ML19344B164
| ML19344B164 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1980 |
| From: | Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344B162 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008250679 | |
| Download: ML19344B164 (146) | |
Text
o CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY APPLICATION FOR' REACTOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND OPERATING LICENSE DOCKP;2 NO 50-329 DOCKEP NO 50-330 AMENDMENT NO 80 Enclosed herewith, revising and supplementing the above-entitled application, are revised and new pages for incorporation in the Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill. The Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill was referenced by Amendment 72 to the above dockets on December 19, 1979 The enclosed material consists of the following:
- 1) Revised response to Question 23 providing an update on the status or certain quality assurance related actions.
- 2) Revised Table 30-2 to correct an editorial error and update numerical data.
- 3) A report on the Test Fill Program (tab 150). Please note that further testing is being conducted to substantiate qualification of certain ecuip-ment.
h) Changes relating to the above (Table of Contents, etc).
These new and revised pages bear the notation " Revision 8 8/80" and are marked in the margin to indicate where changes or new material is submitted.
Additional pages and figures have been added as reflected on the revised " List of Effective Pages."
Consumers Power Campany 0'* k Dated: August 15, 1980 By Stephe Howell, Senior Vice President Sworn and subscribed to before me on this 15th day of August,1980.
I obwS M )
Notary Pubfic, JL:kson County, Michigan My commission exp res September 21, 1982 m
O
\\ '
gct)r2rcG7/
m Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation DISTRIBUTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM TO:
Return to:
gN Bechtel Associates Holder of Set Number:
O/
Professional Corporation P.O. Box 1000 Revision Number:
8 Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Subject:
Distrib. and Acknowledge.
Attention:
Linda Hultquist Job 7220 - FSAR The enclosed material is a revisich to the Responses to the NRC 10 CFR 50.54 (f) Requests Regarding Plant Fill.
The holder of each set is responsible for collating revisions into his set.
(Use the enclosed list of effective pages for guidance.)
In order to verify receipt of the enclrsed information, please sign the acknowledgement below and return the entire form within 30 days to me at the above location.
If any of this material is missing, please indicate in the space provided below.
If you transfer your assigned set (s), please indicate in the space below the sot number (s), party (ies) and mailing address (es) so that
(~)T further material can be sent directly to the new set holder (s).
Set Number (s)
Name of Party (ies)
Address (es)
I The following material was missing:
I hereby certify that I have received the material, except as noted.
l r'~
Date
( 3 Signature of Set Holder
/
L
Instructions for Revision 8 to the
()
10 CFR 50.54(f) Report REMOVE INSERT Cover le. iter - Revision 8 Cover Sheet same LOEP 1, 6 thru 10, 13, 14 same pg 23-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, same 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35 3-1 (add Rev. 8 page after page 23-38) pg 23-46, 47, 48 same 3-1 (Remove the Rev. 4 page from location after page 23-49 and throw it away)
- Attachment 23-2, 23-3 (Shts,1 to 4) - Remove the Rev. 4 pages from location after page 23-49 and insert these pages after page 23-44 pg 23-50, 51, 52, 59, 63, 66 same 67, 72, 73 page 23-76 to 88 same pg 23-88a pg 23-89, 90 same pg 30-5 (tb1 30-2) same C-xiv same Tab 150 (af ter Tab 149 material)
Test Fill Report (pgs 1 thru 85)
(tab 150 material)
_. _ _ _, ~..... _ -
CONSUMERS POWER COMPA'IY J
APPLICATION FOR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND OPERATING LICENSE DOCKET NO 50-329 DOCKET NO 50-330 AMENDMENT NO 80 Enclosed herewith, revising and supplementing the above-entitled application, are revised and new pages for incorporation in the Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill. The Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill was referenced by Amendment 72 to the above dockets on December 19, 1979 The enclosed material consists of the following:
- 1) Revised response to Question 23 providing an update on the status of certain quality assurance related actions.
- 2) Revised Table 30-2 to correct an editorial error and update nu=erical data.
- 3) A report on the Test Fill Program (tab 150). Please note that further testing is being conducted to substantiate qualification of certain equip-ment.
b) Changes relating to the abcve (Table of Contents, etc).
These new and revised pages bear the notation " Revision 8 8/80" and are marked in the margin to indicate where changes or new material is submitted.
Additional pages and figures have been added as reflected on the revised " List of Effective Pages."
Consumers Power Company Dated: August 15, 1980 By
/ / o.-wo, u u~,.
3,
Stephen H Howell, Senior Vice President Sworn and subscribed to before me on this 15th day of August,1980.
(S E A L)
/s/ sotty t 94.wm Notary Public, Jackson County, Michigan My commission expires September 21, 1982 A'G)
RESPONSES TO THE NRC 10 CFR 50.54 (f) REQUEST REGARDING PLANT FILL FOR MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NUMBERS 50-329 AND 50-330 Consistino of:
- 1. Preface
- 2. Resconses to the 35 Ouestions
- 3. Consultants' Summaries
- 4. Consultant Continued Involvement
- 5. Consultant Communications Recort Date:
Acril 24, 1979 i
Revision 1:
May 31, 1979 Revision 2:
July 9, 1979 Revision 3:
September 13, 1979 Revision 4:
November 13, 1979 l
Revision 5:
February 29, 1980 l
Revision 6:
April 1, 1980 Revision 7:
May 5, 1980 Revision 8:
August 15, 1980 O
RESPONSES TO 10 CFR 50.54 NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES This list of ef fective pages identifies those text pages, tables, figures, and attachments that are currently ef fective in these respcases.
