ML19343D388
| ML19343D388 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1981 |
| From: | Kirkland T, Scott Wilson HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105040396 | |
| Download: ML19343D388 (39) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _
e
[- "
4, Ll 2
1 N
e t.;
_ 3 F
Cogs 70MG a"
gp 5l 0]
APR 2 71981 > [2 6I offics et ce swam '
Dcchting & Smica g 7j k
Bir.ch 8j 9,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
<3
- 7
,o j NUCLEAR aEGuLATORr COMMISSION o
.1 !
.2 l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.3 '
.4
.5 :
In the Matter of:
5
.6 '
5
.7 !
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S
Docket Nos. 50-4980L
,g!
5 50-4990L
'9 l 5
Oi (South Texas Project, 5
Units 1 & 2) 5 3
.2,'
5 3'
TESTIMONY OF STANLEY D. WILSON AND THOMAS E. KIRKLAND 4i ON THE EVALUATION OF CATEGORY I STRUCTURAL BACKFILL AT STP 5'
.6 7
Q. 1 Please state your names.
.8
,9 A.
1 Stanlay D. Wilson (SW), and Thomas E. Kirkland 0i 1l (TK).
'2 l 3
Q. 2 Mr. Wilson and Mr. Kirkland, for whom do you work?
i A. 2 (SW):
I am a private consulting engineer in the al 6
geotechnical engineering field.
I was a founding partner of 8!
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. and was an officer in the firm from 9J 1l 1954 until March of 1978 when I retired from the company and O
went into private consulting.
2ll 3
.g l (TK):
I work for Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Consulting 5
Geotechnical Engineers.
=
f#& tot
?,-l
.D500, e ':7.onosi Ee
'o
% %:n b s o
,o 81050405 %
\\
e 1,
2 3'
4 5,
Q. 3 What is your position and what are your current 6
7 responsibilities?
8 A. 3 (SW):
I am a private consulting engineer based 9
.0 '
in Seattle, Washington.
The types of projects on which I 2..
2 consult include high earth / rock dams, foundations for heavy
.3 4
structures and earthworks such as structural backfill, n
3 dikes, and levies.
Since my retirement from Shannon &
,7
,g 1
Wilson, I have provided advice on major construction projects, 9'
primarily embankment dams, to engineering firms and agencies O
s in the U.S.
and abroad.
Since June of 1980, I have served
- 2 74 as Chairman of the Expert Committee set up to evaluate the
.V.
- S engineering adequacy of the Category I backfill at STP.
'5
'7 (TK):
I am a Senior Principal Engineer and Engineering
'S g
Group Leader in Shannon & Wilson's Seattle Office where I 10 gg supervise six technical employees.
Since June of 1980, I 12 i
,3 have conducted staff work for the Expert Committee and have i
14 i assisted them in the review of structural backfill at the 15 16 South Texas Project (STP).
I have made numerous visits to 17 '
18 the site, gathered and organized data, interviewed site 19 'i
~
l0 !
personnel, made evaluations and assisted in the writing of l
IL '
62,
the Committee Reports.
I also have been the liaison between I
'{3 4
the Expert Committee and the B&R/HL&P Task Force on backfill.
i 15 i l
16 '
17 i 13 i 19 50,
il i i
-g-
l!
2, 3i 4l 5
Q. 4 Please summarize your professional qualifications.
6'7i A. 4 (SW):
I attended Sacramento Junior College and 8i 9
the University of Minnesota as an undergraduate, and received 0
an M.S.
in Civil Engineering from the Graduate School of y
2 Engineering at Harvard University in 1948.
I taught Soil 3
4 Mechanics and Foundation Engineering at Harvard University B
6 from 1948 to 1953, and have lectured at the University of 7i g'
Illinois and the University of California (Berkley).
I o1 b,
currently hold the title of Affiliate Professor at the University of Washington.
.i 3'
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the States n
5 of Washington, Oregon, Californin Nevada, Minnesota and 6l 7i Massachusetts.
I am a member of the National Academy of 8
9:
Engineerinc Sifetime Member of the American Society of 0
1' Civil Engx., ers (from which I have received the Karl Terzaghi 2I 3-Award and other honors), a member of the Boston Society of 4l Civil Engineers, the Society of the Sigma XI, the Argentina a,,
6l Society of Engineering Geologists and an Honorary member of 7,
8l the Mexican Society of Soil Mechanics.
Currently, I am 91 0l Chairman of the Subcommittee on Site Investigation of the 1i 2:
International Congress on Large Dams.
I have published 3l 4
approximately fifty technical papers in professional engineer-5l ing journals,' books and magazines.
6 7l 8l 9j 0l 1i i
L 2
3!
4 5,
I have forty-five years of civil engineering experience, 6
7:
with emphasis on soil mechanics, foundation engineering, 8:
earth and rockfill dams, landslides, and instrumentation for 9
field observation of civil engineering structures.
In 1954, k2 '
I was co-founder of the geotechnical engineering firm of
- 3 L4 Shannon & Wilson, Inc. in Seattle Washington, and was active r:
'6 in that firm until my retirement in March 1978.
Since my
'7
.;g retirement I have been practicing as an independent consulting
'9
[0 engineer principally for embankment dams and hydroelectric nj}
projects.
At present, I am consulting on approximately 13 thirty dam projects in the United States, Mexico, Canada, 14 15 Venezuela, Argentina, Africa, Pakistan and the Philippine 16 17 Islands.
18 gg i (TK):
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil 10 '
31 Engineering from the University of Washington (Seattle) in f2 1955.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State 34 15 :
of Washington.
I have twenty-three years of civil engineering 16,
experience with emphasis on soil mechanics, foundation 17,
18 '
engineering, earth, dams and soil compaction.
l 19 f 10 i I have specialized in developing earthwork criteria and l'
l g2 specifications, and in performing or supervising earthwork i
13 l
g4 ;
inspection for all types of sites including nuclear power 5I plants.
In 1972 and 1973, I was quality assurance engineer 17 '
for excavation and soil compaction for the Reactor Building I
18 i 19 !
10 -
il l
_4_
l l
~
L 2,
i 3!
4 5;
at the Hanford No. 2 nuclear project.
In 1976-77, I performed 6;
7i a study of the adequacy of the in-place Category I structural 8
g backfill supporting all major structures at the Hanford No.
0 2 nuclear project.
I also developed the soil compaction 2i criteria for the PSAR and Category I earthwork specifications 3
4 for the Hanford No. 1 and No. 4 nuclear projects, and was a D
6 special consultant on these projects for backfill compaction 7i g'
and testing.
9!
0 Q. 5 Please describe the purpose of this testimony.
t '
}
A.
5 (SW, TK):
The purpose of this testimony is to 3'
summarize the results of the Expert Committee's independent 5
evaluation of the engineering adequacy of the Category I 6
i 7L structural backfill at STP.
The Committee's overall conclu-8.
9 !
sion is that the compacted structural backfill is more than 0i 1,
adequate for safe support of the Category I plant structures.
2; Throughout this testimony, the conclusions of the Expert 3
f Committee should also be considered the conclusions of Mr.
o 6'
Kirkland.
7!
8!
Q. 6 Have you,had occasion to evaluate the engineering 9;
Oj adequacy of the Category I structural backfill at the South l
1!
2, Texas Project?
