ML19331D717
| ML19331D717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1980 |
| From: | Dutton D GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8009030489 | |
| Download: ML19331D717 (100) | |
Text
. .
. e Georga Power Company Post Office Bcx 4545 b Atlanta, Georga 3o302 Telechene 404 522-6060 Vogtle Proj.ect Southem Company Serviccs, Inc.
Post Of5ce Sex 2625 Birmingham, A.abama 35202 Teechene 205 870-6C11 August 29, 1980 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fil e: X7BG03-M3 Office of Inspection and Enfor cement Log: G M-686 Region II - Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attn: Mr. James P. O'Reilly
Reference:
50-424, 50-425 Final Report on Potential 10CFR50.55(e)
Dewatering and Erosion of Backfill Gentlemen:
On November 14, 1979, Mr. E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor at Plant Vogtle, reported to your Mr. Tom Conlon that a potential reportable item under 10CFR50.55(e) existed at Plant Vogtle concerning dewatering and erosion of backfill.
In January,1980 Georgia Power Company presented a report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that described in detail the erosion resulting in Category I backfill from heavy rainfalls. The report outlined steps that had been initiated subsequent to the erosion to facilitate resumption of backfilling operations in the power block area. Also included in the report was an engineering evaluation of the affected and adjacent areas and recommended l
methods of repair. Following the submission of the report to the NRC and concurrence by that agency with the proposed remedial measures, backfill repair work was accomplished in all areas subjected to erosion. Impl ementation of the backfill repair procedures was started in the latter part of January, 1980, and comoleted in August,1980. The repair work was accomplished in a timely manner as the backfill was being placed to prevent any further erosion.
During the period of the backfill repair operation, a Bechtel geo-technical engineer was on site to assist GPC in the interpretation of field test data and repair procedures and to provide other assistance related to geotechnical matters. At this time, it is our judgement that it is no longer l required to have this type of expertise at the site on a full-time basis.
l Therefore, the geotechnical engineer who was at the site on a long-term assign-i ment will return to the Bechtel general office. Periodic trips to the site by l geotechnical engineers, supplemented by the permanent assigned Bechtel employees, should be sufficient to fill this assignment.
l
<3, 0/1 -
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
. POOR QUAUTY PAGES 8 0090 30N g
. s United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Page 2 August 29, 1980 In the attached field engineering report it can be seen from the evaluations that there was no undermining of any Category I structures as a result of the heavy rains that occurred last November. The evaluations also established that there was no damage to the existing structures. Per approved procedures, the erosion was required to be repaired before any further backfill could be placed. However, if the erosion were to have remained uncorrected, a highly unlikely and impractical event, future Category I structures located at or near these areas of erosion could have encountered settlement or other structural problems. Additionally, extensive investi-gation and evaluation to establish the adequacy of the structures to perform their intended safety functions was conducted. Also, extensive, although expected, repairs were accomplished.
Therefore, it has been concluded that the erosion of backfill consti-tutes a reportable deficiency under the criteria of Part 10CFR50.55(e).
The erosion of backfill was also evaluated under the criteria of Part-10CFR21 and does not represent a substantial safety hazard because is does not satisfy the defirition of defect as defined in paragraph 21.3 (d) (3); that is, the backfill had not been offered for acceptance.
The attached document was 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 ground water control measures are also described. As such, this report plus our previous correspondence to the NRC and on-site documentation are intended to cover all relevant correspondence from the NRC, Region II and NRR, and is intended to address all outstanding concerns.
This response contains no proprietary information and may be placed in the NRC Public Document Room upon receipt.
eg t - ' ours ,
iA Doug Du on Project General ! tanager CiH:tp xc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Victor Stello, Jr. , Dire. tor Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regualtory Cemission ,j -
, Attention: Alber Schwencer Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing Washington, DC 20555 -
1 e
O
~_ . . - - - - , -y
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Mr. James P. O'Reilly Page 3 August 29, 1980 xc: J. H. Miller, Jr.
W. E. Ehrensperger F. G. Mi tchell , Jr.
R. J. Kelly C. F. Whi t.T.e r R. E. Conway D. E. Dutton J. T. Beckham, Jr.
R. W. Staffa K. M. Gillespie L. T. Gucwa C. R. Mi l es , Jr.
E. D. Groover D. L. McCrary R. A. Thomas
- 0. Batum J. A. Bailey M. Z. Jeric B. L. Lex O
Grogo Powc Compaw Yust C*te.c Bn 2n W3vnc%vn Georry.i 3^9T
- Te 41.?u s e. 404 ,
- t :,4 4 4;11 f.!, t 7. I f
- August 15, 1980 Mr. Jim Bailey .
Southern Ccmpany Services P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202
Subject:
Plant Vogtle - Units 1 & 2 Backfill Erosion Report File Mo. X2AP01 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 use during submittals to the NRC as recuired.
Sincerely,
. >f Y
H. H. Gre or , III Assistant Construction Prsject 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. v/o ..
~.
a.- :
. .. _ . . . . y- ~
b g=.~. ,..w"* ~
PLAN"' VCGTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 FINAL REPORT CN DEWATERING AND REFAIR OF ERCSION IN CA~EGCRY I 3ACKFILL IN PC*a.R ELCCK AREA Prepared By BECE*EL PCWER CORPCRATICN and GEORG A PCWER CCP.PANY Cate: August IE, 1980 i
SCEMITTED AND APPRCVED h4N~w m
/fi}/f i
/ j' 4
l
- - - - - .- - - - - - . , - . . . . - - = , , - , - , - - - . - , . - - ,- - --..-.- -- , , , - - - - -
TABLE OF CCNTEN"'S Is I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE II. EVALUATICN OF TESTING AND REPAIR A. General B. Field and Laboraccry Testing C. Evaluation of Specific Aress
- 1. Areas between Centrol Building Electrical Shafts Units 1 and 2 and Turbine Building
- 2. Area between Unit 1 Containment Tenden Gallery and Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel
- 3. Unit 1 Centain=ent Area
- 4. Unit 2 Centain=ent Area
- 5. Area between Unit 2 Contain=ent Tenden Gallery and Electrical Tunnel
- 6. Electrical Tunnel, Unit 2, East Side III. FINAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF STRUCWRE FCCNDATIONS A. Containment Unit 1
- 3. Turbine Building Units 1 and 2 C. Cent cl Building Shafts Units 1 and 2 i . L. Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 t
l E. Electrical Tunnel Unit 2 F. Centain=ent Uni: 2 - Partial Tenden Gallery G. Auxiliary Building and NSCW Tcwers IV. 5URFACE WATER CCNTROL A. External Run-Off Centrcl
! 3. Centrol of Ster Run-Off Within the Pcwer 31cck Excavation f
C. Sicpe Prctection I
i l D. Pumping Capacity -
1 t
I t
e 6 6
s . . ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued V. SUBSURFACE WATER CONTROL A. Monitoring
- 1. Backfill Pie:cmeters
- 2. Wellpoint Pie:cmeters
- 3. Wellpoint Discharge B. Dewatering Systems
- 1. Types
- 2. Sp'ecific Locations
- 3. System Performance VI.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS References APPENDIX A. Field Testing and Sampling Procedures B. Laboratory Testing Procedures l
l LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Plan of Power Block Showing Lccations of Eroded
. Areas
. Figure 2 Standard Penetration Test and Dynamic Cone Pe'netremeter Test, Blowcounts versus Depth
i . . ,
LIST OF FIGURES, continued Figure 3 Standard Penetration Test and Dynamic Cone Penetremeter Test Calibration Curve Figure 4 Typical Reworked Section of Turbine Building South Slepe Figure 5 Typical Section Shewing Extent of Disturbed Zone Re=cved in Lentrol Building Shaft Area Figure 6 Electrical Tunnel East Wall - DCP Test Results Figure 7 Electrical Tunnel East Wall - DCP Resistance versus Depth Figure 3 Typical Section of Re=cved Disturbed Zone between Unit 1 Centainment and, Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel r
Figure 9 DCP Tesu Locations along Unit 1 Tenden Gallery Figure 10 Dynamic Cene Penetremeter Resistance versus Depth for Unit 1 Tenden Gallery Figure 11 Typical Cross-Section in Unit 1 Contain=ent Area Showing Extent of Disturbed Ocne Re=cved Figure 12 DCP Test Locations along Unit 2 Tenden Gallery Figure 13 Dynamic Cone Penetrc=eter Rasistance versus Depth for Unit 2 Tenden Gallery Figure 14 Sketch Shewing Procedure used to Repair Unit 2 Tenden Gallery Mudslab Figure 15 Plan Showing Erosien in July, 1980, Unit 2 East Electrical Tunnel Mudslab Figure 16 Pla'n Showing Lccations of Settlement Monitoring Points Figure 16-1 Settlement versus Time for Centain=ent 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 16-4A Settlement versus Time for Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 Figure 16-43 Settlement versus Time fc- Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 (continued)
Figure 16-5 Settlement versus Time for Centainment Unit 2 -
- iii -
1 e .
')
1 l
LIST OF FIGURES, centinued Figure 17 Surface Water Centrol Figure 13 Trench Drain - Typical Section Figure 19 Lccation of Dewatering Systems Figure 20 Location of Pie::c=eters Figure 21-1 Water Level Contours - December 27, 1979 Figure 21-2 Water Level Centeurs - February 5, 1930 Figure 21-3 Water Level Centeurs - May 5, 1980 LIST OF TA3LES Table 1 Standard Penetratien Test - Dyna =ic Cone Penetrc=eter Test Calibration Data Table 2 S e ary of Sand Cene Density Test Data Table 3 Su==ary of Dynamic Cene Penetrc=eter Test Data Adjacent to Unit 1 Elec.rical Tunnel East Wall Table 4 St:-nary of Dynamic Cene Penetrc=eter Test Data for Unit 1 Tenden Gallery Table 5 Sima f of Dynamic cone Penetrc=eter Test Data for Unit 2 Tenden Gallery Y
f
- iv -
- - - , - - - - , - , , ---r---
.e . ,
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 centrols. 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) en January 9, 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 resu=ption of backfilling operations in the power block area.
Also included in the report were a preliminary engineering evalurtion of the affected and adjacent areas and recommended methc. of repair. Following submission of the riport to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and concurrence by that agency with the proposed measures, backfill repair work was acccmplished in all areas subjected to erosion. Implementation of the backfill repair procedures was started toward the end of January, 1980, and ccmpleted 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 eresion repair and groundwater program. He also assisted in the interpretation of field test data and repair precedures. In addition, Sechtel engineering personnel and a Bechte; censultant made periodic site visits i to review the repair work.
This document is wrir. ten .to describe the actual repair work, the associated esting, and the final engineering evaluation of the integrity of the adjacent structures. Existing and future erosion and groundwater control measures are also described.
l I
1 l
l
II. EVAIUATION OF TESTING AND RIPAIR A. General All erosien areas identified in the power block were repaired in accordance with the precedures specified in Reference 1, except whera noted in Section II.C. In each case of variation frem Reference 1, a descriptien 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 =cne and depth te ccmpetent existing backfill.
- 3. Field and Laberatorv Testing Field testing included the proving ring penetremeter, dynamic cone penetrometer, and sand cene density tests (ASTM D-1556). Laboratory testing censisted of the Modified Proctor cempaction test (ASTM D-1557). All tests were performed in accordance with the precedures described in the Appendix to this Report.
Prior to testing, the dynamic cene penetrc=eter was calibrated against the Standard Penetratien Test (SPT) for Category I backfill materials. A total of six SPT test berings were drilled in undisturbed Category I backfill to a maxi =um depth of 5-feet. SPT tests were performed centinuously frem the surface dcwn to 5-feet in accordance with ASTM D-1536. Adjacent to the SPT test borings, a total of ten dynamic cone penetrc=eter tests were made at 6-inch intervals in holes drilled dcwn to a maximum depth of 4-feet. The results of these tests are su==arized in Table 1. Test results are shewn in Figures 2 and 3.. Based on these tests, the calibration ratio of the SPT resistance to the Dynamic cone penetrc=eter resistance is roughly 1 for the range of blowccunts recorded. No correlation tests were made for the preving ring penetremeter. The use of proving ring and dyna =ic cone penetremeters was limited only to a qualitative evaluation of the backfill ec=paction. These tests were used cnly to determine the depth of ec=petent fill and were not intended to determine the percent ecmpaction. Final control testing was done using the sand cone test methed in conjuncticn with the laboratory Modified Procter ec=paction test. Ecwever, based en the experience obtained from the use of the preving ring penetremeter, a reading of 2 cr greater indicated that the sand cene, test methed would shew a degree of compactica greater than 97 percent. This criterien was used to determine the depth of disturbed :ene in Category I backfill slopes where it was not p Jible to perform sand cene density tests. .