Sheet 1D Latest Revision Cover Sheet 8
LOEP 1 8
LOEP 2 6
LOEP 3 6
LOEP 4 6
LOEP 5 6
LOEP 6 8
LOEP 7 8
LOEP 8 8
LOEP 9 8
LOEP 10 8
LOEP 11 6
LOEP 12 6
LOEP 13 8
LOEP-14 8
)
Preface Sheet 1 2
Sheet 2 4
Table of Affected Section Sheet 1 5
Sheet 2 5
Question 1 1-1 0
1-2 0
1-3 0
1-4 1
}
l-5 0
l l-6 0
1-7 0
Appendix I Category I i
I-l 0
l I-2 0
I-3 0
I-4 0
I-5 0
l O
l LOEP-1 Revision 8 l
8/80 I
J Sheet 1D Latest Revision Table 22a-1 0
Table 22a-2 0
Table 22b-1 0
Table 22d-1 Sheet 1 0
Sheet 2 0
Sheet 3 0
Table 22e-1 0
Question 23 - Part I i
4 ii 4
iii 4
iv 4
23-1 4
23-2 4
23-3 4
23-4 4
23-5 4
23-6 4
23-7 8
23-8 4
23-9 8
23-10 4
23-11 8
O.
23-12 4
23-13 8
23-14 4
23-15 8
23-16 4
23-17 4
23-18 8
23-19 4
23-20 8
23-21 4
23-22
. 8 23-23 4
23-24 8
23-25 8
23-26 4
23-27 8
23-28 8
23-29 4
23-30 8
23-31 8
l 23-32 4
23-33 8
23-34.
4 23-35 8
O LOEP-6 Revision 8 8/80
?
I Sheet 1D Latest Revision O
Question 23 - Part II 23-36 4
23-37 4
23-38 4 3-1 8
23-39 4
23-40 4
23-41 4
23-42 4
23-43 4
23-44 4 3-2 4 3-3 Sheet 1 4
Sheet 2 4
Sheet 3 4
Sheet 4 4
23-45 4
23-46 8
23-47 8
23-48 8
Question 23 - Part III 23-49 4
23-50 8
23-51 8
23-52 8
23-53 4
23-54 4
23-55 4
23-56 4
i 23-57 4
23-58 4
23-59 8
23-60 4
23-61 4
23-62 4
23-63 8
23-64 4
23-65 4
23-66 8
23-67 8
23-68 4
23-69 4
23-70 4
23-71 4
23-72 8
l 23-73 8
i 23-74 4
O LOEP-7 Revision 8 1
8/80
Sheet ID Latest Revision 23-75 4
23-76 8
23-77 8
23-78 8
23-79 8
23-80 8
23-81 8
23-82 8
23-83 8
i 23-84 8
23-85 8
23-86 8
23-87 8
23-88 8
23-88a 8
23-89 8
23-90 8
Ouestion 23 - Part IV 23-91 4
i 23-92 4
Question 24 24-1 5
24-2 5
i 24-3 5
O 24-4 5
24-5 5
24-6 5
24-7 5
24-8 5
24-9 5
24-10 5
24-11 5
24-12 5
24-13 5
24-14 5
24-15 5
24-16 5
i 24-17 5
l 24-18 5
l 24-19 5
24-20 5
24-21 5
24-22 5
i 24-23 5
24-24 5
24-25 5
24-26 5
24-27 5
24-28 5
l O
LOEP-8 Revision 8 8/80
Sheet 1D Latest Revision
(
24-29 5
24-30 5
24-31 5
24-32 5
24-33 5
24-34 5
24-35 5
24-36 5
24-37 5
24-38 5
24-39 5
Figure 24-1 5
Figure 24-2 5
Figure 24-3 5
Figure 24-4 5
Figure 24.5 5
Figure 24-6 5
Figure 24-7 5
Figure 24-8 5
Figure 24-9 5
Figure 24-10 5
Figure 24-11 5
Figure 24-12 5
Figure 24-13 5
Figure 24-14 5
Figure 24-15 5
O, Figure 24-16 5
Figure 24-17 5
Figure 24-18 5
Question 24 - Supplemental Information 6
24-S1 6
Supplemental Figure 24-1 6
Question 25 25-1 5
25-2 5
25-3 5
25-4 5
25-5 5
Question 26 26-1 5
26-2 5
Question 27 27-1 5
27-2 5
27-3 5
27-4 5
27-5 5
1 i
O LOEP-9 Revision 8 8/80
Sheet 1P; Latest Revision V
27-6 5
27-7 5
27-8 5
27-9 5
27-10 5
27-11 5
Figure 27 '
5 Figure 27-2 5
Figure 27-;
5 Figure 27-4 5
Figure 27-5 5
Figure 27-6 S
Figure 27-7a 5
Figure 27-7b 5
Figure 27-8 5
Figure 27-9 5
Figure 27-10 5
Figure 27-11 5
Figure 27-12 5
Figure 27-13 5
Figure 27-14 5
Figure 27-15 5
Figure 27-16 5
Question 27 - Supplemental Information 6
O 27-S1 6
27-S2 6
27-S3 6
27-S4 6
27-S5 6
Supplemental Figure 27-1 6
Supplemental Figure 27-2 6
Supplemental Figure 27-3 6
Supplemental Figure 27-4 6
Supplemental Figure 27-5 6
Supplemental Figure 27-6 6
Supplemental Figure 27-7 6
Supplemental Figure 27-8 6
Supplemental Figure 27-9 6
Supplemental Fi'ure 27-10 6
Supplemental Figure 27-11 6
Supplemental Figure 27-12 6
Supplemental Figure 27-13 6
Supplemental Figure 27-14 6
Supplemental Figure 27-15 6
Supplemental Figure 27-16 6
Supplemental Figure 27-17 6
Supplemental Figure 27-18 6
. O LOEP-10 Revision 8 8/80
Sheet 1D Latest Revision Question 30 30-1 5
30-2 5
30-3 5
30-4 5
30-5 8
30-6 5
Question 31 31-1 5
31-2 5
31-3 5
31-4 5
Figure 31-1 5
Figure 31-2 5
Figure 31-3 5
Figure 31-4 5
Figure 31-5 5
Figure 31-6 5
Figure 31-7 5
Figure 31-8 5
Figure 31-9 5
Figure 31-10 5
Figure 31-11 5
Question 32 32-1 5
z L
Question 33 33-1 5
33-2 5
Figure 33-1 5
Figure 33-2 5
Question 34 34-1 5
34-2 5
24-3 5
34-4 5
Question 35 35-1 5
35-2 5
35-3 5
35-4 5
Figure 35-1 5
Figure 35-2 5
Figure 35-3 5
Appendix A A-1 6
A-2 6
A-3 6
i A-4 6
A-5 6
O r
i
(
LOEP-13 Revision 8 8/80
- l. -.
i t
Y i
t i
Sheet 1D Latest Revis
'n A-6 6
4 A-7 6
i A-8 6
i
- Figure - A-1 6
l Appendix B 7
]
B-1 7
i B-2 7
i Appendix C 7
C-i 7
C-ii 7
j C-lii 7
t-C-iv 7
C-v 7