If so, when were these evaluations performed 3i 4l and who assisted you in performing them?
f A.
6 (SW, TK):
In May 1980, B&R requested Shannon &
7!
Wilson to form an Expert Committee to assess the adequacy of 8!
9l 0:
il ;
l I.
L 2
3 41 5;
Category I backfill at STP.
Shannon & Wilson asked Mr. Wilson 6i
~
7I to chair this committee and he agreed.
Two other eminent 8i gj experts in this field were then selected to join the Committee:
}0'l Dr. A. J. Hendron, Professor of Civil Engineering at the 2
University of Illinois at Urbana, who has had extensive
.3
.4 experience with geotechnical problems related to the design
.2
.6 and construction of nuclear power plants; and Dr. H. Bolton
.7
,g; Seed, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of
'9 :
O California at Berkeley, who is an internationally recognized 9
j' authority on behavior of soils under cyclic loading and who 3,
has been involved with STP as a consultant to Woodward-Clyde
@e Consultants (WCC) since 1973.
Resumes of Dr. Hendron and 7,
Dr. Seed are attached hereto as Attachment Nos. 1 and 2.
The 8
9 Committee was assisted by Dr. A. H-S. Ang., Professor of 0t 1
Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana, 2'
3 who has over twenty years of experience in the application f
of statistical analyses to engineering problems, by Mr. Lee l
o l
Worth, Senior Principal Engineer for Shannon & Wilson, and l
S by Mr. Thomas Kirkl,and.
9 0l Mr. Wilson and Dr. Hendron visited the STP site in June 1
2; 1980 to observe the backfill areas, inspect the laboratory 3i 4l of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) and generally gain 5!'
familiarity with STP.
Dr. Seed was already knowledgeable 6
7l about general backfill conditions through years of work on 8l 90l the project.
After several meetings, the Committee issued t
1i 1
l
_e_
L 2
3 45' an Interim Report dated July 12, 1980, which was submitted 6'
7:
as part of HL&P's response to the NRC's Order to Show Cause.
8 gi This Report, based on the studies completed at that time, 3'
y concluded that the compacted structural backfill at STP is 2'
more than adequate for safe support of the category I struc-3 4
tures.
S 6
After submittal of the Interim Report, the Expert 7
g Committee continued studies which were in progress, and o
O parformed additional studies in response to NRC questions 1
j regarding possible settlement of foundations and the most 3
effectiv2 method for determining maximum density.
The 5
Committee then issued a Status Report dated October 24, 6
7 1980, in which it reviewed the latest analyses and confirmed 3
9 the previous conclusions about the adequacy of the backfill 0
1 at STP.
This Status Report also contained recommendations i
2 3
to assist the S&R/HL&P Task Force in completing the Backfill 4-a[
Verification Program begun in response to the NRC's Show 6'
Cause Order.
7' 8
Additional studies were performed after the October 24, 9'
Oi 1980 Status Report was written, and the Final Committee 1
2, Report was issued on January 30, 1981.
This comprehensive 3
4, report, which summarizes all of the prior evaluations and 5l conclusions, u,pdates and supersedes the two prior reports.
6 7'
8 9i 0!
1 i L
2 3'
4 5
Q. 6 Describe the purpose, nature, and scope of the 6
7 Final Committee Report.
3 9
A.
6 (SW, TK):
The principal purpose of the Final
- 0 3
Committee Report was to provide an independent review and i
.'2 assessment of the engineering adequacy and acceptability of 3
.4 the in-place structural backfill which underlies or provides J:
.6 lateral support for the Reactor Containment, Fuel Handling,
.7,
,g Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary and Diesel Generator Buildings o
}
of STP Units 1 and 2. To achieve this purpose, the Committee si
}
visited the STP site to observe backfill activities and 3
testing facilities, and independently reviewed test results 4
l0 obtained by the site testing agency and evaluations performed
- S,
'7 by the B&R/ HL&P Task Force on backfill.
The Committee also 3
- 9 reviewed numerous special studies performed by WCC, a con-0'
- l sulting firm specializing in geotechnical engineering that
- 2 3
has worked with B&R on STP backfill-related matters since
'4
~
1973.
In most instances, the Committee concluded it could
..o
,6 make sound independent evaluations based on the information
- 7 l 8'
developed by the Task Force and WCC, without performing 9'
Oi additional tests.
However, the Committee requested special 1'
2-independent tests in one instance when specialized tests 3
4 seemed appropriate.
These tests consisted of special maximum /
5' 6,
minimum density laboratory tests to be performed by Clarence 7+
8; Chan, research engineer and lecturer at the University of 9>
0 l;
i S*
w
L!I 1
3.i 5>
California, and by Richard Ladd of WCC.
In addition, the 51 7;
Committee requested that an independent review of the statis-3l tical analyses of the STP field density test results be 9
f performed by Dr. Ang.
2l Q. 7 Describe the specific subject areas you evaluated 3
4 in the Finel Committee Report.
E 6
A.
7 (SW, TK):
The Expert Committee selected all 7,
gl subject areas included in its Final Report, which areas were 9
deemed appropriate by the Committee members after reviewing g,
1 the issues raised in the NRC's Order to Show Cause.
The
}
3 areas have been categorized as follows:
9 (1) structural backfill properties; 6'
7i (2) compaction criteria for the backfill quality; 8
9 (3) specifications and construction procedures for the 0i s
backfill placement; 2i (4) procedures for inspection and testing of the 3
4 backfill; I
9
(
6i (5) compaction quality control test results obtained
~/ !
l 8:
during co,nstruction of the backfill; 9!
0l (6) special investigations performed on the in-place 9 ;
3 backfill; 31 (7) development of remedial measures to be used, if 4,
required, en in-place backfill found to be l
',7 I
inadequate;
(
8 19 !
io l il i
i
! l 1
l I
1 2,
3' 4
5 (8) inspection of on-site laboratory facilities, 6
7, equipment and methods; and S
9 (9) evaluation of the on-site test fill operations, O
testing and results.
.'2 Q. 8 Describe the Committee's review of WCC's testing 3
.4 methods and results regarding the properties of the STP S
,6 structural backfill, and explain your conclusions.
.7
,g,
A.
8 (SW, TK):
The Committee reviewed the results of
.9 -
- 0 laboratory tests, settlement characteristics and liquefaction 9
]
studies performed by WCC on the STP backfill materials.
The 3'
Committee approved of WCC's laboratory testing methods, and 4
S found that the soil samples used in the tests were represen-
. '7 tative of the STP backfill material because the samples have
.3
'9 '
a similar grain size distribution and the same mineral 0
- 1 composition, color, grain shape and geologic source as the 2'
backfill material.
Therefore, the Committee agreed with the 3,
f test results and confirmed WCC's conclusion that the high quality backfill material used at STP will provide safe 8
support for Category I structures under the postulated Safe 9:
0i Shutdown Earthquake (SSE).
9 5
Q. 9 Describe your review of the compaction criteria 36 4l for the STP backfill and explain your conclusions.
5!
A.
9 (SU, TK):
The Committee reviewed WCC reports 6
i fj including recommendations and criteria for backfill compaction 9
at STP.
0l 1i
-lo-
1 l
1 2,
3l 4
5>
These structural backfill recommendations were based upon an 6i 7
assessment of strength, compressibility and liquefaction 8l 9;
potential of available granular soils planned for use as 1l 0
backfill sources at STP.