2-
i C. Evaluation of Specific Areas .
- 1. Area between Centrol Building Electrical Shafts Units 1 and 2 and Turbine Building:
Ercsion in this vicinity was identified as Areas 1, 2, 3,15,16 and 18 respectively (Figure 1) . Areas 1, 2, 3,15 and 16 referred to eresien areas along the Turbine Building south slepe; Area 18 referred to the area between the toe of the Turbine Building south slepe and the edge of the Control Building shafts'
=udslab. All these areas wera repaired in accordance with the procedures speciiied in Reference 1.
The Turbine Su'ilding slepe was reworked to a minimum of 1.5 heri ental to 1.0 vertical and then gunited for erosion protection (see Section IV) . This involved removal cf a portion of the Turbine Building mudslab and scme Turbine Building base slab steel reinferec=ent bars. After reshaping the slepe, the minimum distance frc= the top of the slope to the nearest edge of the existing Turbine Building base mat was apprxcimately 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 :ene, as determined by proving ring penetremeter and sand cene tests, was apprcximately 2-feet. Sand cone density tests were performed every 20-feet along the perimeter in this area. Test results are su=marized in Table 2 A l
typical cross-section through Area 18, showing the excent of disturbed material re=cved, is presented in Figure 5.
- 2. Area between Unit 1 Containment Tenden Gallery and Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel:
Eresien 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 slepe adjacent to the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel east wall mudslab.
Area 5 refers to erosien in the backfill between the tunnel east wall and the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery.
Along the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel east wall, dynamic cone penetremeter tests were performed to a maximum depth of 4-feet belcw the bottom of the =udslab.
Prior to the tests, the =udslab was cere-cut at the test locations approximacely 2-feet frcm the edge of the wall. The locations of these tests are shcwn en -
Figure 6 and the results pictted in Figure 7 Data 3-
relating to these dyna =ic cene penetrc=eter tests are
-e . a.s e.. .e i. .. ". ab i a_ ' . *.
- e d, a ..= .' ..d_ _'. a *. =. _". _= , w ' - " 'e exception of Test Lccations 3A and 5A, high resistances w.e ac x_e_4 _3 _, ad],ce _, _w.. _.e w .
we_e w.,4.,ec 4..
......e.i wall. In addition, these resistances were cbserved Oc generally increase with depth.
. .. c -..* e .- . '., c~.. .' _' _
. "_ . e _' . w d __ _' ~. ' .. ., . =. s '. s . = ~.~. e s e ."..'" **. .e _" *_ "'. a *. *. *. s * ?
- ca ..'. .. . s .' a' a."'.' d. n' , a d .* .' _' ',.'. ..
- ' a '
tests were run a few feet ncrth and scu.h cf Tes:
Lccations 3A and 5A. These tests are designated as 33, 3C, 53 and 5C respectively. : appeared frc= these -
results dat a ene of =aterial of questionable c _r a . - -4c. . c .u,3d ex_4s . ..4 .w. e . ,_4. _ _ 4 4 _ ,. ,, .es Lecation 3A at elevation,.,._,a 149.5' 4,,n 00 150.0'. In crder
..,,, e a ._3 n. a .. e ._.w.e .e__e . .. . r . .4 u.4s a ea c .. a quant tative basis, fcur sand cene density tests were perfer=ed at the elevation in question. These tests '
were run after re=cval cf the east Electrical ?.nne'.
=udslab to widin a fcc: cf the base slab. Fcr ear.h sand cene density test, a laberatcry Mcdified ? rec 0' .
ce=paction test was run en =aterial chtained at the test locatien. The results of these tests are shcwn in Table 2. The data shewed values of relative cc=paction of 104.3, 102.2, 102.3 and 96.0 percent, respectively. Thus, it can be seen that the icwer penet c=eter resis ances enecuntered at Test Locatica 3A were net indicative of an averac.e dec.ree of 1 nn
.. rac 4 ....- _. ,ess .u.a . 9e _e._ r . e... _
Sand cone density tests were perfer=ed a few 'eet f cr the east wall at approxi=ately these 10catic=s w 2-*
dynamic cene penetrc=eter tests were perfer=ed. In additien, four tests were conducted in the area between de Elec*,rical Tunnel and Unit 1 Tenden Gallery bcunded by ccordinates N50--35 and NEl-50. ?.c tests were
- perfer=ed in the area between eccrdinates N79-35 and
$80-35. The results of these tests are shewn in Table 2. A tv.e.ical section shewinc. extent cf disturbed .
=,,..aterial re=cved in the area between the Electrical
_' s s " cw~.~. .' .. _=' _' ~,..~ =. = .
l . .e a s. . ._.".e C. .~.~ a _' . e ..
l The precedure used to backfill against the east wall wa s ' .. w- ...c, _' _' a-*.. e w.' '.'. . ~.".e
. . =. :. a _d _- r., --*, c a_d
_ __ e s re ". ' ' _' e d
. ' . . .Re .'a en ce .i , w' , *.. ".e e.x e r .i .. c '
. . _S.e , a_ _' a .* .. .
which is explained belcw.
~. ~. c _= d_ _- a_ s :. e , _' _' _' e d_ '..s.d.-=.x.=~..=~..'~~..
4
'.'.".e a ,c, . ~,. . d. _- = :. a _' _- .
, to re=,cve existing gunite and Icese w. =aterials
_e - near<- the
__e _. .w.e s_ r e ., a ax_4
-_u...=._:a.._
c
.,..u.e w ,a Cx' _e _4 _9 _3 -
~
u=_w..e_4 s.. 2 .,. n 8 . ^_2.a . a. r_ a 4 ._ .4 ._. y n_.e a.xpC e,, e A_
'.e =-=a '_ e ' ack'. _' '_ ' a.d y c - ..' ... ^, , #. *k.e s',r a , . vas- . _ .
I
_4_
l L
a maximum depth of 1-foot.* The procedure specified that all further stages of sicpe repair work and backfilling be done at height and depth increments of 1.5-feet and 1.0-foct respectively. Subsequent to the erosion last year, the undisturbed Electrical runnel slope surface was protected by polyethylene sheeting, on which a layer of loose fill was placed.
The entire slope was then gunited. Apparently, no bend existed between the existing icese fill and gunite with Category I backfill because of the polyethylene sheeting. Censequently, the protection system became unstab)) when the icwer section was removed, necessitating removal of the full height rather than in 1.5-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 satisfie.d, since backfilling was acecmplished expediticusly in the eest-west direction in slope lengths not exceeding 1G-feet. This involved removing the gunite and icose fill to a height dictated by practical considerations but restricting the working slope to a segment 10-feet long, thus limiting the aren exposed to possible erosien during the repair work.
Hea 7 compaction equipment was b.$t permitted near t.Ee' slope during the remedial work. It was used only after the adjacent 30-fcot width of backfill had been raised to the same elevation as the top of the slope by the use of hand-ccmpaction equipment.
In the other areas east and south of the slope, where erosion had taken place, all disturbed material was
- removed pric
- to backfilling. The pie:cmeter readings i in the area indicated tre water table to be at least 2-feet below the existing backfill surface.
Backfilling was acccmplished in accordance with the approved procedures.
- 3. Unit 1 Centainment Area:
Eresien outside the Unit 1 Containment area was identified as Areas 7, 8, 9, 19 and 20 respectively (Figure 1) . Area 7 had been repaired earlier in Nove=ber, 1979 (Reference 1) . Areas 8, 9 and 19 were repaired in accordance with specified procedures. The ~
depth of the disturbed :ene was determined by proving ring penetrcmeter probing. The disturbed fill was excavated to ecmpetent fill material and backfilled.
At least one sand cone density test was made in each ef the above areas pric: to fill placement. Area 20, l i
'y e a y vy- e-- ,9- gw-ww-.---wp-i .a+,g. ,- .s, y.,--_pwj.w,, g - ,q_,,, ,,,%,_..,,,..,-_g .,_y- _ , , , . , , _ . , , . , , , ..,,,,,,,,.,,.9 , , , .,
~ _,
.j which delineated a washout in the backfill below the expansion joint opening between the Tendon Gallery l 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 d . curbed 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 Tenden 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 he followed to determine the extent of any erosien around the Tenden 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 orogram of in situ density testing around tha inside perimeter of the Unit 1 Tenden Gallery mudslab was developed by Bechtel for the purpose of verifying the ccmpetency of the backfill. Dynamic cene penetremeter 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 depuh of 3-feet.
A summary of the test results is in Table 4. Figure 10 represents a plot of the penetremeter blewcounts with depth.
The test data indicate that high blewcounts were obtained at all the test locations. These blewcounts ranged from 14 to 77 blows for 1-3/4 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 cenfirmed that the fill meets the ecmpaction criteria even though lower cone penetration resistance with depth was recorded in a few locatiens.
Based on the correlation ratio obtained between the dynamic col. penet cmeter and standard penetration resistances (Section II .3. ) , the data indicated that high. Standard Penetration Test resistances could be expected below the mudslab.
Attempts were made to extract Shelby tube samples f cm I the penetremeter test holes, so that the in situ density l cf backfill below the mudslab could be determined for i
6-
correlatien purpcses. Che sa=pling was atte=pted in
.. *.h *. ~y"' .. '- C e d .'- . *. .A.* s C'_ .#. '. ed .# .. -- ". a a r y .. .
a~..-.'.'d.=..w'*.
2.4 g. ' .'
cy.4 ..g ,
.,. g -u.q n.e ,
y w A , g e .o n. .2- 4. ..4 ~.. n. .e . u. q u.. A e_* _' v .#...- , ' a Ck.#.3 .' .' , .# * "a a s . .c *. ,C s s #. .". T. e *.~., C" .a.# ..
undisturbed sa=c.les. The heic.ht of sa=ple recever.e U ~..' . 'a e .'3 ~.*. .s de . a .~' .e A,
.~.=~.3C ** *~ * - .. ,,, o ' .~.
. .". as. .
3.c= ..".ese sa y'a.s
. . wa_-a a.'. . . r, =. .' .' v, '.cw .4 ..d
. --w ' a _* c, sa p.1 4.4 s... w. ..a . . .. m..w.. .e
.... . ., .w...e s e -A.., . . .a. . , . . . . . ,
- a. s e .~..= . . . a. v" '- '. e _' . . s .i . . <*. e..s .4 .v, v'
- ~.
.~.~.~. side-a.d .- a - r_
'.a. 'a c k '. .' .' .' . .-' e.'",v, ~.~ "., e s a=r w.' .d ...;wa s d. .imw- .. . . i ..".ed a..B s 4.
. .d a s e s. ,w .'s.. t .4s.w.eA
. k. . -.e .e_.a.i .1 s_4.,.e :
w.
sa=e'e, k.e _.a..e. d.. w"..i
. . . . .". .* *. "a a s a x ...= - . a.d .= . d ~ '.e we..,_
J 4 ,. a.4..e ens J.. sa.ni.e. d_4s....w.-.a c. ce. , .... ... 4 g as a censequence, rendered the results unreliable.
a ...n.,
.. c ' "i. 3 s a..d c .~ e da..s.'*v, . a,. s '.s "a e - =,. , __.
. . . _ e "~.~ ed a.' ~..g ".e d..s'd- e , e i.e*e c' .'.e ".e..'c1 Ga.'.'a._-v, mudslab. These~ tests were =ade en the backfill surface . ,
..s
. .__ .w. =,As.3a,..
w w.. .
a.e.n .e=c..eA.
. . . . . 4_4 w3.. 2.s.e .v.
the base slab. Additionallv., sc=e sand cene density .
tests were made in the area between the Tenden Gallerv.
and the Reacter Cavitv.. ,w The results cf these tests a e a..
. .. 4. .. .ed .4 . m. ,_te .9 ..s.. . .. ... .s.1.s m,e_e
- , .- s al = * *.'.'. ar *.a s s a . " s '. a ' .. . ": * * ' . 1.' .' a.eas ex.*.e- _ w-- .
( a r y _~sx.*. a '.e .' ". '. *=.=.."v.
. ' e
. _'s a. '. ) ~. . . _ ~ ' . a..d . s-".
c.*
the Reacter Cavitv.. These areas were excavated dcwn
.g
.u.e ex.4 g ..4.e.n 3
,.g
.. . n n... n_ .. .e ..4 , ., n: d. '.a c.k.' .' .' .' ed .
