued Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data Adjacent to Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel East Wall Test Depth Blows to Seat Blows to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 5-C 1.0 14 19 Test performed on 2.0 16 32 5/13/80. Located 3.0 16 32 approximately 3 4.0 18 44 feet south of DCP 4.6 8 31 Hole No. S-A.

6-A 1.0 -- 32 Test"performed on 2.0 -- 36 2/13/80. Blows 3.0 -- 40 to seat not 4.0 -- 62 recorded.

7-A 1.0 -- 13 Test performed on 2.0 -- 28 2/13/80. Blows 3.0 51 to seat not recorded .

NOTE: See discussion in section III.C.2 for evaluation and details of repair work done at locations where low penetration -

resistance was recorded *

• TABLE 4

SUMMARY

OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA FOR UNIT 1 TENDON GALLERY .

Test Depth Blows to Seat Blows to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches . 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 1 1.0 16 34 2.0 30 56 3.0 28 55 2 1.0 14 27

. 2.0 3.0 28 26 54 60 3 1.0 15 24 2.0 22 34 3.0 20 43 4 1.0 14 27 2.0 18 41 3.0 22 45 5 1.0 21 58 2.0 41 66 3.0 37 70 6 1.0 24 41 2.0 21 52 3.0 39 51 7 1.0 20 36 2.0 29 52 3.0 18 48 8 1.5 17 31 2.5 34 56 3.0 19 30 9 1.5 29 60 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube 3.0 26 49 sample attempted 10 1.5 22 54 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube 3.0 28 45 sample attempted 11 1.5 19 40 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube 2.5 14 41 sample attempted

-- 3.0 19 40

• • • continued ***

• TABLE 4, continued Summary of Oynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data for Unit 1 Tendon Gallery Test Depth Blows to Seat Blows to Drive -

Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 12 1.0 3 23 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube 3.0 17 37 sample attempted 4.0 15 52 13 1.5 18 34 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube 3.0 29 77 sample attempted 14 1.0 18 36 2.0 20 44 3.0 20 43 15 1.0 11 25 2.0 24 40 3.0 25 31 16 1.0 10 14 2.0 21 30 3.0 23 35 17 1.0 13 22 2.0 25 42 -

3.0 16 31 NOTE: See discussion in Section III.C.3

• TABLE 5

SUMMARY

OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TEST DATA FOR UNIT 2 TENDON GALLERY Test Depth Blows to Seat Blows to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 1 1.0 19 39 2.0 3.0 28 33 58 85 2 1.0 22 30 2.0 35 50 3.0 30 73 3 1.0 11 15 -

2.0 29 45 3.0 25 89 4 1.0 13 19 2.0 29 44 3.0 33 83 5 1.0 16 24 2.0 26 54 3.0 45 97 6 1.0 17 30

- 2.0 27 68 3.0 43 107 7 1.0 12 23 2.0 27 60 3.0 40 104 8 1.0 11 18 2.0 27 71 3.0 40 90 9 1.0 17 27 2.0 28 47 3.0 46 99 10 1.0 15 34 2.0 36 72 3.0 34 101 11 1.0 12 25 2.0 44 89 3.0 37 106

• ** continued ***

It TABLE 5, continued Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Data for Unit 2 Tendon Gallery Test Depth Blows to Seat Blows to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 12 1.0 19 27 2.0 53 123 3.0 77 146 13 1.0 19 41 2.0 39 84 3.0 47 89