The Committee concluded that the
~
2' rec mmendations and criteria stated in these reports provide 3,
4 an ample degree of conservatism with regard to performance
.9 6
of the compacted backfill because of the backfill's high
.i.
.5 factor of safety against liquefaction.
.9 :
0; Q. 10 Describe your review of the specifications and 1 !
j construction procedures for backfill placement at STP and explain your conclusions.
O A.
10 (SW, TK):
The Committee members reviewed the 6,
7 specifications and construction procedures for backfill a
9' compaction and visited the STP site to evaluate the actual 0
1 construction and quality control methods employed in the 2!
3; field. Specific evaluations performed at the site by the 4!
5' Committee or its staff included the following:
6 (1) review of the test fill program; 78I (2) evaluation of lift thicknesses; 9,
0j (3) determination of the number of compactor passes 1l 2i employed; 3!
4' (4) inspection of the backfill material sources; 5l 6:
and' 7!
8I 9i 0i 1l 1
~
1 2r 3[
4-5{
(5) assessment of compactor characteristics and l
6i 7!
operation.
8 g
Based on this review, the Committee has concluded that WCC's backfill recommendations were successfully translated into 2!
Project specifications and construction procedures.
- Indeed, 3'
4 the Committee noted that the actual specifications require 5
6 an even higher degree of compaction than that recommended in 7i gl the WCC reports.
In addition, the Committee has concluded 9l that the actual construction and quality control me'thods are 0,
vi adequate to achieve an acceptable, dense, homogeneous, 3
compacted structural backfill.
This was clearly demonstrated 4
5 by the high density values actually measured during place-6l 7I ment of structural backfill.
.8 ;
9 Q. 11 In some instances, were construction methods 0'
,g other than those described in Answer 10 used?
If so, explain 2 :l these methods and your conclusions as to the adequacy of the 3
backfill where these methods were used.
- 5,
- 6 I 17!
A.
11 (SW, TK):
In isolated areas, alternative methods 18 !
were used for densi,fying the structural backfill or otherwise 19 i l
,0 i providing adequate foundation support.
The methods employed l
il i
,2 ;
were vibroflotation, static rolling and grouting -- all
.3 i
,4l three of which have been described fully in other testimony on the Backfill verification Program.
The Expert Committee, I7 !
assisted by its staff engineers, reviewed the cases where i
18 l 19l 10 il 1 I
.i L,
Il Ij i
these alternative methods were employed and~ assessed their ii rt effectiveness.
Il Vibroflotation is a common industry field procedure 3;
f which employs mechanical vibration and simultaneous water-II jetting to densify a soil mass.
The action is similar to 3
4 1
that of a concrete vibrator.
This process was used to 5!
5 densify a small area in the vicinity of the Unit 2 Diesel 7i yl Generator Building which was found to have inadequate rela-
).
3; tive density.
The Committee found that use of the vibroflo-f tation method in this area accomplished the specified mini-f,,
mum degree of compaction.
5 Static Rolling, also a common industry procedure, 5,
7i refers to the use of the specified vibratory roller with the 3<9' vibrator shut off.
Mr. Kirkland's interviews with knowledge-0!
I able site personnel from the B&R QC and Construction Groups 2l.
and fr m PTL indicate that this method was used during fill 3
4l placement in initial lifts over natural subgrade, mudseals 5i 7!
or embedded piping and duct banks, and that vibratory rolling 6,
8l of succeeding lifts,took place until the statically rolled 9!
0l lift satisfied the density requirements.
In some cases, 1i 2;
static rolling was employed along with water saturation to 3
4j densify the final backfill surface more thoroughly.
5 To verify that the reported statically rolled lifts 6,
7' received adequate compaction, WCC conducted an evaluation of 8
9 O i 1 ' -
1 L
1 2,
3' 4
5 the incidents of static rolling.
Based on the Committee's S
7i review of WCC's conclusions and its staff review of relative 8g!'
density test results, the Committee concluded that the 0i statically rolled lifts attained adequate densities.
1 2l Grouting, as employed at STP, refers to the placement 3
4 of a cement-sand-water shrink mix into the small voids which 9
]
6 had developed under the edges of previously poured concrete 7,
g; slabs due to rainwater runoff.
The Committee considers this 9
0, surface treatment to be an acceptable practice which will 9 i not cause settlement or liquefaction problems.
3 Q. 12 Describe your review of the STP testing and 5
inspection procedures, and explain your conclusions.
6, 7i A.
12 (SW, TK):
The Expert Committee reviewed inspec-S, 9
tion and testing documentation and visited the site to O
g observe PTL's quality control activities.
The Committee 2
members and Mr. Kirkland observed PTL's field density test 3,
4 l
techniques and found the methods, procedures and workmanship 9-6j to be in accordance with project requirements and good i
.j l
13 industry practice.,
'9 i l
0i The Committee also evaluated the frequency of the
- 1
,2 maximum-minimum testing.
The Construction specification i3 i
,,g requires that at least one set of maximum-minimum densities be obtained for every fourth field density test, and the Committee's review of the test data indicated that while i8 !
i9l 10 !
il '
i
~
L L
3 1
i there were minor variations from the requirements of one for i
7, every fourth field test, on an average, one maximum-minimum 3
3; test was performed for every four density tests.
The Committee 31 g;
has concluded that this average frequency is more than I
adequate.
Indeed, the committee believes that one test in 3,
4 ten would have been adequate, because of the uniformity of 2
5 backfill soil used at STP.
7 i
Third, PTL's laboratory testing procedures were observed 3
3 by the Committee members and by Mr. Kirkland.
The methods T~
and procedures were judged to be in compliance with applicable f
specifications and Project requirements, and PTL tests were 3
found to have been conducted carefully by skilled personnel 3
7 in a well organized laboratory.
The workmanship was also S
9 found to be very good.
0 1
Fourth, the Committee is aware that a recent B&R audit 2
3 of PTL activities revealed that PTL was not calibrating the j'
sieves used for gradation tests of the backfill.
The Com-l 6-mittee concluded that calibration of the sieves is not l
3 l
necessary because the specification requirements for grain 9
0i size are of minor importance when evaluating the overall 1-2, quality of a well-graded granular material such as that used 3
4, at STP.
Therefore, any deviation in the gradation test i
l li results due to prolonged use of the sieves, or due to minor c
1
~
f!
manufacturing deficiencies in the sieves, is of no consequence.
0, 1 !
~
1:
2, 3!
4; 5:
Finally, the Committee members and Mr. Kirkland re-6i 7
viewed the three basic forms used by PTL to document field 8i 9;
control activities; i.e.,
the Daily Earthwork Inspection
'Ol' Report (EIR), the Soils Inspection Checklist and the Density
{
2l Test Report (DTR).
The Committee concluded that when these L4 checklists, EIR's and DTR's ara completed properly, they La L6 provide a good record of backfill activities.
L7 i
'gl The B&R/HL&P Task Force reviewed all of the EIR's to
'9 50 determine whether the reported activities in fact met appli-n{}i cable specifications and procedures.
Their review produced 13 a list of several minor inconsistencies identified with 14 ;
!5 certain EIR's.
Although the Committee members did not 16 17 personally review all of the thousands of EIR's generated by IS 19,
PTL, Mr. Kirkland reviewed representative EIR's and studied 10 '
31 the Task Force comments.