Dewatering of the b.dfill was achieved by a series of vacuu= type wellpoints installed around the inside
- e. .'. e . e c ' ~ 5. e C .. ..= .i ._ e . . e.~..* ~.. ,"a a _' ' a. v. . T .i ". e '-
r . . . . . .
s '.a . *. . e. =- y .de ,.e.e_s we e d
..s*.a'.'ed - ~.. ~ . c ...d '. . -.. -.e wa~.e. *.ah ' e .4 ..s .i .d e ~ '. .' s a.- =. .= . n' _ '.e ~. _' - a. '. a ck.' .i .' .' .i ..c
. ,e -= _- ~. 4 c n s we _-a_ .- a. s " e d. .
_.. '..is ara.a, '".e va.e. _=e, ..
as 3.d.i . . - . a.ed. ' v. ~. '..e r .ie . -.e.e-s, waa- a. 'a.as. 5 '.a.a..
helcw the existinc. backfill surface.
.ec=e ..2 ,4.. a., . ,ss_sec
... 4,..s .. c., w._
. C.,4_.
shewing the ,,
extent of lecse ma-a *=' -a eved are shewn 4
,4.,.,.
- 4. U 4.
. . . , C ..,4
. e . n..ea.
r.- s.ca.
. . . .d .. ~'.e C 4'. . 2 C... ..= .' ._ e . _= .- = .= wa s d e s _' ~..a a d.
as Areas 14 and 17 (.?igure 1). Area 14 referred to
- a. -a s '. ~.. " e .' .w ".e
. . ". a ..d .. G a.' ' a. . .r . d s _' = ' ,. ... ' .a. ves.
s'de. - vcweve., ' . e ~.~
, .. s ._- ,. - . .i ~2 c .' '.e . a...' ~.. "e a .' .' a. .-v.
'.a . . 'e d . . c.. ".4s se...d .. c ' ~ ' . e d. s ' .= .' .
. .r . s_.' ~
4
.. n.e a '. 4 wa s .."..' .e ' 4
. - .3 .e '. 4
.. . ax . . a. .. . . 2..e ra.3 _ s .' ..
. u. 4 s &_.. . a ,.e 4 .. .
.4 ..w.. . Cva.? C .c ou.e tAs.3,
- on. e
. .%.e
... .j . A a., eX,,.a3 a. _4 , . .,.. ,a _4 s . .. w....eA. _ a .... _ _4 3. .
A w f. .. . a,g. e.4*t.e w g _.w.6. eX.,.,3 4, .
n_..,. . 7 .e 34..A ..
... . .. .. . - . . . . . . . . r - - . . .
w e . Cw .' .e . " #. s .' .'..'. ~ -_#
- b.e r ar ..# .=. .' .' v. ' "....
'" ~
e ... 3..4...
. g .
l l
Tendon Gallery on the inside of the Containment area.
Extensive testing was performed in this area around the perimeter of the partial Tendon Gallery to ascertain whether the base slab had been undermined.
Dynamic cone, proving ring penetremeter, 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 penetremeter tests were performed below the mudslab at a distance of approximately 1.5-feet frem 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 su=marized 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 immed3stely adjacent to the Tendon Gallery base slab was dense and, therefore, had not been subjected to erosion.
The Tendon Gallery mudslab extended to approximately 3.5-feet frem the edge of the base slab and was
- emoved.to within 2-feet of the base slab. By means
_ of the proving ring pene'remeter, it was determined that disturbed material extended (horizontally) to a maximum of 4-inches under the sawed-eff 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 =udslab and the backfill. Results of these tests are su==arized in Table 2. Values of relative ecmpacticn ranging from 102.1 to 107.4 percent were obtained; these values confirmed the results yielded by cone penetrometer -
tests.
Immediately af ter the tests were completed, minor additional erosion occurred as a result of a rainstorm.
The area was retested ar..d repaired in accordance with appreved procedures. The maximum extent of disturbed backfill under the mudslab 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 frem belew the mudslab and 1-foot away frem it. Proving ring p.enetremeter tests were made to assure that all disturbed material was removed.
- b. A form was placed 1-fcot away frem the edge of the mudslab. .
a ._ _.
- c. Cbncrete was placed to within 2 to 3-inches of the bottom of the mudslab.
- 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 bacxfill in thit 2 Containment was achieved by a series of eductor type wellpoints that were extended frcm a line of wellpoinu nurth of the Auxiliary Building. The water table in the backfill was I:cnitored by m3ans of three short-term piezcmeters. 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 U.it 2 Contai.mant 'Ibndon 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 alcng tha west wall of Unit 2 Electrical Turmel which was repaired as described in Reference 3.
- 6. Electrical Tunnel, Unit 2, East Side:
An nMitional erosien area occurred below the mudslab of the Electrical Tunnel, Unit 2, in July, 1980. This erosicn, was caused by construction water due to a hose failure. The m.i- v mum depth of erosion below the basemat was 0.8-feet and it extended approximately 1.8-feet below the turmel base slab for a distance of approxistely 0.8-feet. (See Figure 15) . The area was repaired in accordance with approved procedures.
- . .sw . . -
-n - w. --
ye,-
III. FINAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION CF STRUC'"UF2 FCUNDATIONS A preliminary evaluation of the effects of the backfill erosien en the s eactural integrity of each s'-" -~~e in the pcwer bicek area was submitted in Reference 1. It was concluded that no undermining of Categcry I foundations had cecurred as a result of the erosien caused by the rainfall of early Neve=ber, 1979. This applied to all structures except fer the Centainment Unit 2 Tenden Gallery, where additional information was recuired for an evaluatien of its structural integrity.
During the period of erosien repairs, additional infer =atien was developed to suppert the preliminary conclusions arrived at in Ref erence 1 and to evaluate the structural integrity of Contain=ent Unit 2 Tenden Gallery. This infc==atien censisted of settlement data, field test, data, and visual inspection of backfill surface fellcwing re eval of mudslab. Based on these data, it has been concluded that no undermining of Category I -
foundations had ccetrred as a result of the erosica caused by the rainf all of early November,1979, including the Containment Unit 2 Tenden Gallery.
A final evaluation of the integrity of the foundatien of each structure is presented below.
A. Containment Unit 1 Inside the Centainment area along the inside peri =eter of the Tenden Gallery foundation, extensive field testing revealed that the backfill adjacent to the fcundatien was in a very dense condition. The relative cc=paction of the backfill as obtained fr== sand cene density tests ranged frcm 96.9 to 106.8 percent (Table 2). Dynamic cene penetrc=eter tests indicated high resistance, and these resistances inc;?ased with depth (Table 4, Figure 10) . ,
. These test results were supported by visual inspection of the backfill surface beneath the Tenden Gallery foundatien
udslab. Af ter the =udslab had been re=oved to within 3-feet of the foundation base slab, inspection revealed no evidence of any erosien features in the fill. The fill surface and slepe against the mudslab were devcid of any erosien channels, nor was there any evidence of icss of density. It has been concluded that no piping of fines occurred belcw the Tenden Gallery fcundation. If piping had occurred, it would have manifested itself in the f==
of erosien adjacent to the Tenden Gallery foundation' mudslab.
Two settle =ent markers were installed to menitor settle =ent of the Tenden Gallery foundatien. These markers, designated as Nos. 323 and 324, were 1ccated as shewn en Figure 16. A plot of settle =ent versus time fer the .
peried January 1 through July 1, 1990, is shewn en 6
m---w----- .-w- ., , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _
Figure 16-1. The plot indicate.s that the observed settlements to date are small. The maximum settlement recorded is on the order of 0.26 inch, which is reaser.able censidering the current leading and the limits of the survey accuracy.
The effect of the erosien on the outside of the Centainment area en 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 Tandon Gallery foundation as a result of erosien in these localized areas.
In su:= nary, the Unit 1 Tendon Gallery wall foundation was not jeepardized by the heavy rainfall cf early November, 1979. It has been concluded from field test data and visual observations that no erosion occurred below the Tendon Gallery base slab.
- 3. 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 scuth slege, off the south side of the Turbine Building =udslabs. Erosion gulleys extending to a maximum of 4-feet below the mudslab caused cracking to occur in the mudslab. During repair all cracked sections of the mudslab were removed and the erosion gulleys were cut back to sound material at a slope of 1.5 hcrizontal to 1.0 vertical.
All other sections of the Turbine Building south slepe that were steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical were rewerked to 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical and then protected from erosien by guniting. The minimum setback distance frem the top of a 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical slope to the edge of the existing Turbine Building base slab was determined by a slepe stability analysis to be approximately 20-feet (Reference 1). 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 sicpes.
Settlement of the Turbine Building base slab was =enitored by ts i settlement markers, Nos. 303 and 310 Crigure 16) .
Readings were taken on a weekly basis during the period January 1 through July 1,1980. These readings are shcwn plotted on Figure 16-2. The maximum observed settle =ent is on the erder of 0.16 inch, which is reasonable considering the current leading cendition and the limits of the survey accuracy.
. r In summary, the Turbine Building base slab was not andermined by erosion. The affected sections of the mudslab have been removed and the slope reworked,to conform to the specifications.
C. Centrol Building Shafts Units 1 and 2 Erosien of backfill f.n the Control Building shafts area occurred at least 2-feet away frem the permanent foundations. Visual inspection showed that the foundatiens were not affected by erosien. All disturbed areas in the prcximity of the Control Building shafts were repaired in accordance with the specified procedures.
Settlement in these areas is discussed under Items "D" and "E" below.
D. Electrical Tunnel Unit 1 Along the Unit 1 Electrical Tunnel east wall, the data .
cbtained frem cone penetrcmeter and sand cone density
! tests indicated that the backfill adjacent to the tunnel foundation was in sound condition. The disturbed material in the two eresion areas along the slope adjacent to the foundation was carefully removed by hand excavation and the areas backfilled in accordance with the precedure described in Section II.C.2. A visual inspection made prior to backfill revealed that the zone of erosion in both areas did net extend to belew the tunnel foundation.
Based en 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 slepe failure in the backfill (Reference 1). Mincr surface ravelling could have occurred in areas where the slope protection system had been resoved. It was further determined that even if minor sliding should occur close to the fcundation, the integrity of the existing tunnel wculd 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 sicughing er ravelling of the slepe was precluded by expediticusly backfilling to the top cf the slepe.
prior to backfilling against the slepe, two additienal settlement markers (423-1-A and 423-1-3) were installed along the east wall approximately 30 and 60-feet acrth of an existing =arker No. 423-1 (Figure 16). These two markers were read en a daily basis frem the time the slope protectich system was remcved " *4' "ackfilling to the top of the slepe was completed. In addition, settlement markers 423-1 and 420-1 were read en a weekly basis from
1 i
,s .
l January, 1980, onward. Plots of settlement versus time l for the markers are shown on Figures 16-4A and 16-43. '
The maximum recorded settlement was on the order of 0.2 inch, which is reasonable considering the current leading ,
and the linits of the survey accuracy. 1 In su= mary, 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 Marchr 1380, 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 approved 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 leading 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 14 was 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 ccepleted 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 .
13 -
the backfill adjacent to the foundation was dense. Visual inspection revealed that some erosion had occurred at the edge of the mudslab 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 additional erosion occurred below the mudmat due tn rainfall that occurred i= mediately after the evaluation tests were complete. However, the zone of disturbed material was at least 1-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 setticment 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 Buildine 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.
e 6
IV. SURFACE WATER CONTROL -
Several steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of significant erosion due te rainfall. These steps include increasing the protection against externally generated stor=
run-off entering the power bicek excavatien, preventing the uncontrolled-flew cf storm run-off within the pcwer block excavatien by use of temporary ditches and ber=s, increasing the use of slepe protection, and increasing the capacity for pt= ping ster = run-cff cut of the pcwer bicek excavation. As backfill progresses r the ru = =. i n e. sche =e and casacities will be altered to meet any new requirements caused by the changing configuration of the backfill. ,
A. External Run-Off Centrol The effective height of the hers surrcunding the tcp cf the pcwer bicek excavation, including the crests cf ra=ps entering the excavatien, has been raised apprcxi=ately 2-1/2 feet. This has effectively precluded the entrance .
of externally generated ster = run-off into the excavation.
- 3. Centrol of Storm Run-Off Within the ?cwer 31cek Excavatien All backfill surfaces are sleged so that run-off ficws away frem fill sicpes and away frem buildings to swales which flew to su=ps. Run-eff ecliec-ad ** the sumps is c.u=ced cut of the excavation to existing discharc.e c.it.in-3 and discharge channels which ficw away frem the excavau.icn.