2 C-vi 7
C-vii 7
C-viii 7
4 1
C-ix 7
i C-x 7
i C-xi 7
i C-xii 7
l l
C-xiii 7
C-xiv 8
Tabs 1 through 149 7
Tab 150 8
i l.
)
t i
[
t t
l l
i
.r L
i l
(
l F
L LOEP-14 Revision 8 l
8/80
O RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) (50.54(f)]
Corrective Action (Programmatic):
Engineering has 8
revised Engineering Department Procedure 4.22 to clarify that Engineering personnel preparing the FSAR will follow the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2,
" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (September 1975).
Specifically, Regulatory Guide 1.70 (Pages iv and v of the Introduction) requires that such consultant reports only be referenced +ith the applicable commitments and supporting infot_ ation included in the text (third paragraph, Page v).
Such a requirement precludes repetition of this circumstance.
l8 Corrective Action (Generic):
Consultant reports other than Dames & Moore were considered in accordance with the guidelines provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2.
Consultant reports were not attached to the FSAR, but portions of consultant reports were extracted and incorporated into the FSAR text itself.
Those portions incorporated into the FSAR become commit-ments.
Therefore, disposition of recommendations in consulting reports has been adequately accounted for in the preparation of the FSAR.
Verification that those portions of consultant rensets determined to be commitments and incorporated into the FSAR have been adequately reflected in project design documents is being accomplished via the FSAR re' review program described in the response to Question 23, Part (2).
The two Bechtel QA audit findings reported in our April 24, 1979, response (Paragraph D.1, Page I-8) have l
been closed out.
The results of this audit are being utilized in the FSAR control system study committed to in Subsection 3.3 of this response to Part (1).
l l
l C) l ss 23-7 Revision 8 8/80 i
')
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
/
2.
Engineering Department Project Instruction 4.49.1 was revised in Revision 2 to state, "Under no circumstances will interoffice memoranda, memoranda, telexes, TWXs, etc be used to change the requirements of a specification."
Corrective Action (Generic):
A review of interoffice memoranda, memoranda, telexes, TWXs, and other corres-pondence relating to specifications for construction and selected procurements of Q-Listed items will be initiated.
The purpose of the review will be to identif y any clarifications which might reasonably have been inter-preted as modifying a specification requirement and for wnich the specification itself was not formally changed.
An evaluation will be made to determine the effect on the technical acceptability, safety implications of the potential specification modification, and any work that has been or may be affected.
If it is determined that the interpretation may have affected any completed work or future work, a formal change will be issued tnd remedial action necessary for product quality will be "D
taken in accordance with approved procedures.
(G The foregoing procedure will be follcwed for all specifi-cations applying to construction of spListed items.
For specifications concerning the procurement of Q-Listed items, the foregoing procedure will be implemented on a random sampling basis.
The sample size has been estab-lished and the specification selection has been made.
Review and acceptance criteria for the specificaticns have been defined.
l8 The review of construction and selected procurement specifications is scheduled to be completed oy Octooer 1980.
i If the acceptance criteria are not met, the review will be expanded to include other specifications for Q-Listed items.
At that time, a revised completion date will be established.
l l
\\~ '
Revision 8 23-9 8/80 L
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) 50.54(f)
Remedial Action (Soils): The inconsistencies between FSAR Subsections 2.5.4 and 3.8.5 have been corrected via FSAR Revision 18 (February 28, 1979).