Mr. Kirkland also interviewed 12 !
$3 several knowledgeable employees from B&R and PTL concerning Ii i the EIR reports, and discussed the results of his review la.
17l with the Committee members.
16 18!
Based on the Committee's review of the Task Force 19 i
^
- ILl, 10 evaluation, the information obtained from Mr. Kirkland and
[2 l B&R documentation regarding EIR's, the Committee concluded 13 i gg l that the majority of the deficiencies noted are only minor 15 l inconsistencies.
For example, several of the deficiencies 16l 17l concern improper identification of test numbers, use of 18 !
19 j 10 il
L 2
3' 4
5 incorrect dates on documents and incorrect descriptions of 6
7 test locations.
These types of deficiencies have no technical 8
significance with respect to evaluation of the backfill ade-9 quacy at STP.
The Committee notes, however, that B&R has
- 2 written Corrective Action Requests (CAR's) and is developing
.3
.4 new procedures to prevent future documentation deficiencies
.S
.6 from occurring.
.7.g With respect to the improper use of material noted in o
one case, the Committee's review of construction data con-
{f n;-
firmed that general backfill soil rather than structural 13 backfill was placed in an isolated zone.
This zone, however, 1."
is located far enough away from Category I foundations so 16 17 that the supporting capability of the structural backfill IS gg has not been compromised.
30 31 Certain documentation records showed backfill place-32 ments with ut apparent density tests. There were several 33 34 '
small areas, for example, where the heavy vibratory roller 32 36 was used instead o'. hand compaction.
As a result, although 37 38 each lift was not tested, testing was done at a frequency of 39,
40 :
at least one test per 200 cubic yards.
In other instances, 41 42 backfill placements occurred in L-shaped patterns of less 43 44 than 20,000 sq. ft.
The testing of lifts in these areas alternated between one leg of the "L" to the other.
This 4e 47 sometimes gave the mistaken appearance that some placements 48 !
49 '
50 51 l
-Li-
1 4
2.
3 4
5 !
went untested.
Because the test locations were representative 6!
7 of the soil being compacted and the testing frequencies were 3
9; high, the Committee has found that these tests demonstrate proper backfill compaction.
Moreover, there are no backfill 2i areas suspected of having inadequate density.
.3
.4 The Committee found that the documented use of mixed
.ii
.6 backfill material sources is of no significance because the
.7,
5!
laboratory test results demontrate that all backfill deliv-oj' ered to the site came from the same geologic' source and had 9
j essentially identical engineering properties.
3 Two cases of subgrade pumping have been identified, one 3
west of the Unit 1 Reactor Containment Building and the 6
7L other in the Unit 2 Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building.
8 9,
The first condition was corrected by reworking and the 0
g second case was corrected by removal of the disturbed soil.
7 i
}:
It is the judgment of the Committee that both corrected io!
conditions are acceptable.
6!
To avoid such subgrade pumping, static rolling was used
/I 8'
for the initial lift of backfill placed over the subgrade.
9:
0l The Committee found that the use of static rolling in these 1i 2
situations is appropriate, and as previously discussed in 3,
4l the Answer to Q.ll, the Committee found that the statically l
rollad lifts received adequate compaction.
I!
In summary, the Committee found the PTL records adequate 81 9!
to confirm that the backfill operations were accomplished 0
1
- i.
1 2
3 4
5 systematically, in substantial accordance with specification 6
requirements and applicable procedures.
This conclusion is 7
i 3
9 supported by the committee's review of the data compi. led by 0y the B&R/HL&P Task Force.
The Committee is fully aware that 2,
3 minor deficiencies have been found in the PTL testing and 4
inspection documentation, but reiterates its conclusion that 9
6 these deficiencies are of no technical significance.
7, g'
Q. 13 Describe your review of the compaction quality 9
0 control test results obtained at STP and explain your 9
conclusions.
3 A.
13 (SW, TK): The Committee reviewec and analysed 5
the compaction quality control test results covering the 6
7' period from 1976 through July 31, 1980.
These data show 3,
9 uniformly high relative densities at all elevations with an 0
t overall mean value of 95 percent, well in excess of the 2'
~s.
specified minimum average of 84 percent. These results 4'
l 5
illustrate the adequacy of the compaction actually achieved.
l 6.-
Q. 14 Describe your review of the special investiga-7!
3 tions to assess adherence to design requirements and to 9
3i verify backfill compaction adequacy, and explain your con-1 l
2j clusions.
i 3
4l A.
14 (SW, TK):
These special investigations included 5i gj the measurement of compacted lift thicknesses in June and 7'
g; July 1980 and a two-phase boring program conducted in 1980.
3!
3 1 l i l
1 2,
3l 4,
5i The measurement of lift thicknesses was performed independently 6?
7; by Mr. Kirkland and by WCC geologists at the STP Site.
8 9{
Compacted thicknesses, which are about one to two inches less than uncompacted thicknesses, generally ranged from ten 2!
inches or less to sixteen inches, thereby demonstrating 3
4 compliance with the eighteen-inch specification requirement.
6 The Committee reviewed the results of WCC's special 7
gi investigations of the in-place backfill to verify backfill of compaction adequacy.
The first phase of.the boring program 1}
consisted of twenty-one borings drilled from January 28 to February 8, 1980.
Of the several hundred Standard Penetra-5 tion Tests (SPT's) conducted on this backfill, only six 5,
7; small isolated zones with relative densities less than 80 3
9!
percent were found in four areas of the plant.
All other 0
gl areas tested had relative densities equal to or greater than 2
80 percent based upon a well established correlation between 3
4 relative density and SPT.
5, 6 i 7'
The aecond phase of the boring program consisted of 8
twenty-eight additi,onal borings in the four problem areas 9!
Oj located near the Unit 2 structures.
The Committee reviewed 1
2 the ooring test results and found that the number of borings 3'
4l in the two-phase program was sufficient to provide a represen-5 tative sample <for evaluating total backfill adeqaacy.
7l Statistical analyses of relative density tests conducted by 8'
9i 0!
1-1 2,
3l 45l WCC and reviewec by Dr. Ang reinforced this conclusion by 6'
7, showing that the relative density distribution of the soil 8i 9;
penetrated by the borings was essentially the same as the LOf relative density distribution of the overall testing program.
61 >
L2 After performing an angineering analysis of the data L3 L4 concerning the four potential problem areas, the Committee LD,
L6 concluded that a high margin of safety exists against lique-L7.
Lg '
faction during the postulated Safe Shutdown Earthquake t o.
jf (SSE), both because these isolated areas are surrounded by ss
{}
backfill of high density, and because the relative. density 13 '
criteria are very conservative.
Furthermore, three of the 14 29 six zones located in the interior of the backfill mass are 15 17 i very small -- about six by ten or twenty feet and eighteen 28,
29 '
inches thick.
The other three zones are located next to 30 !
31 excavated slopes or subgrade, which areas may reduce the 32 33 relative density of adjacent backfill.
It is unlikely that 34 ;
similar zones would be found within any interior backfill 39 36 '
mass.
The Committee concluded that even if these or similar 37 !
38
- ones were encountered, they would not affect the overall 39 1 10 l quality, behavior and supporting capability of the densely 11 \\
$2 ;
compacted structural backfill.
13 g4 l Q. 15 Did the Committee find any need for remedial f
If!
action to improve in-place backfill?