An 18-inch berm is provided at the tcp of the fill slope south of the Turbine Building to prevent run-off frem ficwing to lower elevations.
C. Slece Protection Gunite has been applied to all long-ter= expcsed sicpes in an extensive pregram to prevent eresien in the event of heavy rainfall. Short-term sleges are protected with plastic sheeting.
D. Pum ine Capacity Run-off is re=cved frem the pcwer bicek excavation at three primary lecations. Water collected in the Turbine Building area is pu= ped frem a su=p in the northeast corner of the excavatien. Isclated areas which cannet drain around the Turbine Building are pu= ped to this su=p.
j Run-cff cellected in the scutheast corner area is pumped frem this area. The remaining areas, which cer.stitute a majcrity of the total area, drain to and are pu= ped frem several su=ps in the scuthwest area of the pcwer bicek.
I t
I P
l l
Figure 17, Surface Water Control, shcws the location of the st=ps along with punping capacity. The pumping systen in the rortheast corner is capable of pumping 2000 gpm. Five punping systers located in the southwest area of the power block have a total capacity of 6575 gym. Two syste-s located in the south-east area have a total capacity of 2625 gpn. The total tpacity of all systers is 11,200 gpn. The pump capacities shown en Fig"re 17 are as-built conditions and may be increased.
Calculations were made based on 5-inches of rainfall to deternine the amount of water that would collect in the power block and the length of time necessary to re:cm this run-off frem the power block. A 10-year sto=n with a duration of 12-hours would produce 4.5-inches of rainfall; a 50-year stcrm with a duration of 24-hours wculd crovide 10-irdes of rainfall. Figure 17 shows the amount of rainfall.and the length of time needed to rerove the run-off frcm each area. These figures are based on having approximately 4500 gan of groundwater entering the powar block and show that the existing systen can adequately handle both the 10-year,12-hour storm and the 50-year, 24-hcur ;tonn. Several areas of the ;:cwr block may also be utili::ed to store rainfall for later receval.
The rortheast simp 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 simps may store 200,000 gallons without causing any harm to equipnent.
E. Construction Water The arcunt and use of construction water is controlled. Excess -'
water is directed to ccanon collection points and removed frcm the pcwer block excavation by the surface wa.ter pumping systen.
i f
l I :
716-: -- -.
l .. - .. . - . - - _ _ . __
9 V. SUBSURFACE ~4ATER CON'"RCL ,
- n. v..._4..
. .. . . - . 4 ,.
.. *2.a e.k_d .4 1 1 p.4e ..
. e e_.s C - . . * . .ou .. .~- n.' .-
3 ^. .'. s ub s _' a c e wa _ e _ .- ....d i . i c..s has been c.erfer=ed bcth inside and cutside the e.cwer block excavation. n addition to the previcusly ex.' s ._' ..-
. , , _' e.. ~ ~ e .= .~ . e .w. .-k .' . c a .=.d. .~ ~ ~. s _' ' e ~ ". *.
excavation, a nu=her of new pie:c=eters were placed 41 ."e Ca.e3 .-v. -. b a c.k.'.i _' _.'
. . .".e s e - .s .'. s . a. d. ..
lenv-ter= pie:cmeters extendine thrcuc.h the backfill
- the arl and shcr:-ter= pie:c=eters which extended a few feet into the backfill in critical areas. These pie: =eters were =cnitored to insure that the water table was located sufficiently belcw the backfill surface te ccnfor= to the specificatiens during
'. a . k .' .' .' .' c , e . a * * . ..s .
The grcundwater elevatiens read in these pie:c=eters indicated sources influencing the v rcundwater inside the excavation. Gradients and correspcnding directicns
' .'.'-w . *.ai..ed '- = ".e r .3e--
. .. e.a..- .d a .a .3 ..' ' .a~.=d .
- *. a*. 3 . .u..dwa .e . .3 .is _' d e ~ ".e m . a~. "..i .-.. ' 3 .' ..a . =..
rainfall, and that there was no external groundwater e-.e.4
- - . . . g .w.e .cs.e e w,,cx-
.. .as.
c .w. .er .e - 4.e.e. . . 4.43.e.
blanket and dewatering syste=. . Pie:c=eter locations are shcwn in Figure 20.
- 2. Wellpoint Pie:c=eters Wellpcint pie:c=eters were installed alcng the wellpcint 3 4 .. e s .4 .,. c.aecc4 . . . . . .we.ee,
. . e ... a..e - e .w
. - -.e i wellpcin s v. s t e = r as well as : previde additicnal water level data. These pie:c=eters were installed in the sa=e manner as the wellpoints except that the eductcr was no: installed. The perfc. ance cf the welle.cints is discussed in Section 7.3.r ~ewatering Svstems.
l
- 3. Wellpcint Discharge Curing the operational perieds of the varicus welipcint sv.ste=s r the discharge water was =enitored to insure that ne significant a= cunt of sand-si:e particles was l 'e.d.g
. . ,u=eed. . u . '. ~_'.e '., a .k. # .3 .' _' . . .".e *.e s i ..c, a..'
discharge sa=ples was dene in acccrdance with the precedure described in Reference 1.
Sa=ples were first visuaily examined as speelfied in l Reference 1 Sa=ples failing :: =eet the visual I
l l
, _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ . . . _ . . , , m ..m . m._ _ , . _ , . . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , __. , - _ _ _ _ _ , ,
_ cm=>
criteria were tested in accordance with AST.v. D-1888 using a 40 to 50 =icron filter to deter =ine the a= cunt of sand particles and a 0.45 =icron filter for total suspended solids.
The criteria used limited the a= cunt of sand particles in the discharge water to 5 ppm and total suspended solids to 50 ppm. Frequen: visual and laboratory testing on wellpoint discharge water indicated that the criteria for sand particles and total suspended solids were satisfied.
- 3. Dewatering Syste=s
- 1. Types There are basically three types of dewatering systems utilized to control groundwater in the power block excavation. The three types are edue c: wellpoint syste=s, a vacuum wellpoint system, and trench drai=
systems. The eductor (also called ejector) systems were used for dewatering the fellcwing areas:
(1) the area along the north wall of the Auxiliary Building and later extensien to Centain=ent Unit 2, (2) slepes east of Centainment Unit 1, and (3) slepes adjacent to Centain=ent Unit 2 The eductor type system was chosen for these areas because of its ability to pu=p frem depths exceeding that of the conventional vacuum wellpoint installatien (IS ) .
The eductor system utilizes'a double =anifold, che a supply and the ether a return line, which circulates water through educters which are connected to the wellpoint. This results in the develep=ent of a vacuum at the wellpoint elevatien rather than at the ground surface. Eductor wellpoints were installed in maxi =u= 10-inch diameter holes drilled with rotary
, equipment using Revert. Apprcpriately graded filter material was installed.
A vacuum wellpoint system was installed inside the Centain=ent Unit 1 area to lcwer the grcundwate: in the backfill. This type of system is applicable where the depth of water does not exceed 13'_+, since it empicys the use of a conventiona vacuum wellpcin pc=p which applies the vacuum at the header =anifcid level. Installation of the wellpoints was si=ilar to that used for the educter syste=s.
Trench drains were installed in the =arl in areas where backfill had not yet been placed. Their function is to centrol future groundwater build-up-in the backfill, due to rainfall. Trench drains were installed scucheast
/
w--t-- -- r ,wn. a m gr-r--s-w -, m-.-w----i--n- gwsrr .-g ----m -- ,n., -e-w <-- . - - - , - - - - ~ ' - -
of the Auxiliary Building and are presently being l 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 methcd i due to the difficulty caused by wet conditions along the toe of the slope. A typical detail of the trench I I
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.
r Along the inside perimeter of Containment Unit 1 a
~
vacuum wellpoint system, consisting of 52 we11 points on 5-foot centers, was installed. This system satisfactorily lcwered the water level to pemnit 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 l wellpoints satisfactorily dewatered the east and west l
slopes to permit backfilling against the slopes.
l l
At the southeast corner of the Auxiliary Building a trench drain was installed at the toe of the new l backfill slope. This trench drain will minimize future l 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 pir:ad over the trench. This will permit backfilling against this slope at a later dace.
l 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 gym from a system. This was due mainly to
+ . . .
the relatively low perneability of the backfill.
Even though discharge rates were significantly less than originally anticipated, prolonged pumping produced noticeable drawdown in the vicinity of the we11 points.
Permeability of Backfill - A preliminary estimate of backfill permeability based en a consideration of grain size was about 0.01 ft./ min. Pumping rates based on this permeability were estimated to range frcm 36 gpm initially down to 13 gym 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 pie:cmeters, indicated typical backfill permeabilities to range frem about 3x10-4 to.
7x10-4 ft./ min. The most reasonable explanation for these relatively low permeabilities 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 re~atively lcw permeability of the backfill material, the drawdown effected by the we11 point dewatering systems was restricted to the i= mediate vicinity of the wellpoints.
Maximum drawdown along.a line of we11 points, based on observations made on we11 point pie:ometers, was about 10-feet decreasing rapidly with distance from the we11 points. 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 centours, for 12/27/79,
, 2/5/80 and 5/5/80.
S p-., m.-- - - - p -w% - . - . . _ - . - -
"I. SCY.v.ARY A'C CONC *."S CNS .
s .' ~. .s $e , cwa..- '.a . .k' . .' .' wa s s a ..' s '. .=.- . ' .' v.
.d .a.
'.4 ..a.'.. s.. .' -k Ale.r'. a e.- 4 e>. a,. ...
.e4
., r.
ced._..es ...
.. .s.e .,..,,a Regulatcrv. Cc==issien bv, Geor,ia ?cwer Cc c,anv., vich the exceptica of miner deviatiens that were necessitated by y..aC a.. &.s - . .. s.ta.e a.2 . . s.
'x . =... s .' ~. =. '. .' e .'d w a .d. . ' abc .=. .
..~ .~.r . e s . s w=.. - =..~ .. *. '. . . e^. . ". e . .' .'.v.
w.e ex.. . . . . .
.s 2.
. 4 s ... w. . e ,.a - ....... 4.s.* 4 . .k..c e .;.-e,.a. . a eas. =.s. e s e .
.e s .s we . e ".s e .*. ..., "e . .' .'v. '.e . ee . e .... ": ~#
.. - ' e '. .a c.k " . .' .'.
a c'.; a . e.. . .., h.e .' " . .* = . .d . . . s . . ". ar.' ." s v.= . e - -v. . s ..-. . . . _-as.
. .".e e". a .' " a . .' .~ .~. a.
.. ' ".e =. .#
. 'e . . c '
. . * . s .' , .. .. Ca .e c, .
, .-v. .-
s*--" ."~ e .' .un a .d . . . .s va s '.a s ed - '=ta -- '* eve' - yed. d "~ .* ..q testing, settle =ent readings ani! vis,.al chserrations =ade g, . < 3 s. . ,. .. . . .. . . a.6 c.' .~*. t.'..
':he field testing and evaly'stiens described i= this Report
-r.. y a ..s- e s , a.. ., -.a . , g . .., y a ....u. n g , .a .s .s. s.. , .a..a g. s.e,.a
.. . . .,.,..s
-'.e Ca.e .-v. . '., a c k. .' .' .' ' . a'.'..' e.-. s .* . . wa s s" . e s s '. ..'..' v. . .
. era.'.a.d. "..'..' s ea. a.' ".a ..' .- .. '. .a s =. s .ab. ' .i s.'.e'- ' a . .e.- = .' s
-e
.. e.. ..= . =".# e c . ..- .
' e exis ..' .., s ..- . ."~ e s a s a . e s" .' c .'.
the hea.f rainfalls cf early Nove=her, 1979.
References:
- e. e , y.a . s.,.
.. a .. a s._e.,.s,
. . . . .s .
- s. .e . .,1.... . . . . . ..
. 3., o . 2. ,.4 , _t y cf the NRC, dated January 5, 1130.
3.. c. s ,.433y ,..,..a-- .. 2. . v 4 ., .... . , . . ...
.. ...e.
.. . ... . . . . . . .e Ge'C, da .ed - . T 5. a.-v. ., .' 2. ..: C.
s.
,...., w .e . w
.r. . ...... . . . . ..
....v : ..
s...4 .y
. . s. e '..ms .a, e Ja = e ,J a r.. *
.J.1 -,'J f5 v , .