The same revision also corrected the inconsistency between FSAR Subsection 2.5.4 and Design Drawing C-45.
Corrective Actions (Programmatic):
1.
A study was completed which examined current procedures and practices for the preparation and control of the FSAR in view of these experiences.
Procedural changes have been initiated by the revision l8 of or addition to the Engineering Department Pro-cedures.
l8 2.
To preclude any future inconsistencies between the FSAR and specificacions, Engineering Department Projtet Instruction 4.1.1 has been revised to r. ate l8 that all specification changes, rather than just
" major changes," will be reviewed for consistency with the FSAR.
8 Corrective Action (Generic):
FSAR sections are being rereviewed as discussed in the Response to Question 23,
_/
Part (2).
s (N
23-11 Revision 8 8/80
(}
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
2.
Geotechnical Procedure FP-6437 did not require that the calculations show evidence of any evalua-tions for changes to input data, even when considered to be of no significance to the results.
Remedial Action (Soils):
Settlement calculations will be revised after the completion of the diesel generator building surcharge operation.
At that time, the design drawing will be coordinated with Geotechnical Services and any changes or notations needed to reflect design changes will be made.
Corrective Actions (Programmatic):
14 An interoffice memorandum dated April 12, 1979, was issued by Geotechnical Services to alert personnel of the need to revise or annotate calculations to reflect current design status.
2.
In view of the above, Geotechnical Services has 8
revised Procedure FP-6437 to require that calculations be annotated to reflect current design status.
3.
Engineering Department Procedure 4.37 has also been 8
\\-
revised to require that calculations be annotated to reflect current design status.
Corrective Action (Generic):
This is considered an isolated case and not generic based on Quality Assurance audits of Geotechnical Services conducted in February and August 1979.
The results of these audits indicate l
that this area is effectively controlled.
Quality Engineering surveys and Quality Assurance monitorings will verify future coordination of design documents by Geotechnical Services and Project Engineering.
l 1
l 23-13 Revision 8 l
8/80
()
RESPONSE TO. QUESTION 23, PART (1) !bO.54(f)1 Root Cause:
Failure of the drawings to provide Construction
~
with the 1ntbrmation necessary to prevent interference,
_a-Remedial Actions (Soils):
1.
Provisions were made to allow independent vertical movement between the diesel generator building and the duct banks.
2.
Bechtel Project Engineering has reviewed the design drawings for cases where ducts interface with structures to determine the possibility of the duct being enlarged over the design requirements and the effect this enlargement may have upon the structures' behavior.
Forty-four individual or groups of similar buried electrical duct banks were reviewed.
The terminations of each case were reviewed, resulting in the identification of 23 questionable vertical interfaces.
Based on geometry, depth of vertical leg, and whether sufficient details were available on the design arawing, 11 cases were identified for detailed investigation.
Additional information was obtained from the jobsite to define how the interfr.ce was constructed fs()
and whether any unusual behavior existed.
The review concluded that several nonsafety-related transformer pads experiencing differential settlement may be exaggerated by the duct bank interface.
However, in no case except the diesel generator building has settlement been completely restricted or do details, geometry, or subgrade conditions indicate that settlement would be completely restricted.
Corrective Actions (Programmatic):
1.
Civil / Structural Design Criteria 7220-C-501 will be modified to contain the requirement that a duct bank penetration shall be designed to eliminate the possibility of the nonspecific size duct interacting with the structures.
This action is seneduled to be completed by August 1980.
l8 2.
The civil standard detail drawings have been reviseo l8 to include a detail showing horizontal and vertical clearance requirements for duct bank penetrations.
The detail addresses any mud mat restrictions.
8 w
'~
Revision 8 23-15 8/80
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54 ( f)]
,s k/
2.
The Quality Assurance Program requirement to establish responsibility for measures to control the placement and compaction of soils and the qualification o'. construction equipment was not adequately impl emented.
Remedial Actions (Soils):
1.
Compaction equipment currently in use has been qualified and Construction has been notified of the parameters governing the use of the equipment.
2.
Project Quality Control Instruction (PQCI) C-1.02 was revised to include verification of the use of qualified equipment and compliance with qualified procedures.
Corrective Actions ( Programma tic) :
1.
Field Instructicn FIC 1.100, "Q-Listed Soils Placement Job Responsibilities Matrix," has been prepared and establishes responsibilities for performing soils placement and compaction.
2.
Field Instruction 1.100 has been supplemented by l8 f \\
establishing requirements for demonstrating equipment
('l capability, including responsibility for equipment approval, and providing records identifying this capability.
18 3.
Quality Assurance will issue a Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual amendment to clarify the requirement that procedures include measures for qualifying equipment under specified conditions.
This action j
is scheduled to be completed by September 2, 1980.
l8 l
l 4.
Engineering will clarify specifications and Construc-tion will prepare procedures (governing the soils l
compaction equipment) to implement the requirements 8
of the Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual as stated l
in Item 3 (above).
This is scheduled to be com-I pleted by October 17, 1980.
Corrective Action (Caneric) :
Construction specifications, instructions, and procedures were reviewed to identify l
any other equipment requiring qualification which has not yet been qualified.