17 1 i
18 I l
19 '
l 50 l
31 I l
I i I
.1 2
3 4
5 A.
15 (SW, TK):
No remedial action was recommended 6
i 7
i because the Committee concluded that the in-place structural 8
backfill is adequate.
9
.0 y
Q. 16 Describe your review of PTL's on-site laboratory 2
3,;
facilities and equipment and explain your conclusions.
4 A. 16 (SW, TK):
.S Committee members and Mr. Kirkland
.6
.7 personally inspected PTL's on-site laboratory facilities and g
equipment and found them to be satisfactory. The laboratory o
6:
is well-organized and well-equipped to accomplish the Project
.k '
requirements.
3 4
Q. 17 Describe your review and evaluation of the 5
procedures, field operations and test results of the June 6
7' 1980 test fill program and explain your conclusions.
3i 3
A.
17 (SW, TK):
The 0
Committee reviewed the June 1980 test fill procedures, observed field operations and field j
testing and evaluated the results.
Based on these reviews f
and observations, the Committee made the following con-2l clusions:
9 3
(1)
The proce,dures for con tructing the test fill were 9-0!
satisfactory; (2)
The 10-ton vibratory compactors used on this 5
yj II.
project can achieve the required density on eighteen-inch loose lifts; i,
L 2l 3I 8}
-s3 (3)
The density generally is uniform below the upper i
7 l
3 portion of the top and final lift without zones of 3
loose soil sandwiched between zones of dense soil.
3 i
t A high degree of compaction exists to a depth of 2 l at least three feet below the surface being rolled; 3
4 and 5
6 (4)
Application of the minimum number of eight passes 7
g l 9
l on any lift achieves almost 80 percent relative 0
i density.
i I
The construction procedures regarding j
t minimum passes are therefore appropriate to deter-3 mine the point at which field density testing 5
6i should begin.
7l Q. 18 Were there any special studies conducted by the 3!
9l Committee in addition to the work described above?
0 If so, 1
describe these studies and explain your conclusions.
2!
3, A.
18 (SW, TK):
4I As the Committee evaluated the nine gj subject areas previously described, the need for related
!6!.
special studies became apparent in order to answer as fully 8l 1 7 as possible all questions posed by the Committee itself and l 9:
!O j by the NRC.
Therefore, (1 !
the Committee conducted the following (2 ;
special studies:
'3!
4 !'
(1)
Supplemental testing of soils for maximum-minimum t5 I6 densities;
- 7 ',
- s i i
0, h;:
i' -_
L 2
3 l
4 I
5 g
(2)
Review of settlement measurements; 6
7 (3)
Analysis of liquefaction resistance of structural 8
9 backfill underlying mat foundations;
'0 3
(4)
Evaluation of the wet method for determining 2!
.3 '
maximum density;
.4 (5)
Statistical analysis of relative density test
.S
.6 ;
.7 i results; and
,g (6)
Locations and sequence of Category I backfill 9
0 Placements and density test distributions.
i 3
}
- First, the Committee requested that the maximum-minimum 3
density values being obtained by PTL at the site be check d 15 e
by Clarence K. Chan of the University of California and by 16 '
!7 i Richard Ladd of WCC.
Both men are noted experts in the 13 '
- 9 field of soil testing.
These supplemental tests confirmed 10 that the relative density values being obtained at the
- 1 12 site
- 3 are conservative; that is, the actual relative densities are 4
slightly higher than those recorded by PTL.
16 '
17 :.
Sc ond, the Committee reviewed pertinent settlement
' 18 '
measurements of backfill adjacent to and beneath the structures Ll9 !
L,0 j of both Units 1 and 2 to determine if any measurable compres bl b2 sion of the structural backfill had occurred after placement 3:
4l Little or no compression developed for either unit 51 indicating 6!
very dense structural backfill.
7!
8i Ol s-4
. )
I L l l
I k
i i
Third, based on a review of the data from the June i
1980 test fill program, the Committee considers it probable t
j that the thin backfill surface layer immediately under the i
mat foundations has a relative density lower than 80 percent.
i Studies by the Committee have shown that the presence of such a layer will have no significant effect on the perfor-mance of the building during the postulated SSE, both because the surrounding soil is extremly rigid, and because water will drain easily from this layer, thereby increasing the resistance against liquefaction.
Fourth, in response to questions by the NRC, the Ccmmittee evaluated the wet method for determining maximum density.
Comparison tests were made on samples of STP backfill soils to determine whether the wet method or the dry method used at STP obtains the more satisfactory maximum density value.
Because the wet method produced less consistent maximum density values than those obtained by the dry method, the t
Crmmittee concluded that the wet method is not as satisfactory as the dry method for quality control testing of the STP 1
backfill materials and should not be used.
Fifth, statistical studies of the relative density results were performed by WCC and reviewed by Dr. Ang to 1
datermine the probability that random portions of the fill may have relative density less than 80 percent.
These l,
1 2
3 i
1 4
5 studies showed that random local zones could have less than 6
80 percent relative density, but that the probability of any 7
I 8
lccal zone having a relative density less than 70 percent is 9
f practically nonexistent.
Even if of the structural backfill 2
has relative densities as low as indicated by these statistical
.3
.4
- results,
.9 the Committee again concluded that there is no risk
.6 of liquefaction. The Committee further concluded that if all
.7.
,gl the backfill had been compacted to actual relativo densities C
}
of only 70 to 80 percent, there would still be no risk of 9
liquefaction under the postulated SSE.
.3 '
Finally, the B&R/HL&P Task Force developed cross-sections
.4
.5
.6,
of the spatial relationships of lift placements and sequence
.7,
of placements. These drawings demonstrated that the sequence
.S 1
- 9 '
of backfill placements can be reconstructed from the Quality
- 0
- g.
Control records, and that all pertinent requirements of the 2!
[3 specificstions were met.
The Committee therefore concluded d!
that further plotting of the backfill placements is unnecessary on j l.
for evaluation of the backfill adequacy.
i st
- 8 t The Task Force also prepared figures showing the loca-19 !
~
l 30 l tions of all density tests conducted up to July 31,
- 1 i 1980.
{,2 i These figures show a very good distribution of tests throughout l i3
,,g
}
the backfill areas.
The test locations were therefore l
l judged to provide a representative sample of the backfill,
'7 I
! i8 l and the overall frequency of testing was found to be about
!.9 !
10 i Il l r
l
\\,
1
' L; 2P 3
%i 3!
four to five times higher than required by the specifi 5i 7 l cation requirements.
These factors and the high relative density 3 I 9 j results thenselves demonstrate that adequate placement 3
and g
compaction was achieved.
I i
3 Q. 19 (SW, TK):
}
Did the Committee review previous evaluations and audit findings on backfill constructi 2
5 on and control?
If so, what conclusions were drawn?
7 I l A. 19 Mr. Kirkland reviewed substantially all Field 3
i 3
Requests for Engineering Action (FREA's) 9 l
, Nonconformance j
Reports (NCR's),
audit reports and NRC Inspection and
,f Enforcement Reports that relate to Category I b
!i ackfill.
Based on his findings and a review of several a!