O .-,
O. &. .
, . . . , ---.-,,y, , , , , , , - - - - , - - -
APPENDIX A. FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCIOURES r
- 1. Procedure for Dvnamic Cone Penetremeter Test In order to perform dynamic cone penetremeter tests, the mudslab was first cere-cut at the test locations.
A hand auger was then used to auger to a depth of 1-foot, at which depth the cone penetremeter device was icwered into the hole. The cone was driven at least 2-inches into the hole to insure that it was properly seated. The number of blews required to seat the cone was reccrded. After seating, the cone was driven a further 1-3/4 inches into the hole and the number of bicws recorded as the penetrometer resistance value, Driving was accomplished by means of a 15-pound .
steel ring weight drepping a height of 20-inches on an E-rod slide drive (see attached sketch) . The hole was then augered dcwn 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 inf32enced by inflew and soil softening inside the bore hole.
All dynamic cone penatremeter tests were performed by GPC Quality Control personnel.
- 2. Procedure fer Provine Rine Penetremeter Test Proving ring penetremeter tests were performed at specified locations to determine the depths of disturbed ene in the backfill. The tests were performed at depth intervals of 6-inches as required to reach competent material. Testing was acccmplished by pushing the penetrcmeter into the scil perpendicular to the surface 1 at a uniform rate until the top of the penetremeter cone was reached. At this point the proving ring dial was read. If the reading indicated a disturbed cne, the testing was continued to greater depths. This was done by shevelling away the disturbed material and testing at approximately 6-inch depth intervals until competent material was reached. At this point the penetremeter was moved to another specified test locatien.
All preving ring penetremeter tests were perfcrmed by GPC Quali,ty Centrol personnel, A-1
- 3. IA3 ORATORY HSTING PRCCEDURIS The Mcdified P:cetor Cc=paction Test was the cniv tvoe ~ ce labe
,ach.gycrycc=pactioncestperfor=edduringtheper
., .-- erosien repairs. This test was :erfc:=ed bv GP Meisture centent deter =!,ations, as part of the Mcdified Prcctor Cc=paction Ter' were =ade in accordance with AS3 u 2. 6.
e Y
S~3
l i
.l l
E-ROD ,
I PULLOUT ANVIL
{
^ L _. .I '
[E POUND STEEL WEIGHT 20" l I l
FALL DRIVING ANVIL SL1DNG DRfvE HAMidER i
a A w
- r-A "a
D o
i f
!.Y r a
O e - O J
If "o
C CONE POINT "88 POWUt COMPANY ADNE W.VOCTu MUCLEAR Pt.Aatf SHETtM SMOWmG CTMANC CM PDETMCtETER SCALE: Immm bev.,
.o = == f A.l l t -. - _ - . - - - _ . - . . .
e r-
^*
S I O" p a
s' r.Ax i' N RCD PW js 5 t L_2
- a'-v N ROC 52 b
W s .
till
,r - -
l
- -aa g M 'dge-ALLEN HEAD RETAINHi BOLTS o v ct 18 ig
!! li f l y3' D1A. SERF TIAE i i so uns 1
- r-tT I I I I I
l I g
- l ! .
m g m inner,ran m 3Eurr TUM SesP!.St ammemus a prv.!
m JOS % SES A*I
N9 400 '
TURBNE BUILDNG E 00100'
)
N
"'liff7,gf,,E97+50 g [15?M e/tVnto ,
l ig'io .Atv I"I l
NB2+50 \ "
/ "[ "
- 'R n g
f
..ge" - -'
1 4
gga , t r---
153.0
_ .E d cIEE ern*(* g 3 f
(f7) FggECT -
i n isen i g D -
~
ILTM1MM""
N80+00 )T ,
( ,
ai i j 1 1 <. _.
g___ ,
i h jf r["
[ [ ,. hJ p f 1 I i / 4 !
%s().
, \ Ja.nuo ,
A
\s .
u=l 'SK,'"",, hM,7 d.op ;
wetur enon war name nwis im s s o i
gg
\ \
AUX.LIARY BulWING :
j
\
l
[
ALV D t J LEAR T PLAN OF POWER etDCM SSMMING ti' CATIONS OF ERODED AREAS -
scats. I" 80* DaA**Me No.
Joe No. este FIGURE I
- g. 4 - -
it 31 !!
s ei 4 g !! , :
B e - / :i d!
/
4 ge g
e gg /.; .
I! I g! ;
85 //
$mslk 4 'i .gt hi i l set oo.
id-I
=r ///
s i a
/
/
8
//
o *
/ /
$/' '
f o 4
/
/ 0
/
- o l
/l/ u p/ o y jo,/
//
4 l
/:
l/ e
//
w 0
/
sp
= -2 ar ah.
ea 4 1 e A 4 ;,
1333 NI Hid30
e A
~
60 -
i I z" 50 - ,
! hio ,
W u) 40 -
' E y
! $j b r z Wn
- @= h 30 -
gm O WLUES AT DEPTH 1.0, lgf , a VALUES AT DEPTH 1.5'
- am .
o WLUES AT DEPTH 2.O'
'y 20 - 0 VALUES AT DEPTH 3.O'
,8 9 VALUES AT DEPTH 3.5'
'o A VALUES AT DEPTH 4.O'
,5 ial 10 -
- 3 .
o I
4 4
i i i i i i i i g i 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 at,N U !.Wai Mt?AR '^ E,Nr 3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE.N p BLOWS / FOOT ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,
AND DYNAMIC CONE PFNEIROMETER
- TEST Call 8MATION CURVE '
gent y, onAwaree peo. may JOS 900. 9900 FIGURE 3
t i
NORTH l i
L l
f TURBINE BUILDING I
/ MUDMAT :
EL. 8 GUNITE PdOTECTION ,, _ , y; , ,, ,
ft/- ' 6" MUDSL AB ol ;
l.O CATEGORY l BACKFILL i..
EL.158 d M q (Il i t#4 L /// E IU 9
d NOT TO SCALE G509 la apoMPANy ALVIN W. L NUCLEAR PLANT 1YPICAL PEWORMED SECTIO 4 OF TURelHE DUILDING SOUTH SLOPE 6
mi, one No. 3 Joe No. Dele fIGUHE 4 0
P NORTH ,
r b
ELECTRICAL 154.8 i TUNNEL UNITS
[ 15 4.0 15 3 .2 t
g ,/
I i
iaz (55 5
"" M / / / / A / / / / h/ i N ea tie ! DISTUR8ED \ NOR + 32 E 9e t as ZONE REMOVED E os + ss .
t 5
i NOT TO SCALE d , t ALV E NNLEAR bT TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING EXTENT OF DisTURGEO IONE DEIA0VED IN CONTROL SLDS. SHAFT AhEA i
- , scALs. DRAwiMe No. nav.
l Joe No. esse FIGURE a t
's
M N
l 1
J .
l e l-A i
. 2-A EAST WALL OF UNIT I ELECTRICAL TUNNEL e 7-A m
S 3-8 '
e 3-A e 3-C S 6-A l
e &A e DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS RUN ON 2/12/80 e 5-8 9 ADOmONAL DYNAMIC CONE e 5-A PENETROMETER TESTS RUN e 5-C ON 5/12/80 AND 5/13/80 sessana paw n couruer PLAN SHOWING LOCATIONS OF DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER rtse m cas. Tu mes. cAsr wAu.
ocp Tu t Loca m TESTS ADJACENT TO ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL. m os n,= = m v.
me eso, sne <i FMiLJPE $ l
90 - .
80 - NOTE: SEE DISCUSSION IN SECTION R-C- 2 FOR EVALUATION OF THE TEST DATA.
70 -
y .
g m- ,
m U5 e*
w
- mw e.
55 bg so - RAME OF PENETROMETER $
se RESISTANCE ,
O$ 6 WE MEAN PEMETROMETER
$E #-' I
- 5 RESISTANCE VALUES
- a. m e e WB aa .
OM 2e e o 30 -.
2 20 - ,
1 1
2 ro.- .
l l ,
O i ,
~ - power e l 2 3 4 r m v.vastu sucw utpunt
- DYNAMIC CONE DEPTH (FEET) c.remcAL Ttasa EArt at l PENETROMETER RESISTANCE " """
! VERSUS DEPTH ALONG "* k
=
ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL + a m m. == muume 7
'l l
I SLOPE VARIES FROM O.74H:lV TO 2.25H:ly (SEE REFERENCE 1)
ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNIT EROSION -
- 1 PROTECTION g / 153.5 '
/ 17 TENDON GALLERY 5
/' '
UNIT # I 6 ; .O .
MUDSLAB 146 0 f, ! *%/sl Q / ! L OC
// %.ttt : ' l: _ ,, y DISTURBED k 6" MUDSLAB ZONE NOT TO SCALE o
TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING EXTENT OF DISTURBED gg$"'gQ,%"dYa's"Eur ZONE REMOVED IN AREA BETWEEN UNIT I ELECTRICAL yyec ,o ,cc3,o , or ,,,oyco TUNNEL AND CONTA!NMENT. astunato zone stiwern unir a s '
., CONTAINW NT S UNIT # 1 ELEC. TUNfdl D8tAWlHe No. R tv.
- SCALEe 1 *
- Joe NO. Dele FIGURE e
-3
O O
6 I (ce I PA ll O :
i 1
05 12 0 0 4
/
[
h N- - -
i I 13 , Ol
.- -- o m.
3 b L.\ Rg\ '
/. B 2 .
- liE z
g 2
14 o O k 15 0 2 q O
( -< l 16 fj. ; 17 O O O 1
I N) % V o
! DO
! O DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER
$f gE TEST LOCATIONS -
Hz agnosa povos coerpany
(
g -4 mwn w.vinnu muctzAn rwrr x, rur exarx-ALcess (AstT I TDGCN GALLERY -
m answim m h tv aga FIGURE 9 s =
o .
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER RESISTANCE l
BLOWS PER l.75 INCHES
~
f
~
i i 't Y ? 9 Y l
i I l
l y .
- .. .x .
... N .~..
p(
~_ .. .
- , a , ,..
3 lt g
l l
1 p
lli. ~
! g!!9l,l l
. , a s i
l i5 .
f CONTAINMENT M SEE TENDON GALLERY
( DETAll SEE M TENDON GALLERY ,
DETAL( __ _
EL. 142'- 6"
+
[
w .' 0"
. . EL.143 -
1 mg26" T.G. MUDMAT
. T. EL.14 3'- 0" EL. 143'- 6" DSTORBED ZONE REMOVED TEM REMOVED GALLERY MUDMAT 3'- 0" l 2'-0" 6" MUDSLAB '/// EL.143'- 0" IL.i42'-O X\\\\\\\\\\\ .
DETAL I DISTURBED ZOPE O REMOVED NOT TO SCALE seontia towen couraNy ALVIN W.V001LE NUCLEAn PLANT TYPICAL CROSS SECTION IN UNIT l CONTAINMENT AREA Sil0WlH9 EK1ENT OF DISTURBED ZONE REMOVED
. CAL Ea DRAWING 900. REW
- n. H0. . rectvic si
NORTH I
- 1
)k y
r r
er1res Y
O O O 44 2 3 0 ,h 1
1 8 5 CONTA#edENT 9 H UPET 2 o ,,,
g <
u li g O
12 ha W
N 80 +00 13 O
\
l . .
l I
N Peutt Ccespory i O DYNAMIC CONE l
PENETROMETER ocP e teamcas Atene
" 2 NO" NN TEST LOCATIONS
- aname no. mv..
JOS Mo. saza F M 12
l 1
i i 14 -
NOTE: SEE DISCUSSION IN SECTlON III-C-4 120-5
=
5
== ico- V:
i lI W .
, /
,e.
kB' 80-- /
/ w.AN poem neTet
$5 : RessuNcE wuss "S
9a s/
= .o-- /'.
z s ' *
/ .
+ .
2*
2 RANGE OF PDETROhETER m s a i t r c:
- ~ t i I I I I 2 3 4 DEPTH (FEE'O am"E"va"m9zM "ruar
-c--
1 NESISTAMM N 2PTN FUt UNIT 2 TEICGE GAL:.ERY m neuemas na bev.
me luo. mu ,
F41URE l3 ,,
~
l l_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t t
i is i
TENDON GALLERY
- E DRY PAQK
_I '
l" MUDSLAB M 3\\E\\\ 3\%=1
~
"* . }- I'l ; in
,e7 ts.
g Qill t Ill* l
, CONCRETE CATEGORY I BACKFILL
' ALV E E E E YELa[n' b r exEtcw SHOWING PftOCEDURE USED ;
NOT TO SCALE TO REPAST UNITS TE20N GALLERY MUDStAB ocAtm DaAWING MO. may r
~
. Joe No.este FIGURE 14
/\
N TUNNEL MUD !