No such equipment was identified.
n v
23-18 Revision 8 8/80
()
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
Remedial Action (Soils):
One fulltime and one parttime onsite Geotechnical Soils Engineer have been assigned.
These engineers provide technical direction and monitoring of the process.
Corrective Action (Programmatic):
Field Instruction FIC 1.100, "Q-Listed Soils Placement Job Responsibilities Matrix," has been prepared and establishes responsibilities for performing soils placement and compaction.
Corrective Action (Generic):
Design documents, instructions, and procedures for those activites requiring inprocess con-trols will be reviewed to assess the adequacy of existing proc.edural controls and technical direction.
Engineer-ing review is scheduled for completion by October 24, J980, and Field Engineering and Quality Control review is 8
- heduled for completion by November 28, 1980.
Any revi-sions required will be completed by January 23, 1981.
h Revision 8
\\~'
23-20 8/80
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
2.
Too much reliance was placed on the Quality Control Inspector's ability, without sufficiently specific inspection instructions.
3.
Reliance was placed on soil test results, or on the evaluation of soil test results, which were in error in numerous cases. (Incorrect Soil Test Results are addressed in Subsection 3.10.)
Remedial Actions (Soils):
1.
PQCI C-1.02 has been revised to incorporate the specific characteristics to be verified by Quality Control.
2.
An in-depth soils investigation program, which was implemented as described in our prior transmittals, provides verification of the acceptability of the soils or identifies any nonconformances requiring further remedial action.
Corrective Action (Programmatic):
Control Document SF/ PSP G-6.1 will be revised to provide requirements for inspection planning specificity and for the utili-zation of scientific sampling rather than percentage sampling.
This action is scheduled to be completed by September 15, 1980, l8 Corrective Actions (Generic) 1.
QCIs in use will be reviewed to ascertain that provisions have been included consistent with the l
revised control document.
This action and any required revisions are scheduled to be completed by September 1, 1980.
l8 2.
The impact of Corrective Action Item 1 (above) on completed work will be evaluated, and appropriate actions will be taken as necessary.
This action is scheduled to be completed by November 1, 1980.
l8 l
O 23-22 Revision 8 8/80
O RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
4.
Reliance was placed on the incorrect results of the density tests, or on the incorrect evaluation of the results, to the exclusion of the moisture test results. (Incorrect Soil Test Results are addressed in Subsection 3.10).
Remedial Actions (Soils):
1.
The specifications were revised to provide more definitive requirements for soil moisture testing.
2.
PQCI C-1.02 was revised to provide specific inspection requirements for verifying soil moisture content, rather an surveillance.
3.
Field instruction FIC 1.000, "Q-Listed Soils Placement Job Responsibility Matrix," has been prepared, and establishes responsibilities for performing soils placement and compaction.
Corrective Actions (Programmatic):
l.
Control Document SF/ PSP G-6.1 will be revised to C'
provide requirements for inspection planning specificity and for the utilization of scientific sampling rather than percentage sampling.
This action is scheduled to be completed by September 15, 8
1980.
2.
Engineering Department Project Instruction 4.49.1, Revision 3 now states, "Under no circumstances will interof fice memoranda, memc randa, telexes, TWXs, etc be used to change the requirements of a specification."
This will provide controlled and uniform interpretation of specification requirements.
3.
On April 3, 1979, Midland Project Engineering Group Supervisors in all disciplines were reinstructed that the only procedurally correct methods of implementing specification changes are through the use of specification revisions or Specification Change Notices.
This was followed by an interoffice memorandum from the Project Engineer to all Engineer-ing Group Supervisors on April 12, 1979.
t
(~h l (,)
23-24 Revision 8 l
8/80 l
/"N RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
U Corrective Actions (Generic):
1.
OCIs in use will be reviewed to ascertain that provisions have been included consistent with the revised control document.
This action and any required revisions are scheduled to be completed by September 1, 1980.
l8 2.
The inpact of Corrective Action Item 1 (above) on completed work will be evaluated, and appropriate actions will be taken as necessary.
This action is scheduled to be completed by November 1, 1980.
l8 3.
A review of interoffice memoranda, memoranda, telexes, TWXs, and other correspondence relating to specifications for construction and selected procurements of Q-Listed items will be initiated.
The purpose of the review will be to identify any clarifications which might reasonably have been interpreted as modifying a specification requirement and for which the specification itself was not formally changed.
An evaluation will be made to determine the effect on the technical acceptability,
(~N safety implications of the potential specification
(
modification, and any work that has been or may be affected.
If it is determined that the inter-pretation may have affected any completed or future work, a formal change will be issued and remedial action necessary for product quality will be taken in accordance with approved procedures.
The foregoing procedure will be followed for all specifications applying to construction for Q-Listed items.
For specifications concerning the procurement of Q-Listed items, the foregoing procedure has been l8 implemented on a random sampling basis.
The sample size has been established and the specification selection has been made.
Review and acceptance criteria for the specifications have been defined.
8 The review of construction and selected procurement specifications is scheduled to be completed by October 1980.
If the acceptance criteria are not met, the review will be expanded to include other specifications for Q-Listed items. At that time, a revised completion f
date will be established.
\\_
23-25 R^ vision 8 8/80
b
\\_/
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
Remedial Actions (Soils):
1.
Geotechnical Services has completed an investigation which includes an in-depth review of testing performed by U.S. Testing and the reported test results.