7!
representative samples of each type of document, 3
i the Committee concluded 9,
chat the conditions encountered were either in compliance 31 L
with specifications and procedures as reported or
' 2 ':
were
,3 satisfactorily resolved by the action taken l
The Committee is also aware that CAR's have been issued to r i
- problems, esolve generic and the Committee believes these actions were I
appropriate.
l Q. 20 Based on all information analysed during the f
evaluation, please state your general conclusions as t o the testing and overall quality of the backfill at STP A. 20 (SW, TK):
Several general conclusions emerge
,t' ;
from our assessment of the backfill at STP:
i i !
V
\\
I J
i
. I
1 1
2:
3 4
5 (1)
As a result of the type of compaction e 6i 7,
quipment used, the number of roller passes actually p 8
9 erformed and the thickness of the backfill lifts plac d the structural backfill at STP is suffi i e,
2 c ently dense to provide a high degree of safety 3
4 against liquefaction during the postulated safe Sh 5
6 utdown 7
Earthquake; g
( 2. )
Field control procedures for determinati o
3 on of in-place relative densities yield relativ 9
3 e
dbnsity values which are slightly conser 3
- vative, 4
and the overall in-place density test result 5
s far exceed the specification requirements 6,
7' Additionally, the actual frequency of relative densit 3
9 y testing far exceeds the specification requirement 0
3 (3) s; and f
The results of B&R's June 1980 test fill program indicat that:
(a) the STP vibratory rollers are capable of compacting the specified lift thi k l.
c-nesses to the required densities; (b) the com-paction throughout the backfill placed in 18 i t
j
- nch, or smaller lifts is uniform; (c) specification of a particular dens;;y testing depth below th backfill surface is not necessary becau e
se tests taken in 'the upper lift or upper part t.
H of the underlying lift produce conservative results u
- and i
-so-s
I 2,
3I 4
~
5, (1)
As a result of the type of compaction equipment 6l 7;
used, the number of roller passes actually performed I
and the thickness of the backfill lifts placed, 0i the structural backfill at STP is sufficiently 1i 2l dense to provide a high degree of safety against 3
4 liquefaction duri:ag the postulated Safe Shutdown 5,
6l Earthquake; 7
g (2)
Field control procedures for determination of 9
in-place relative densities yield relative 0
1 d6nsity values which are slightly conservative, 2
3 and the overall in-place density test results far 4
5 exceed the specification requirements.
Additionally, 6
7, the actual frequency of relative density testing 3'.
g.
far exceeds the specification requirements; and 0'
y; (3)
The results of B&R's June 1980 test fill program
,i
}
indicate that:
(a) the STP vibratory rollers are l
4 capable of compacting the specified lift thick-3
[
6, nesses to the required densities; (b) the com-7; t
8' paction throughout the backfill placed in 18-inch, 91 0j or smaller lifts is uniform; (c) specification of 9 :
{l a particular density testing depth below the backfill surface is not necessary because tests 5!
taken in the upper lift or upper part of the l
6-l 7!
underlying lift produce conservative results; and 8!
9l 0i 1i i
i
L 2.
3 4
5 (d) eight roller passes is a satisfactory minimum 6
7, compaction criteria to ensure safety.
S 9
The Committee's overall conclusion is that the condition of
.0 the in-place backfill is entirely adequate for the design
- 2 '
requirements at STP.
.3
'4 Q. 21 Mr. Wilson, how do the testing and overall U5
'6 quality of the in-place backfill at STP compare with similar
'7
..g '
construction projects you have previously evaluated?
o
{0 A.
21 (SW):
Tha quality of the materials used for nj}
backfill and the quality and reliability of the test results 13 obtained at STP are as good as or better than those I have 13 seen on other major construction projects.
Also, the frequency 16 17 of testing at STP far exceeds that employed on major dam 18 19 projects throughout the world.
10
$1, Q. 22 Mr. Kirkland, how do the testing and overall 12';
$3 quality of the in-place backfill at STP compare with similar nuclear projects you have previously evaluated?
16 A. 22 (TK):
The backfill material gradation and le IS uniformity at STP a,re supeu'icr to those backfill qualities 19 to at other nuclear projects I have seen.
The testing procedures, 11 12,
quality and reliability of the test results are as good or 13 g4,
better than those I've observed at similar nuclear projects.
15 1 16 !.
The specified density testing frequency at STP is comparable 17 !
to the other projects, and the actual testing frequency at 18 l 19 STP is much higher.
50 il i T. Hudson:09:G Attachment No. 1 Professional Background and Experience Name: Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Address:
2230c Civil Engineering Building 4
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801 Date of Birth: October 4, 1937 Marital Status: Married with 2 children Citi:enship: Natural Born - U.S.
- I Education Ph.D.
1963 University of Illinois Major:
Soil Mechanics Urbana, Illinois Foundatiens Minors:
Geology Theoretical and Applied Mechanics M.S.
1960 University of Illfrois Civil Engineering Urbana, Illinois 3.5.
1969 University of Illinois Civil En (3ron:e gineering iablet)
Urbana, Illinois Positiens Held September 1970 - Present Professer of Civil Engineering University of Illinois September 1968 - September 1970 Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Illinois September 1965 - September 1968 Assistant Professor 6f Civil Engineering University of Illinois September 1963 - Se' tember 1965 1/Lt. U. 5. Army Corps of Engineers p
Research Engineer U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station June 1961 - September 1963 Researen Associate University of Illinois June 1960 - September 1960 Engineer, Shannen & Wilsan Soil Mechanics and Foundatien Engineers Seattle, Washington
--w-.-_-
--.,7
~
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page Teach +ne Exoerience Undergraduate Courses, University of I'llinois
~
1961-1963 Introductory soil Mechanics 1965-Present Introductory Soil tiechanics Foundation Engineering Civil Engineering Design Course for Senior Honors Students Graduate Courses 1965-Present Rock Mechanics Applied Rock Mechanics Applied Soil Mechanics Soil Dynamics (Including Earthquakes effects)
Graduate Thesis Supervision
- Directed 4 Ph.D. Theses Currently directing 2 Ph.D. Theses Resdarch Ex:erience 1961 - 1963 Research Associate, University of Illinois Conducted research on the high pressure compres-sibility of sands and measurement of the coefficient,of earth pressure at rest.
1963 - 1965 U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Conducted research on stress wave propagaticn in soils, design of structures for dynamic leading, and developed a research program in rock mechanics.
1965 - Present University of Illinois Presently conducting research on the following specific topics:
(1)
Ground vibrations produced from blasting tunnels and open cuts in rock.
Presently responsible for blasting vibration measure-ments being made on Washington D.C. Subway project.
(2)
Comoressibility of large si:ed granular materials such as that used in rock fill and rolled earth dams.
(3)
Theoretical studies of inelastic and time dependent stress distribution around tunnels.
(4)
Effect of pore pressures on the strengtn of rock.
(5)
Three dimensional analysis of sloce stability in a jointed rock mass.
(6)
Design of tunnel linings in soil and rock.
i (7)
Ground motions produced by nuclear exclosions, i -
l 1
I - -,
,e,.
n,.--,.-
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page Offices held and other services to orofessional societies.
ll)
Member of the Research Committee of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations.
Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers (1967-69).
(2)
Member of Subcommittee 12 of Committee D-18. ASTM, Properties of Soil and Rock, 1965-1970.
(3)
Co-chairman of Panel on " Stress Wave Propagation in Soils,"
International Symposium on Soil Dynamics, Albucuerque, New Mexico, sponsored by ASCE & NSF, August 1967.