SLAB S LAB O.6' O . 4'
/ .
O .,2' [ O .,3' I, 1. 8' _ , _,
i' "3
- 0. B' ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNIT M 2 SUMP 9
d SEORetA POWER COMPANY .
ALVIN W.VOSTLE NUCLEAR PLANT !
PL AN SHOWNG EROSION IN JULY 1980 UNIT 2 ELECTalCAL TUNNEL MUDSLAB DRAmHQ NO.
scAtt. R]
Joe No. este FIGURE IS e
O
%
- O ..
/ $$ "
/ sa gb ~
-]g 3
y N) .
b p
a
- i N.
r e(([:
=
!a -z-
$ i _
b
} -
E
~ e=e'r .
- ~ , ,- , , , ,
a
[ { [ M $
- ,- ~
' g .
I $
" 5 C-)%u '
r L.2_b_J r
d hb 8 a 2 .
s~ n -
-: B w '
E n 5 -
2 g E {I
-;"q f n I 3
$ 5 5 .$
gs 53
= p Tr
t
, d $g$ -3oWg .
- + +
.2 1 2 0
1 9
J 0 0 A 8 A ~
0 N. .
,I _ .
w
~~ ' . _
~ - _
^ _ ~
F - .
E l . . _ :
B. _
I
- m
_ ~
~ m1 -
,~
v M ~ . _ .
A -
.R . 1 I .. ~ : 1 : -
.~.:s _
a
,~
. t -
~
_ : l ~
D . _ - ~
A : _
Y - -
S
. [~. _
A _ . - _
P - . , 1 7 I 0; -
R. '
I -
m: :-
_ . . . : - ~
_ ~ . m :
u.I.t t :
M A
_. 7 ; ~ - :
Y . - .-
l
. - e m
~
. _3 . :
- _ ~
.om _
- o
- E X
- P
<.y J
o e
s o
n J >
. .- N I
U -
n t
.s FS OE L A
N.
I
- ~
C P P N I
A W L ,r. WL AT N N o.
o RTT V TI N
I s - - c -
I S Nr SN E I
O a CL OE i
. . r
.. NNrCr 3 3 O Or NC .oN OEO V2 2F AN O I T g j .O 34 F
D a
a N
MV N ,
Nr S E 3 Er 3 N E R E E ..
GI w - .
U in NR L Y R
E e T S U U C 2 3 Cr 2
- i. 4 C A M N US T1 T B Y
L O P N
9,c I
1 I
T 11 A 1 9 J P P N O 4- R U ,
oG oG L M 0 L I
l l
_ 1 1 E 0 N A
N N ,I T T T S S .
t v.
[r l i ii: '; I , , l
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS l e WSP No. 308 I o WSP NO. 310
+ 2.0 .r INDICATES OVERLAP I rrn_
e
~
~ ~
LINE CONNECTING
~
~" ' ~ ~ ~
WSP NO. 308 POINTS :
. . . . .. __ . . . _ . . . ... . . . .. . . . . n3rErLELIII3rIIE11 . :
- - ~ ~ - - ~ - - - '-~ ~ '
, , ,q E. :~ . . : : :._ . _ . _ _ . _ _ .._ . :: . . _ . 1 _
_____ _ LINE CONNECTING _ . :
WSP NO. 310 PolNTS
- - - ~ ~
}
~ ~
w . .
Nperwoou .. .. .. . .u g 1:u :__^fI
- - --;- _ s y- - -
.eg: ,
e .,
, _ z.3 . _ ::. . :: sa --rs st.
121- :
' ~
.~i : :
I.. ~. ..'
fa
_ .. _ . . _ . . . . 1
. _ __ .. . '__~ ..
1 .
i - . _ . . .._ .. _ _ _._ . . . . _ _
W . . . . . . . . . _. . .
E
-i
~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~T I~' 2 d - 1.Q : I C [._:
_ [_ _ . . . . .._: [__' . : _ __
- ; E
~ ~ ~
. . 1._ T . . ._.. . ._ .. . _ _ . _ . . . 1 _ _ _ . _ .. _. _ . _ . _ ..
i . .
- - - ~ - - - - -
~
- 2.0
- - ---- -- - -- - -- - - - ~
1 I l l JAN. I, FEB.I MAR.I APfl.1 MAY I JUN.I JUL.1, 4 1980 DAYS 1980 ALyW U L As AN1r SEITLEMENT VERSUS TiWE FOR TURBINE DulLDING UNITS I & 2 DatAWING 900. MEV SCMEs m ,,o, n a FIGURE 16 2
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOL i
- WSP NO. 420-2 j t
o WSP NO. 423-2 S INDICATES OVERLAP
+ 2.0 -
LINE CONNECTING
- 1 . . : .
- - - - ---' - -- ~ ~ ~ --
WSP NO. 420-2 POINTS
. _.. . :~ . :._ : _ .. .. _...
- T
. . _ . . : _ . .u.u.u.u.imIJ.I !'
LINE CONNECTING
_ __ _ _ _ ..1 :
_':: :: :__ _ . __ . 1-'
~
~~1 __. __.._
1.
~
~:::: :: WSP No. 423-2 PolNTS
+ 1._O G ::: .._ _. . .
- _ . .- ._ : :: - ~
- - ~ ~ ~ ~
1: : . :1. __ . . .
- ~ ~
$ n : .: : ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - -
1:_
- ' - ~ ~
- 1._..
~ -
y 0 - -- ---'- -
- u: ---
A:- ' -
n r . o :-
-n_: 4..l-m r gag sr w - --- n .._r.
.:. ._..w.
- g - ..- ._
r
. - . __._ . . _ . . . . . . . . . L - . _ .. . ? . ,.
w
~~ '-~
- - ~~~ ~
- ~~
-~- -~~ -
- 1. .
_.s .._-_.. _ _ _ .._ . . __ _ _ _ _ .. . . _._ ...__ . . . ____ . ___ _ __ ____._.. ..._ . . _ __ _. _ .._ .. .
- 1.0 _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ . . . .
. . ._..._ . ._ _ .__ .. . _ . ~_ . . . _ _ . _ .. . . .
- _ ..l_
~~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ '
1__
~
_:L_: :__. . . __ _i_.___ .._ . i~. .. _. 1 _.. .
l
_ _ _ 7. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.q .
I I I I JAN.1, FEB. I MAR.I APR.I MAYl JUN.I JUL.1, a 1980 DAYS 1980 ,
ALV eN dLEAR T SETTLEl4ENT VERSUS TlWE FOR ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNIT 2
~
acAtte onAwsNe No. Rev.
. r Joe No.sete FIGURE 16-3 f
-3
' s i
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOL
- WSP No. 420-1 o WSP No. 423-1 e INDICATES OVERLAP
+ 2.0 LINE CONNECTING
~
WSP No. 420-1 POINTS
~ ~
III ITT.IIIIIITEITI ITIII:
_.______ LINE CONNECTING
- WSP No. 423-1
~ ~ "
+ I Q_ .
q .,
' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ '
h,.
~~ ~ ~ ~
- 1i.1
- ~ ~
1:?.
~
~ ~
. . . . . . _ . _ _ _ .. _ . _ . . 1 . _ _ 1 . . _ . .
g u=r-- 3; O --: - --
. . . m - .
=- - - . - - n. m - -
y a g .. _..
- 4. .
g . _ . _ . . _ _
~
~ - ^
d - --- --
un - l.0 - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ '
'.! ~: : ~._J
~ ~~
~'~
. _ _.. . _ .._ __ .._ __ _ _. _ _ . .._ . . _ _~
'~
~ 2.0
- ^ ~
1 l I ,,
I I JAN.1, FEB.I MAR.I . APR.I MIY I JUN.I JUL.1, 4 1980 DAYS 1980 suoselA POWER COMPANT ALyn W.V0ent NuctsAn PLANT SETTLEMENT VER6US TIME FOR ELECTRICAL TUNNEL UNiil scat s, OstAwiNe No. mtw Joe No.eene FlGURE 16-4 A
, , i f
l g $g $O7g 3 '
d
. +
- 2 g O \.
1 9 J 0 Q O 8 A . _ _
0 N. _
_ _ I _ - ~_ _
,I : _ _ _ _- . .
_ . ~
.- . 1 .- _ _ {
F - . - _ . - : _ - _
E I _ -
.B - _
I - . . _
_ _ _- _ }
~ .
~ _ : -
_ _ . ~ . - _ . - . .
- _ _ ~ - __ _ -
_ . . . - ~ _
M .
A -
.R _ _
I .
b
_ c .
- _ _ ~ - _ _ . - ~
D A
_:_b _ _
A P I _ ~__ .~ . . _ _
Y .R 1
- . _ ~ . - : . _ . .
S I _. - -
~
. T
_ .~ ~ _
- - n
~ . . - : .- . _
- 1
~.
.- ? .-
. _ _ ~
M . _ .
A . _.
Y
' I - :
~
_ ly l,
. 1
~ :
1 i . - 0
- E i
~
. . _ _. - - X
- . . - P s
o D C F J L
s N
A L
E O
RE A U I - .
WLI SN SN WL SW SWN A I
o e
s s
ET LT E L y gLE l
N.
I
_ T PE PE P P A T
I t
EL e
CE h _
. " ~
NC N0 N N O _
TM RE I
,R
~
.ONO .N O0 .O O N .
CN AT 0SA 0 ~ :
4 E N 4NE 4 4 OF TP :
L Fl W V L9 5W 2C 2 3 C 2 2 -
U I . . . I I - -
R N NS UR I N IN Y
_BG A G 1
G NU CC _ _. . l E N O
~ ~
P B A MB _
A M
. ~ ~ _
P G- U M I RPA 1
J _ ' _
O IO O 4
N E PN I 9 3
U I I
NI N L T LY A .L S 8 0 T T l N ,I S S T
]
j, f f 'l; i ' l *,
r i
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS
- WSP No. 427 o WCP NO. 425 A WSP NO. 426 <
+ 2.0 _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ __. _ _ ..
._____ e _
INDICATES OVERLAP :
l A
~
_._ _ . . . _ . E. .. . ..
INDICATES OVERLAP
. . . . . - ~
LINE CONNECTING WSP
~ - -
- _ : . . _ : ._ :_ __ _ . : NOS. 425, 426, 427 ;
_ + 1A
- n : -- - - - ---
- --- -~
POI.N_TS. _ _. . . . _ _ _ . _ _._
m _ .. _ _.. . . . .. . __ _ . . _ . .._. . _ __. . ___ . .._..._. . .._ . _
g . . . _ _ . . . _.. . .. . . . . . __ _ _ _. ... _.. . . _. . . _. . ._.. . . . . .
y __._ .._.__.. __._ __ _ .. _ ._
g ,
- r . . .. _ . .. . _ _ _
y 0 x-r- -
-: w k s - -
r - - - - - -- - -
g p p g ___.qg
~
pq g _ .. __._ .._..._
.a ;
u_..i .
g ___
c o .
=
-3 q :q $ _ . a_._::c: _
2 _.. _ . ... . .. . .._ .._ _._ . . __ . . _ . .. .. . _ -
' l
~ ~ ----'--
. 1- : :: ::1. .
- : n:: :::: n a . . _ . .._ . .. ._. . __. _.._ . .. . .. .._ . .. -_... . . . . . ..... .
m - 1.0 .._ _.. ___.__._ __..... _ _ . __ . .
- 2.0 -- - - -
m .
I I I I ,
JAN.1, FEB.! MAR.I APR.I MAY I JUN.I JUL. l, 1980 1980
, DAYS ALVI N E NuS Est E T ;
SETTL.EMENT VERSUS TIME F0ft CONTAINMENT UNIT E
. scat s. Da4Wme **0. R Ev. :
Joe No. este fl00RE IS- 8
e es =
T-E -
t ing
=r F b
e r;
U 0
( fi O
e s s
=
\\ \ l vy s kw
= L
~
"2
-\N m n
~5 N SSNN N
N *8
, .=
d os -
1 P, y
= '
'N a =2
~
s i-l 8 gg '"L l .
p,
- ~
. Fu r ga gE g- --
e V s s
_g aa f*= f- -
g7 -'
"*s- -
'V *G a
/ ~ ~
511 1 -
~
Ah
=
- jWI j / [ I
_gr . -
= ,#., .x
'p 1 l 2L 3
_5 (///M 4 l l1 1 l
J "2 m
/s//iti1 1 1 i
\
INS 4Y// l$dCL .