The purpose of this investigation was to identify the cype of testing errors which were made in order to facilitate analysis by U.S.
Testing and to accomplish Programmatic Corrective Action (below) and Remedial Action Item 2 (below).
2.
Based on Item 1 above, the requirements for the control of testing were adjusted, requiring the
-Testing Subcontractor to check all field density tests for cohesive material against a zero-air-voids curvc.
A specification change has been issued.
Selection of proctor curves will no longer be a problem because each field density test will be accompanied by a separate laboratory standard which will provide a direct comparison.
This was directed by a letter to U.S. Testing and reflected in Specification Change Notice C-208-9004, dated April 13, 1979.
3.
PQ2I-SC-1.05 was revised to add more stringent requirements for in-process inspection of U.S.
Testing's soil testing activities.
4.
An in-depth soils investigation program which was implemented as described in our prior transmittals, provides verification of the acceptability of the soils or identifies any nonconformances requiring further remedial action.
This action is identical j
to Remedial Action Item 2 in Subsection 3.8.
Corrective Action (Programmatic):
Guidelines for l
surveillance of testing operations have been developed-l8 l
and included in Field Instructions for the onsite Soils l
Engineer.
Engineering /Geotechnical Services has developed the guidelines, and Field Engineerin9 8
has prepared the instructions.
Corrective Actions (Generic):
1.
U.S. Testing will be required to demonstrate to the cognizant Engineering Representative that testing procedures, equipment, and personnel used O
l
%.)
l 23-27 Revision 8 8/80 l
l l
()
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
l for quality verification testing (for other than NDE and soils) were, and are, capable of providing accurate test results in accordance with the requirements of applicable design documents.
This action is scheduled to be completed by October 1, 1930._
l8 2.
A sampling of U.S. Testing's'tbst reports (for other than NDE and soils) w'ill be reviewed by the cognizant Engineering Representative to ascertain that results evidence conformance to testing requirements and design document limits.
This action is scheduled to be completed by October 1, 1980.
l8 O
t l
l I
l
\\.
Revision 8 l
23-28 8/80
-w-
-,----,m,-
-v v.
()
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
Root Cause:
Adequate technical procedures for control of the testing were not prepared.
Remedial Actions (Soils):
1.
Geotechnical Services has completed an investiga-tion which includes an in-depth review of testing performed by U.S.
Testing and the reported test results.
The purpose of this investigation was to identify the type of testing errors which were made in order to facilitate analysis by U.S.
Testing and accomplish Remedial Action Item 2.
2.
Based on Item 1 above, the requirements for the control of testing were adjusted requiring the Testing Subcontractor to check all field density tests for %ohesive material against a zero-air-voids curve.
A specification change has been issued.
Selection of proctor curves will no longer be a problem because each field density test will be accompanied by a separate laboratory standard which will provide a direct comparison.
This was directed by a letter to U.S.
Testing and reflected in Specification Change Notice C-208-()
9004, dated April 13, 1979.
3.
One full-time and one part-time onsite Geotechnical Soils Engineer have been assigned.
These engineers will review U.S.
Testing's procedures and monitor their implementation.
Corrective Action (Programmatic):
Field Instruction l
FIC 1.100, "Q-Listed Soils Placement Job Responsibilities l
Matrix," has been prepared and establishes responsibilities j
for performing surveillance of testing operations.
Corrective Actions (Generic):
1.
Design documents, instructions, and procedures for those activities requiring inprocess controls will be reviewed to assess the adequacy of existing procedural controls and technical direction.
Engineering review is scheduled for completion by October 24, 1980, and Field Engineering and
~
l8 Quality Control review is scheduled for completion by November 28, 1980.
Any revisions required will e
be completed by January 23, 1981.
l8
'~'
Revision 8 23-30 8/80 l
()
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
2.
U. S. Testing will be required to demonstrate to the cognizant Engineering Representative that testing procedures, equipment, and personnel used for quality verification testing (for other than NDE and soils) were, and are, capable of providing accurate test results in accordance with the requirements of applicable design documents.
This action is scheduled to be completed by October 1, 1980.
l8 3.
A sampling of U.S. Testing's test reports (for other than NDE and soils) will be reviewed by the cognizant Engineering Representative to ascertain that results evidence conformance to testing requirements and design document limits.
This action is scheduled to be completed by October 1, 1980.
l8 i
O I
23-31 8/80
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
Root Causes:
1.
The conditions under which nonconformances are considered to be repetitive are not adequately defined in the control documents.
2.
The trending activity did not provide timely responses to repetitive product nonconforming conditions.
Remedial Action (Soils):
Not applicable Corrective Action ( Programmatic):
Control documents are.in the process of being revised to provide an improved definition of implementing requirements for identifying repetitive non-conforming conditions.
This action has been completed for QADP C-101.
Action for SF/ PSP G-3.2 will be completed by September 15, 1980.
l8 Corrective Action (Generic):
Consistent with the intent of the programmatic change above, Quality Assurance will review nonconformance reports which are open, as of November 13, 1979, or become open prior to implemen-O tation of the improved Project Quality Assurance Trend Analysis program as stated above.
This review will be to 8
identify any repetitive nonconforming conditions pertaining to product type or activity, or pertaining to nonconformance cause.
This action is scheduled to be completed by December 31, 1980.