(4)
Panel member for " Dynamic Loading," Session of a national Specialty Conference on Placement and Improvement of Soil to Support Structures,"
sconsored by the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, M.I.T., August 1968.
(5)
April 1968 - Gave lectures on rock mechanics to Metropolitan Section ASCE, New York City.
(6)
April 1969 - Gave lectures on rock mechanics to Metropolitan Section ASCE, Washington, D.C.
(7)
Selected to give a lecture on " Field Instrumentation in the Design of Underground Structures in Rock," Metropolitan Section, ASCE, New York City, May 1970.
(S)
Panel member on " Dynamic Loadings and Deformations," Session for ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundation's Division Specialty Conference on " Lateral Stresses in the Ground and the Design of Earth Re-taining Structures," Cornell University, June 1970.
(9)
Member of Panel on " Deformation Modulus of Rock Foundations," ASTM Symposium on Deformation Properties of Rock, Denver, February 1969.
(10)
Selected by NSF as one of the U. S. Members to exchange meeting with Japanese Engineers on the Topic of Ground Motions produced by earthcuakes, U. of California at Berkeley, August 1969.
(11)
Member of Committee on Soil Dynamics, Soil Mechanics Division, ASCE, 1970 - present.
(12)
Member of Publications Cc=mittas for Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Fcundations Division, ASCE, 1970 - present..
Al fred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page Consultino Excerience Examples of Rock Encineerino Excee ence
~
d 1.
Consultant to the American River Constructors on the stability of 300 ft. high rock slopes for the spillway cut at Hell Hole Dam, American River Project.
2.
Consulted, as associate of Dr. D. U. Deere, on rock eechanics problems related to the foundations of the Worl Trade Center Building, 'New York City (110 story office building).
3.
Consultant to New York Port Authority on Controlled Blasting Techniques to reduce damage to adjacent structures for Journal Square. Subway Terminal.
4.
Consultant to Western Contracting Company on stability of 150 ft high vertical spillway cut, Stocton Dam, Stocton, Mo.
5.
Consultant to British Columbia Hydro Autho.'ity, Canada, on assessing stability of Portage Mountain Underground Powerhouse.
6.
Consul tant. to Fenix and Scisson on the design of a rock cavity and steel casing at a depen of 5,000 ft. in weak rock on Amchitka Island.
7.
Slope stability problems along the Transandean Pipeline, Colombia, S. A., for. Williams 3rothers Construction Co.
8, Consultant to Joseph S. Ward, Foundation Engineers on the design of a school to ' resist blasting vibrations, Manchester, New Jersey.
9.
Consultant to Architest's Collaborative, Cambridge, Mass., on controlled blasting techniques and blasting vibrations on IBM building complex,.:ishkill, N.Y.
10.
Stability of s' oil and rocE slopes for Transilaskan Pipeline.
11.
Consultant to OeLeuw Cather & Co. on Blasting Soecifications for Washington 0.C. Subway.
12.
Stability of open pi: mine slope - Climax Molyodenum Co., - Climax, CO.
13.
Consultant to British Columbia Hydro on the effects of a new reservoir on the stacility of Cownie Slide (1 billion cubic meter slide).
14 Consultant o Gibbs & Hill on a sloce acjacent to the Ohio River l
near Pittsburgh for sludge pipeline cons:ruction, slope 500 ft hign.
1 15.
Consultant on effec: of blasting on stability of slopes of Caue Mine, Itibira, Bra il, sloce 300 ft hich.
l 1
I
?
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page._ _
Examples of Foundation Engineering and Earthouake Enoineerino Exoerienc 1.
Consultant to Williams Scothers Construction Company on slope stability problems encountered in construction of the Transandean Pipeline in southern Colombia, S.A.
2.
of Davis-Besse Muclear Reactor for earthquake loa 3.
for a 40 story building in Vancouver, S.C., desig loading.
4.
Stability of Dam Slopes. Consultant to Waterways Experiment Stat 5.
Consultant to H. G. Acres Ltd. on Seismic considerations for Nuclear Reactor Foundations as a part of States on Projected Power Needs.
study for 6 New England 5.
Censultant, as an associate of Dr. N. M. Newmark, to the Divisiens of Reactor Licensing and Reactor Safety of the Atomic Energy Com s-sion, on the adequacy of nuclear reactor foundations to resist earthquake loading, September 1967 - present.
The follcwing is a list of the Nuclear Power Station Foundations reviewed curing this time:
Ft. Calhoun Cooper Arnold 1
Surry Pilgrim Shoreham Crystal River Salem Prairie Island Rancho Seco Farley Ofablo Canyon Calvert Cliffs Sequoyah Oconee Hatch Indian Point Brunswick Bailey Xewaunee D. C. Cook Fit: patrick Zimmer Bermi 3 Mile Island Turkey ?oint Russellville Bell Easton 7.
Dynamic stability assessment of 3 TVA dams subjected to design earthquakes.
m
~-
~.. -
r Al fred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page.
Exoerience on Desien of Protective Structures and Nuclear Effects 1.
Consultant to TRW Systems, Redondo Beach, California on D' namic y
Soil Properties pertinent to the hardness of the Minuteman System.
2.
Presently member of a panel in Dept. of Defense to review design of all Safeguard Structures for Vulnerability and hardness.
3.
Consultant to Omaha District Corps of Engineers on the con-struction of underground protective structures in rock.
4 Censultant to Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organitaticn on Hardness of Minuteman Structures as an associate of Dr. N.
M. Newmark.
5.
Consultant on problems in soil dynamics and rock mechanics to the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
6.
A member of the "Decoupling Advisory Grcup" formed by the Defense Atcmic Supcort Agency.
Responsibility is to comment on stability problems which might be encountered in butiding underground cavities 100-360 ft in diameter and to give the shear strength properties of rock masses which are important in determining the decoupling charac-teristics of cavities over-driven by the detonation of a nuclear device.
7.
Received Army Ccmmendation Medal in 1965 for representing the Chief of the C0 pts cf Engineers as a consultant to the Norwegian Government and NATO on the engineering of large underground facilities.
Recent Publications "The Behavior of Sand in One-Dimensicnal Compression," Ph.D. Thesis, U of I, Dept. of Civil Engr., July 1963; "The Dynamic Stress-Strain Relations for a Sand as Deduced by Studying its Shock Wave Propagation Characteristics in a Laboratory Cevice," w/T. E. Xennedy, Proceedings of the 1964 Army Science Syncosium, Vol. II, West Point, N.Y., June 1964; " Static and Dynamic Cen-strained Moduli of Frenchman Flat Soils," with M. T. Davisson, Proceedings of the Symoosium on Soil-Structure Interaction, Univ. of Ari:ena, Tucscn, Ari:cna, Sept. 1964; " Damage to Model Tunnels Resulting from an Explosively-Produced Impulse," witn G. 3. Clark and J. N. Strange, U. 5. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Research Report No.1-6, Report 1, May 1965; "The Design of Surface Constructicn in Rock," w/D. U. Deere, F.
D. Patton, anc 2. J. Cording, Ch. II in Failure and Breakage of Rock, American Inst. of Mining Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineer,1967.
"The Effect of Soil Procerties en tne Attenuation of Air Blast-Induced Ground Motions," with H. E. Auld, pc. 29-47, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wave Propagation and Dynamic Procerties of Earth Materials, University of New Mexico Press, 1968.