^
.= '
}\
i s s 5 5 .n 2
/
i ! ils 5:
9=
i l
8I E5
~
= .-
si i ! Si i$=
rF ! ! "
==
5 ! h ! !! k o -
g =2 .=
h
.= =
G
'l I
AS PERMAGE4T BACKFLL PROGRESS
- 9 STotE FILTER MATERIAL EXTEND 2 O PVC GROUT PIPES ON i COMPACTED TO 97% OF MAX. 20 FT. CENTERS AS REQUIRED. ,
/ DENSITY USING PROCEDURES
( ESTABLISHED.
///&
l'-0" W
- l'! .
D l'-0" MN. (NERLAP
.Z,T's ///3 MARL 4- ?: :,. FLTER FABRIC,MIRAFI 140 .
fi J
M l LAP MATERIAL MIN. 2 FEET 9 SPLICES ALONG I.j:- 1 TRENCH LENGTH.
El % 2 MARL ELEV, MRIES ,
CONCRETE l
0 SEORGIA POWin COMPANY ALVIN W.Vo#TLE Nuctaan PLANT TRENCH DRAN TYPICAL SEC180N l
l _ ,, .- .-
. . . m uRE is l ,
o
N A -
NORTH l
i l l i TURBINE BLDG.
I CATEGORY I ~" I' '
I BACKFILL -
N, I EL.185 l PuMr eTAlloN uN 1 s EL.157 r J,- CONTROL { CONTA#PdENT OY TEM l o i s lkmEf8'yIf,0 y
!h CTMT ;
r 's
'CTMT' gE"iioN Omg
~
(N2 [TAllON Nl L , r , -- - - -
~~
/ g-- LIMIT OF ,
. 3 GELL POINT EXCAVATION
- CONTAINMENT UNIT # 1 EXTENSION
\ NORTH WALL WELL PONT SygTEM (g AUXILIARY BLDG. l PROPOSED -
MSTALLED ,
TRENCH DRAN TRENCH DRAIN !
feoM I b l EL.150 S
I
) .
!liii i
i m
COOLING TOWERS j EL.160
(
N l
'l 14 0
'l 16 0
\ , ,
18 0
- 200
_n==.w
' LOCATION OF DEWAT E RING SYST E M S scat s, DAAwlNG MO, Ngy Joe no, sew FIGURE 19
-6
l ! ,i1l,
- y
~j E -
i i.
.L
~ l ._
S L 0 "- ._
T 9 0 _
h s' - ,
y s
s'
,s CR OE
~
NA - . g TC -
AT - s i
it o r O
l
(
Ny- u l
n u v ,m o u MR - m S
N',,I~N E N
n n
o u
n u
- ~ 9
.- ~
T n n o
o r s 2 r o
$- i ma u M_.s.n [
-[]g-}
1
, o g s
u n
r a
s _
t s s s_ -
}
e e- u I_,
6-
- , 17 n 6 _
s u
T r
a U
s DC ,
T R
x.
i lO l
3 7
B E I E
.L
.. LN ~
~
~ N
.L 1
L DT 5 E I
1 o S E
3 ._=-
- t. NR 3L 1 l
.I -
6 u05 1
4 = 0 GO 0 E D -
0 _ L
[_3,_
b r .5 vnQ1 = '
~
l L g r
" D I
~~~
N S
G .
' f -
s p _
l
- - ' ~ i
/q -
/ s-
\
1 5
S s' I g o s
N
- I S .
Gn L._
p _
5 S 3 I 1
.. 3
- s?2 - ,._
- )p 1 2
e *" _ e .
, I s :'s .
$g " _ _
- s
/ _.
N CR _
/ N OE _
r NA
- TC
/T
\ _
, fee l O _ _
i .-
- NR M 3,
- n. ;
nE- n n.
4 s
i N o
. s w;.,- _
. T e .
- e.
a; s;
- gI @. _
i s ;
o _
e.- . w m,i. E n u..
e t n
e a
s .n
_ I L _
. s a 1 s
,e m
5 0
g l ' ,) I,
I E 10,0 1 0 0 E95- 00 .
J l
E L .105.5 N O 3 + 91.70 N 0 5-+0010 i E 97 + 05.00 !
E 9 3 6 00.30 LT-F t.EGEND: g 3 7, g - WEL.130 --- - 3
. 3n ., ___ _ -
WEL.139 ,33 ,
wii . sm.s.. w ii , v ii va no ,%
l St - $t144 uIsHMi n. . l /t#f fifi,A8TieUK 6*f4(P ti - e ig,iy'l cout it n , t s na ni van s - - WEL.14 0- o). 7s oo 00 + si co o - no ni a ..r. im ia i = is a ,
ni waiineiev,,og.<we ia.rr-re WE L.14 i =
l IllRillNi lil'l! l il l'i i $,'Oj,f'f$
WE L.14 2 ,
N 82 + 23.60 \
t9 CTG 5~.5T u-c I j
. no 14 2.0
........y_ ,., .,
Nl 184 3 9 ,t "b3 (r)HI9l ~ ~~ ~ ~
' ' " ~
ST-7 00 S6dNo ,e' i
.y .
7 -
N oi. w m
' s
=--I=LI
-' b l' tou s 0100
_ r. ~ " --' 7 ti 0 i t-TA, -
yoo mj A F 111.7
- r
"/
/ #
/
(
i.g_o ' RE AC. TOR "
CONTAINMENT 2 -
, EL.147.o REACTOR CONTAINMENT I EINI$.i3-
']T Ds 7o ISio f ' __ _ -
m' - L.T -il /
- g-m'%' , s
, 13n s
't .O NRO
- 34.OO gmg3
'% C ONTROL s.
S'-*
@H3 5
-sf W N H2O N
g EL 15 0.0
$19 S T-Il S T-2 g "' '
k"'..
x 14 0.4 . . ~
. :_ . . vision r wait n ti
( ,'.... 'g,tT-80 " N-l g4gg / [g
- fff,U8 .
~1'15g k* - ~j y Y- 'l ^" '""* " ' " ' ",H
) o 00 - - :l- --
QTll-OT
.m- o Q C I'~I~ ' ~ * ~ ~
' ~~"'
Y' 139 6 ST i -
--- U-~ -
~ ~ ~ '
a/ ' 'r
~T 'Q hWl3 fin :-
sw c ye, m, r-
'I :--. . - - - -
STI?
O ,/ p, N, _._.
I N, ,
5 ,.
--T1 m
/ '-
- d. o E L .13 4.0 ,
, _ ]_- ~ }.} (i[
I
WEL137
' EL. 105.5 7 LT-2 n,,
ti 5
,, , WEL130 - e,f .
- 9,. . _
i t GI N(p
-g(( l39 \ ;l wit. SUDSimfACE WAIE R Ft EVAttoH SI - $10084I D E ftM Fil FOME IE n, Arrit0M. 8* DEIP II -LONG If RW l'tf lOME l(R, I ENGrit VARIE5 -
s' wai0 uAni. -WEL I40 -
0 - NO RE Adit 40 - (Wif Plf FOME1(Q
. til WAlf R ELIWAILON ON 2 5-l'J80 TWalE -
DUILDING WELI41 --
81 6
- WEll42 b... .
', y ,,u v ft '
~~
,1,. WEL I43 ,
,,,' ~ . . . _ \ s
. $3 s goo l . L/.
Si lX ',
y s' ~s q
~
L -H /) u .
y
" \ i I3coI..L t -
w al _) 'i ,-
j.
- j ii 1i ;- e g.s
-~
} -
i
'i S ,,,,
, , , G... . s . ._
i - .. J } '
REACTOR k . .l 'Tz i : 9 ~ Il CONTAllNMENT 2 k'// .),/.jE L. ~
1 Ic '
._4
.,g
' REACTOR s:L CONTAINME.N i~ l .
1 I .. Tj x n,,.h ._// 4 ,// 15 3 . 0 , -/,Sbu ...-. s .-
t - si g""
- \ .[/b'_
se <i. '
'O C ONTROL l ,
L.
(# 3# :- s L. iso
' L l'i3 0
\
4 h ylLDING _
my $
Mr~iw 't v ,
/
" 4 .... '
\ Il I"'
Nb-((_.f)__
"8 '",E Wm..
l~~._ b e..'$il,",,Ih if _,,.,o.
P " " .', f t ._
JI-?l; 6,
T),N'h,' "", -
Im _d, e.,4,-
3' % .
},J. '
- gt@ v
/ -
v ug/- -.j
=- e l wEtl35 ~
N f .j/s M-- -
' <;. ,j El
/
N Q.,- / g il . . - -. _ _ _ _ -_ z ,
j /
'g . -
',. L.<;"
s
%y '",If[___
EL. I 34.0 \ j ,},.,q.,.gj,,
s, ,7- -- .w ; ...
--~ '-'"' -
AUXILIARY DUILDING .
e
e t
.~
\:
'j l
U E:
$ h-f h -
' : f
,. go ., ;2 Om' *.
~~;
5
' ' O rr; Zy E E ~~jn N
^
dO y
- j
$h
$r ;n
$C
/,'
\ ' - - g,fxim
, ?e. ,
il ll b'
gg ', \ ' m iI '
lae ;g;;g;;
i
,l ; y , '\s, L 7
t .m y n!
S'c EF" -p
's ig i"N '
.g a
Egg
\ ,s: -- (/ .m- hp=
4,t Pir @' 8; i=
I_ \),' - " / v// /.. --
ER.
f *.
f ,
\ ~ - .J k .
I / /
s
- d. ~
iI: l j ',
v, C 1 CD y-- -
>< .[. m O % * <
O f=
~ m -e:@9 x% , r, , %, k- --~[-~!< a --
> -r =. .I r~ z *
- ;o ;iaj el
- 2 @
~0 '
c aH zz We ;l> m m
--.-(*: 4 -
~ --
- * - =
~< _'
W e_k
~
- .c 5 ca s
'O :.Qo OO r~
c'
- ~
- ! 7' Q L -_ .
C c
e g
a G .
.- ll ;ll' ~-~-~~o- _< . (?I
, J -
,).s : W -
==-
l \ .
Q I
!I t Ny I ',
J
\
g g s, p 2 a O # _
c ; ,s. ' o :
I ~,"
ISI ' _ ' . ' ' .% -3p
. . ss n,N'
' Iwp C' y a*
3 ,
t
)
L=,
s y, ,
t* 'm
.. m j
[ a s'
h s
.F A
F a
( <j s
?
r?
1
,! i -.,<
?- - P
.1 :.
6-=
\
\ .C:g @* ' c, e,
's- o'-
\ 'Ni% h ik.3! y! / ,
I
- =
/
\
.<' On
's iil, e>\ ll 2>
,y0,.
y<
t - - . .,
~O :
V. -
2N E '*
4 . ' ' ,
5 ,. g 4 ::::
- . lM 5-3 *= 2 h
i!* t l pl
, $$ l l
' ~ . bb N - /.
y,j l $lkY .c s.., ~
t-
- il ! i:pf[
e 2 'e
.I l-. *'3 3 "
I. ~i
. s
\
TABLE 1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, DYNAMIC CONE PENETRCMETER TEST,
. CALIBRATION DATA a) Surmnary of Dynamic Cone Penetrcmeter Test Data Depth Test Designation CP-1 CP-2 CP-3 CP-4 CP-5 CP-6 CP-9 CP-10 (ft.) CP-7lCP-8 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) Su= mary of Standard Penetration Test Data Depth Test Designation SPT-1 SPT-2 SPT-3 SPT-6 (ft.) SPT-4lSPT-5 6 5 5 7 6 7 0.5-1 (set) 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, 31ows/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 w m-ve+v
.r - ---,:,rw. w ~ ,, m- - - , , - ,- -y-m -, . - - . - - - e . - - - - - - ,,---o,,--e----y--
I.EGEN D :
Yw = wet Density -
W = Moisture Content I
! TA111E 2 Yd = Dry Densit.y .