23-33 Revision 8 8/80
(
i i
RES?ONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) [50.54(f)]
Corrective Action (Generic):
The Quality Assurance audit and monitoring program will be revised to emphasize and increase attention to the need for evaluating i
policy and procedural adequacy and assessment of product quality.
A specialized audit training program will be developed and implemented to ensure guidance for this revised approach. These actions will be accomplished by September 12, 1980.
l8 i
\\
O e
i O
d Revision 8 s
23-35 S/80
, _ _ _.. _.. _. _., _ _..... -. _. _ _ _ _.. _ _.... _. _. _. _. ~ _,
O O
O-A COMPARISON OF REVIEW AND~CilANGE ACTIVITY FOR Tile SOILS FSAR SECTION AND FOR OTI!ER FSAR SECTIONS I
l TIME PERIOD SOILS OTHEll AREAS ORIGINATION
- PREPARED BY GE0/TECll
- PREPARED BY IilAR CPilfliIZATION
- REVIEWED PRIOR TO SUBlITTAL
- REVIEWED PRIOR TO SUSETTAL BY DISCIPLINES 1977 BY DISCIPLIIE
- (NOT ALL SPECS AVAIIJ.BLE)
~
RtVIEw INACTIVE ACr1vs-1977 to
- NO NRC QUESTIONS
- 1600 CHANGE NOTICES o
f3 PRESENT 130 CHANGE NOTICES
- REVIEWED BY PZOIPLIIES n
et
- METIIOD:
g w
O
- EDP 4.23
- ELDENE REVIEW
- DEUREE OF REVIEW E?. SED ON DE",EEE OF ACTIVITY
($
RE-REVIEW
- SPECIAL PROCEDURE
- SPECIAL PROCEDURE m<
i O
JUNE 1979
. SY'M/
E-M EW
- SYSTEM / SUBSYSTEM RE-REVIEW o
TIIRU D
/
DISCIPLINES SEPTEMBER 8
1980
- TOTAL RE-REVIEW
- TOTAL RE-REVIEW
rO V
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART 2 [50.54(f)]
e 3.3 Review of Engineering Department Procedure 22 The following sequence of events took p.;ce relative to the review of Engineering Department Procedure 4.22, " Preparation and Control of SAR."
a.
Review of Engineering Department Procedure 4.22 was by the Project Quality Engineering, and included coordination with the Project SAR Coordinator.
b.
Primary consideration was given as to whether the originator of a SAR section had sufficient guide-l8 lines in which to prepare a SAR section.
c.
The results of the review were affirmative; the engineer had sufficient direction in the procedure.
This was documented in an IOM dated July 23, 1979, R.L. Castleberry to L.A.
Dreisbach.
d.
Subsequent to the completion of Item c, above, it
(/)
was decided during a series of meetings to revise
(_s Engineering Department Procedure 4.22 for clarifi-cation.
(The requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.70,
" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," were moved from Section 2.0, " Scope" to Section 5.0, " Engineering and Administrative effort."
This revision has been g
completed.)
l l
[
l l
l 23-46 Revision 8 8/80
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (2) [50.54(f)]
SECTION 4.0, RESPONSE TO PART (2)c The FSAR rereview program has been extended from the original plan to include the entire FSAR, with certain exceptions as follows:
a.
Appendixes 2A, 2B, and 2C contain only test data for which a rereview would be meaningless.
b.
The Security Plan (referenced in Section 13.6) is currently under review and will be completely revised when it is resubmitted.
c.
The Technical Specifications (Chapter 16) will be exten-sively reviewed and updated prior to NRC final review 6 months to 1 year in advance of the issuance of an opera-ting license.
d.
The Fire Protection Evaluation Report (Appendix 9A) will be completely reviewed and revised upon receipt of fire pro-tection questions from the NRC.
O e.
The Site Emergency Plan (referenced in Section 13.3) was extensively revised in Revision 18 (February 1979) to the FSAR and will be revised as necessary to meet new, addi-8 tional requirements.
f.
The environmental qualification of mechanical and electrical equipment (Section 3.11) will be completely rereviewed.
However, the results of the rereview will not be fully i
incorporated into the FSAR until this section is revised in response to the NRC letter to operating license appli-cants, dated February 21, 1980, concerning " Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment".
g.
The soils-related portions of the FSAR are identified in a table entitled "FSAR Sections Subject to Change" immedi-ately followir; the Preface in Volume 1.
These subsections /
tables / figures /Q&Rs/ appendixes will be completely rereviewed but the results of this review will not be incorporated into the FSAR until final resolution of the plant fill issue.
The entire rereview program will be completed by September 1980, with all resulting changes either incorporated into the FSAR by revision (by the following amendment) or tracked to conclu-sion (for those unresolved engineering issues which remain unresolved in September 1980).
D l
23-47 Revision 8 l
8/80 l
O RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (2) [50.54(f)]
SECTION 5.0, RESPONSE TO PART (2)d The purpose of the audit committed to in Item 4 of the eighth paragraph of Question 1, Part b, is to verify the effectiveness of the rereview.
The audit will cover two aspects as follows:
a.
Degree of compliance with rereview procedures.
b.
Technical correctness of rereview dispositions.-
The audit committed to in our response to Question 1, Part b and described in the preceeding paragraphs was conducted l8 once during the course of the FSAR rereview (commencing March 17, 1980) and will be conducted again after completion 8
of the rereview (commencing in October 1980).