" Mechanical Procerties of Rock," Chacter 2, pc. 21-53, of the book " Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice," edited by K. G. Stagg and O. C. Zieckiewicz, published by John Wiley & Sons, Lcnden, 1968, 442 og.,
i 1
Al fred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page !
" Dynamic Behavior of Rock Masses," with N. N. Ambraseys, Chapter 7, pp. 203-235 of the book " Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice" edited by X. G.
Stagg and O. C. Zienkiewicz, published by John Wiley and Sons, London,1968, 442 pages.
" Foundation Exploration for Interstate 280 Bridge over Mississippi River near Rock Island Illinois," with J. C. Gamble and G. Way, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Highway Geology Symposium, University of Illinois, Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, 126 pp. " Compressibility Characteristics of Shales Measured by Laboratory and In Situ Tests," with G. Mesri, J. C.
Gamble and G. Way, pp. 137-153, ASTM Special Technical Publication 477, "Deterr'. tion of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock," June 1970.
Rock Engineering for Underground Caverns," with E. J. Cording and D. U. Deere (In Publication, ASCE Proceedings of a Symposium on the Design of Large Underground Openings, Phoenix, Arizona, Feoruary,1971).
" Dynamic Stability of Rock Slopes," with E. J. Cording, (In Publication, Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Illinois, 1971).
State of the Art of Soft-Ground Tunneling," with R. B. Peck and 3. Mohraz, Proceedings of the 1st North American Rapid Excavation and Tunnel.ing Conference, Chicago, Illinois, June 5-7, 1972, AIME, 1972, pp. 259-286.
" Specifications for Centrolled Blasting in Civil Engineering Projects," with L. L. Oriard, Proceedings of the 1st North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago, Illinois, June 5-7, 1972, AIME, pp. 1585-1610.
Consultino Exoerience Directly Acolicable for the Desien of Larce Underorcund Chamcers for Storace 1.
1971-present:
Consultant to Gulf Oil en 4 large underground chambers for storage of gas, Fannett Ocme, Texas.
2.
1972-present:
Consultant to Ocme Petroleum on the use of salt caverns in Windsor Canada for gas storage.
Caverns in service now,. status reviewed 3 or 4 times a year.
3.
Consultant to Morton Salt on control of solution mining in the follcwing brinefields Port Huron, Michigan Rit =an, Ohio
.Hutchinson, Kansas l
4 Consultant to the Solution Mining Research Institute on subsidence and cavity stability Report on a study of sinkhole development above cavities in two brinefields and discussion of means for detecting this behavior sufficiently in advance to prevent such behavior.
5.
Consultant to BASF-Wyandotte, Wyandotte, Michigan on control of subsidence and prevention of sinknole formation aoove cavities in bedded salt.
5.
Consultant to Duke Pcwer Co. on current design of Bad Creek underground pcwernouse.
7-7
,--y-,
..g_,.,.,,. _,. _ -._ -. _,, _ _,
c,
_-,_r.-
,,..._.-,,.--..,.,--,.y
o i
e Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Page 7.
Past consultant to British Columbia Hydro-Authority on stability of the Portage Mountain Underground Powerhouse. (g6 ft span,1000 ft long,180 ft high).
8.
Consultant to Morton Salt on the possible use of the Silver Springs brine field for gas storage.
9.
Consultant to U. 5. Department of Defense on many tunnels and underground chamcers at Nevada Test Site.
10.
Past consultant to U. S. Corps of Engineers on the use of large underground structures in rock for protective construction.
11.
Consultant to NATO and Norwegian Government in 1965, as a Corps of Engineer officer, on large underground chamber constructicn.
Received Army commendation mecal for this assignment.
8
-a-m_
i Attachmsnt No. 2 H. Bolton Seed Bloorachical Sketch e
Born in 1922, H. 3. Seed was educated a: Londen University where he received the degrees of 5.Sc. and Ph.D. and at Harvard University where he was awarded the S.M. Degree.
He has been a member of the teaching staffs l
at London University and Harvard University and has also been employed as a foundacion engineer with the consulting firm of 2cmas Worcester, Inc.
Since 1950 he has been on the staf f cf the University of California at 3erkeley where he is Professor of Civil Engineering and a former Chair =an of the Department of Civil Engineering.
He also serves as a consultant to a nu=her of major engineering companies and government agencies including the Executive Office of the President, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Water and Pcwer Rasources Service, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Energy Begulatcry Cc= mission, the Department of the Interior, the Advisory Cc:=ittee on Reactor Safeguards, the State of California Depar ment of Water Resources, and the State of California Division of Safety of Dams, as well as government agencies in Canada, Guatemala, Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
He is also a memoer of the State of California Seismic Safety Cc::=ission and the US - USSR Task Force on Toundatica Design for Cold Regions and Unusual Geologic Cenditions.
In recent years he has also served as Chair an of the Cc=mittee, Advisory to the Secretary of the Interior, en Geological-Seismological Factors Pertaining to the Siting of Nuclear Desalting Plants; as a consultant to the National Aeronautics and Space AM.istration, and the U. S. Geological Survey; as a U. S. Delegate to the Panel en Assismic Design and Tesdg of Nuclear Facilities of the International Atemic F.nergy Agencf, and the U. S. - Japan Science Conference en Soil Dynamics; as Co-Chairman of the U. S. - Japan Science Conference on Soil Behavier and Ground Motions During Earthquakes; and on the Independent Panel, appointed by the Secretary of the Interier, to investigate the Cause of Tailure of
~
Te cn Dam.
His world-wide censulting work is pri=arily c=ncerned with design aspects of nuclear power plants, majo'r earth dams projects, off-shore structures and seismic design problems.
The author of ever 200 papers on soil mechanics problems, he has been the recipient of a number of awards by the American Society of Civil Engineers including the Nor=an Medal (1968, 1977), the Karl Ter:aghi Award i
j (1973), the Crees Medal (1960,1962 and 1972), the Middlebrooks Award (1958, 1964, 1966 and 1971), the Thomas Titch Rcwland Pri:e (1961), the Wellingten Prize (1968), and a Society Research Prize (1961) '.
In 1967 he was inv:.ted by the Society to present the Tourth Ter:aghi Lecture at the Structural Engineering Ccnference in Seattle, and in 1970 he was elected a me:<cer of the Naticnal Academy of Engineering.
In 1976 he received the Bendix Award i
for distinguished research frem the American Society en Engineering Educatien and a Distinguished Teaching Award from his colleagues at the University of l
l
e 0
l 0
Califo rnia.
He was elected Tellow of Kings College, London University in 1978, and he was the 1979 Rankine Lecturer of the Institu:e of Civil Engineers, Crea: 3ritain.
Me has served as a member of the Executive Committee of the Soil Mechanics and Foundatiens Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Executive Committee of the Department of Scils, Geology and Foundations of the Transportation Research Board.
He is Secretary of the, U. S. National Committee on Soil Mcchanics and Foundation Engineering. and a member of the Executive Cem=it ce of the Interna:icnal Society f.or Soil Mechanics and Foundatien Engineering.
He is also an active member of the Seismological Society of America, the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, a number of Committees of the Geotechnical Engineering Division of ASCE, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the U. S. Committee on Large Dams, and the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
/
e e
8 e
_