Yd (max) = Maximum Proctor l
Dry Density j
SUMMARY
OF SAND CONE DENSITY TEST DATA OMC = Optimum Moisture Content l
Pield Test Laboratory Test Test Elev. Coordinates 7w W Yd Yq (max) UME Percent No. (PL.) N E (pcf) (%) (pcf) (pcf) (%) Compaction itemarDu i
UNIT 1 COtlTAINMENT 1644 141.8 79179 98+74 120.7 11.2 108.5 108.9 12.2 99.6 Test Nos'. 1644 through 1
1645 141.6 79t71 98160 120.3 8.8 110.6 107.0 13.0 103.4 1658, 1722 through 1731, 1646 141.4 79t69 98042 122.6 10.1 111.4 105.2 13.0 105.9 1734 through 1739, 1744 l 1647 141.6 79660 98t26 121.1 9.3 110.8 106.7 12.5 103.8 and 1774 were performed
! 1648 142.1 79655 98112 125.2 10'.1 113.7 108.3 11.2 105.0 adjacent to the Unit 1 1649 142.5 79666 97t96 123.1 11.8 110.1 105.7 12.8 104.2 Tendon Gallery foundation
] 1650 142.9 79180 97+90 127.3 10.7 114.9 109.2 12.3 105.2 below the mudslab. Test
. 1651 142.1 79696 97181 126.5 13.6 111.9 105.6 13.1 106.0 Nos. 1659, 1682 and 1684 1652 142.5 80tl3 97t82 124.1 16.5 106.5 109.9 11.8 96.9 were performed north of i
- 1651 142.4 80t30 97t90 127.1 15.1 110.4 107.5 14.5 102.7 Iteactor Cavity to 2
1654 142.8 80t38 911605 125.2 15.2 108.9 105.3 11.2 103.4 determine extent of 1655 142.4 80tSO 98118 123.7 15.0 107.6 105.7 13.9 101.8 disturbed zone. Test 1656 142.6 80150 98tS3 126.6 13.5 111.5 107.0 12.8 104.2 Nos. 1680 and 1683 were 1657 142.7 80tS3 9114-35 124.7 16.0 107.5 105.0 13.5 102.4 performed south of the j 1658 142.0 80t41 98167 126.5 16.2 108.9 108.0 12.8 100.8 Heactor Cavity. Areas j 1659 141.8 80129 98+80 114.4 13.2 101.1 107.3 12.4 94.2 represented by Test Nos.
- 16110 137.1 79181 98+57 128.3 14.6 112.0 106.2 13.8 105.5 1659 and 1683 were I 1682 138.11 80621 98658 116.7 10.8 105.3 106.3 11.5 99.1 excavated down to lean
l 1683 137.5 79681 98+79 121.0 17 . .' 103.3 108.2 12.0 95.5 concrete fill and then j 16114 139.4 80t23 98137 124.1 11.3 111.5 106.5 13.0 104.7 backfilled.
1722 141.9 79169 97t88 126.2 12.8 111.9 105.6 13.4 106.0 4
1723 141.6 80105 97t79 123.8 17.6 105.3 103.3 13.5 101.9 1724 142.2 79686 97t81 120.9 14.4 105.7 106.2 14.1 99.5
! 1725 142.0 79t48 98117 125.7 10.3 114.0 107.8 13.3 105.8 I 1726 142.1 79156 98t01 124.9 11.0 112.5 108.6 14.9 103.6 1727 142.1 791-44 98t35 122.1 10.1 110.9 105.9 11.9 104.7
] 1728 142.0 79148 98153 122.1 9.0 112.0 104.9 14.1 106.8 1729 141.8 80654 98t44 123.9 10.4 112.2 106.0 13.0 105.8 1730 142.0 80623 97t04 125.5 14.7 109.4 107.0 14.1 102.2
... continued...
i d
TABLE 2, continued page 2 ~
Sununary of Sand Cone Density Test Data j -
Pleld Test I.aboratory Test Test Elev. Coordinates - Yw W Yd Yd (max) oMc percent tio. (PL.) 11 E (pcf) (%) (pcf) (pcf) (t) Compaction itemarks 1731 141.9 79670 98682 123.6 10.9 111.5 106.8 13.8 104.4 1734 141.7 80638 97t94 122.9 17.0 105.0 103.1 14.5 101.8 1735 142.0 80050 98608 126.7 11.8 113.3 108.8 10.8 104.1 i 1736 141.9 80 55 98t26 124.1 10.0 112.8 106.4 14.2 106.0 ,
i 1737 141.8 80649 98t62 126.2 14.2 110.5 106.5 12.4 103.8 1738 141.9 80t38 98 t77 126.7 13.7 111.4 106.5 13.0 104.6 I 1739 141.7 80122 98tB7 125.8 12.6 111.7 106.2 14.3 105.2 1744 142.3 79699 97t79 120.0 17,1 102.5 103.8 12.5 'H.7 1774 141.2 79454 98t68 120.3 9.0 109.6 104.9 14.0 104.5 l' UtiIT 2 COllTAIllMEllT 2095 141.4 80647 94469 125.5 17.2 107.1 103.9 15.0 103.1 Test Nos. 2095 through 2096 142.1 80t51 94t77 127.7 16.6 110.0 104.5 12.0 105.3 2098, 2101 through 2110, 2097 142.1 80055 94685 125.9 18.3 106.4 102.5 10.5 103.8 and 2112 were performed 20911 142.5 80t05 95151 120.2 11.4 107.9 104.4 13.5 103.3 adjacent to the Unit 2 2101 142.1 80155 94t95 126.L ZA 108.6 103.5 11.5 104.9 Tendon Gallery foundation 2102 142.2 80tS6 95t04 127.3 14.5 2't.2 107,5 12.0 107.4 below the mudslab. Test 2105 142.3 80152 95613 124.3 13.7 109.' 104.3 9.0 104.8 2074 was performed north 2106 142.4 80449 95t21 122.8 14.5 107.2 104.5 12.3 102.6 of the Iteactor Cavit.y to 2107 142.3 806-45 95629 122.1 13.2 107.9 05.2 12.3 102.6 verify existing fill 2108 142.3 80t38 95136 124.3 13.2 109.8 J t: i . 3 12.2 103.3 compaction.
2109 141.8 Hot 31 95t42 124.1 12.5 110.3 108.0 10.1 102.1 2110 141.11 80623 95646 127.9 12.9 113.3 110.1 9.5 102.9 l 2112 142.3 1101-14 95tSO 128.5 14.3 112.4 108.3 10.3 103.6 2074 137.9 80 02 95130 135.3 11.5 121.3 106.9 12.2 113.S
- tJOltTil OF COf1TitOL IAUILDING SilAPTS UNITS 1 At1D 2 i 1542 151.7 82t27 96t38 129.0 16.2 111.0 107.8 13.5 103.0 Area represented by Test 1543 151.5 82t25 96tS9 125.0 17.9 106.0 104.7 14.5 101.2 tion . 1544, 1545 and 1546 1544 152.2 82107 96 t-2 4 124.4 13.7 109.4 112.2 10.5 97.5 was excavated down to I 1545 152.2 81188 96t24 127.0 17.6 100.0 112.2 10.5 96.3 competent material and
... continued...
I, .
TABLE 2, continued Page 3 Summary of Sand Cone Density Test Data Field Test Laboratory Test l Test Elev. Coordinates N[w W '(d Yd (max) onC rercent Compaction Hemarks (Pt.) N E (pcf) (%) (pcf) (pcf) (%)
i
~No.
l
' 1546 151.8 81+68 96+24 123.4 19.3 103.4 104.7 14.5 98.h 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 l 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 96t24 127.5 17.6 108.4 108.8 10.5 99.6 ,
j 1572 156.3 826-23 96+80 118.0 16.0 108.9 107.0 14.0 101.8
! 1560 152.9 81465 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 j WEST OP UNIT 2 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL i 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 80143 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+03 121.8 11.9 108.8 106.3 12.8 102.4
- 1669 154.6 81+60 96t22 121.2 15.3 105.1 104.7 13.6 100.4
! 1699 146.3 80+12 95t86 121.4 10.0 110.4 104.6 13.9 105.5 ,
i EAST OF UNIT 1 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL i
1997 152.1 80t22 97+26 117.8 8.1 109.0 107.5 14.4 101.4 Test Nos. 2018, 2019, 2020 1998 152.3 80tS2 97425 116.4 9.4 106.4 106.2 13.0 100.2 and 1986 were run adjacent 1999 152.4 80t82 97t25 117.7 8.7 108.3 106.9 13.0 101.3 to mudslab to determine if 2000 152.1 81+12 97125 124.3 15.7 107.4 98.1 13.0 109.5 a zone of low compaction g 3
2001 152.5 81+42 97+27 123.8 15.2 107.5 106.3 15.1 101.1 existe- at the dynamic
, 2018 149.8 80092 97+27 123.5 11.4 110.9 105.8 14.4 104.8 cone pe actromete- cest l 2019 149.6 80198 97+27 111.5 8.6 102.7 100.5 17.6 102.2 locations. All other l 2020 149.6 80t95 97+27 110.6 8.4 102.0 99.2 17.3 102.8 tests were performed
! 2021 152.3 80t35 97+27 119.5 8.4 110.2 106.2 12.7 103.8 adjacent to'the mudslab 1986 150.0 80tB3 97t26 103.7 9.9 94.4 98.3 17.0 96.0 and in the area between 1797 146.3 80+57 97+37 128.9 16.2 110.9 106.0 11.2 104.6 the east wall of the Unit 1824 146.6 80t77 97t36 123.2 13.0 109.0 107.7 13.5 101.2 1 Electrical Tunnel and 1836 148.4 80t80 97t76 126.8 14.2 111.0 106.6 13.1 104.1 West of Unit 1 Tendon 1822 146.6 80t89 97t36 122.9 11.3 110.4 104.6 14.4 105.5 Gallery, 104.3 j 1114 1 145.8 80i92 97tS3 127.8 14.6 111.5 106.9 11.5
'o ..
TABLE 3
SUMMARY
CF DYNAMIC CCNE PENETROMETER TEST DATA ADJACENT TO UNIT 1 ELECTRICAL TUNNEL EAST WALL Test Depth Blows to Seat 31cws to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 1-A 1.0 -- 36 Test performed en 2.0 -- 40 2/12/80. 31cws 3.0 -- 52 to seat not 4.0 -- 95 recorded.
2-A 1.0 -- 25 Test performe.d 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. Bicws 3.0 -- 19 to seat not 4.0 -- 10 recorded.
3-3 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 scu*3 of DCP 4.4 5 10 Hole No. 3-A.
4-A 1.0 -- 31 Test perfer=ed en 2.0 -- 32 2/13/80. 31cws 3.0 -- 46 to seat not 4.0 -- 58 recorded.
5-A 1.0 -- 14 Test performed on
! 2.0 -- 18 2/13/30. Slows 3.0 -- 17 to seat not 4.0 -- 24 recorded.
5-3 1.0 13 19 Test performed en 2.0 21 34 5/13/80. Located 3.0 21 48 approximately 3 4.0 14 37 feet nor-3 cf DCP i 4.6 12 37 Hole No. 5-A.
...centinued...
1 TABLE 3, continued 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. 5-A.
6-A 1.C --
32 Test perfor=ed 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 1ccations where low penetration resistance was recorded.
i f -
1 t
l l
l
, , . - , , . w---,.y - --w - - -. -.. - -. . - . - , , ,
= , . .
TABLE 4 St.MAEY OF DEUJ4IC CONE PENETRCMETER TEST DATA FOR UNIT 1 TENDON GALLERY Test Depth Blows to Seat Blews to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Ramarks 1 1.0 15 34 2.0 30 56 3.0 28 55 2 1.0 14 27 2.0 23 54 3.0 26 60 3 1.0 15 24 2.0 22 34 3.0 20 43 4 1.0 14 27 2.0 13 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 13 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 sa:aple attempted 10 1.5 22 54 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube l 45 sample attempted i 3.0 28 11 1.5 19 40 3 2.0 -- -- Shelby tube 2.5 14 41 sample attempted 3.0 19 40 i
...centinued...
N.3LE 4, continued Su:: mary of Dynamic Cone Penetrc=eter -
Test Data for Unit 1 Tenden Gallery I
1 Test Depth 31cws to Seat 31cws to Drive Designation (Feet) 2 Inches 1-3/4 Inches Remarks 12 1.0 3 23 2.0 -- -- Shelby tde 3.0 17 37 sample attempted 4.0 15 52 13 1.5 13 34 2.0 -- -- Shelby t'de 3.0 29 77 sa=c.le atte=pted 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 SLT4Ain OF DYNAMIC CONE PE:[ETROMETER 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 28 58 3.0 33 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...
=-..:
iuLE'5
. , continued Summary of Dynamic Cone Penetrcmeter Test Data for Unit 2 Tenden Gallery Test Depth .31cws to Seat 31cws 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 , 99 1.
ew-eee =e a-ea e l
I l
l
. - - -- - - - - - - _ . . . .. - _ _ e - - -