The audit plan is consistent with the CPCo, Bechtel, and B&W I#
policies and procedures governing audits.
Bechtel will serve as the audit team leader.
The audit team will comprise personnel from each of the three organizations.
O 23-48 Revision 8 S/80 l
O' RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3) [50.54(f)]
SECTION 2.0, INTRODUCTION In Subpart a of Part (3) of the question, it was requested that we provide our rationale for our confidence that quality l8 assurance deficiencies do not (or will not ) exist in other areas.
Our confidence stems from three factors, as follows:
a.
The recognition of the differences between soils and other work, as described in Section 3.0.
b.
The fact that, from the outset, a Quality Assurance Program has been implemented which meets regulatory requirements and national standards and which has been improved significantly from the time of its 8
initial implementation.
Subsection 4.1 provides a list of Quality Assurance Program improvements.
Subsection 4.2 provides more detail as to the extent and results of selected improve-r ments as requested in Subpart b of Part (3) of the
(
question.
c.
The programmatic and generic corrective actions which have been taken, or will be taken, as described in our response to Parts (1) and (2) of the question and as summarized in Section 5.0.
O Revision 8 23-50 8/80
-9 y
,-w-w--y y
e c y w-en--
q y
=r-,.
-,,,--y-r-e w
y t
v-
- +
-(g)
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3) [50.54(f)]
x_/
SECTION 3.0, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOILS WORK AND OTHER h0RK l8 Prior to 1977, the major site construction activities were in the civil and structural areas.
The major specific activities were soils, rebar and embeds, concrete, cadwelding, structural steel erection, and liner plate erection.
In 1977, electrical and mechanical installation activities ecame significant.
Soils and concrete are similar bulk installation activities which rely, in large part, upon the tests at a given point representative of the quantity of material placed.
Additional confidence in the quality of the concrete is achieved through several factors that are not available to soils work.
Concrete work is more scientific than soils placement and compaction and the variables of concrete work are more quantifiable and measurable.
The physical testing of concrete (cyliner breaks) provides acceptable or unacceptable results on a short-term basis.
With soils, the only verification, subsequent to the initial acceptance test, is the long-term monitoring program for settlement of structures supportec in the fill, The inspection and controls for the construction activities (s) for cadwelding, rebar, and embeds provide high confidence in the quality of these items.
Rebar has had a 100% overinspection by CPCo QA from April 1976 to September 1978 and embeds have had a 100% overinspection by CPCo QA from June 1972 to September 1978.
Structural steel erection and other civil activities, including welding and liner plate erection, are activities for which there are characteristics accessible to inspection and reinspection, allowing for independent subsequent verifications of the quality of these items.
The above is also true of most aspects of mechanical and electrical construction activities.
The major instruments with regard to specifications and QCIs were made prior to significant construction activities in the Mechanical and Electrical disciplines.
These systems will be subject to overinspections and walkdown inspections by CPCo QA at the time of turnover, which will provide additional detailed evaluation of these systems.
Subsequent to the construction acceptance, a system verification is accomplished through the checkout and preoperational testing activities.
O Revision 8 23-51 8/80
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3) [50.54(f)]
i
()
SECTION 4.0, QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS l8 4.1 History and Chronology of Improvements, In General 197Q l.
CPCo QA Program as presented in the Midland Plant PSAR was approved by the AEC Staff in the Safety Evaluation Report.
1973 1.
The Bechtel Quality Control Organization at the site was reorganized to be independent of the Bechtel Construction Organization at the site.
2.
The CPCo Quality Assurance organization was f7rmed with a staff of five persons.
1974 1.
The review and approval by CPCo Quality Assurance of Bechtel Quality Control administrative procedures and inspection instructions was initiated.
2.
The number of CPCo Quality Assurance professional personnel overviewing the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program was increased from five to six.
3.
The CPCo Quality Assurance program policies and proce-dures were significantly improved.
1975 1.
CPCo Quality Assurance inspection of stored materials was instituted.
2.
The number of CPCo Quality Assurance professional personnel overviewing the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program was increased from six to seven.
1976 1.
Bechtel quality trending was instituted.
2.
The CPCo Quality Assurance Program (Topical Report) was approved by NRC.
3.
CPCo Quality Assurance overinspection of rebar install-ation was instituted.
4.
The Bechtel Quality Control Notices Manual was prepared specifically for the Midland Project and the Bechtel Field Inspection Manual was phased out.
5.
Major biennial audits of the Quality Assurance Program, utilizing outside consultants, were initiated by CPCo Quality Assurance.
Revision 8 23-52 8/80
O RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3) [50.54(f)]
4.2.2 Bechtel QC and CPCo QA Review of Quality Control Instructions From April 1977 to August 1977, a review of all issued Quality Control Instructions (QCIs) was conducted jointly by Bechtel Quality Control (QC) and CPCo Quality Assurance.
The purpose of this review was to improve the specificity of the inspection callouts in the QCIs.
52 QCIs were reviewed in their entirety, resulting in all QCIs being revised to incorporate agreed upon changes.
As a result of this QCI review, it was considered necessary to revise SF/ PSP G-6.1
" Quality Control Inspection Plan".
This revision added requirements to prccide improved clarity of inspection callouts.
As committeu by the April 24, 1979, response to Question 1, Part a, Section D, Page I-18, a further review of the QCIs was completad by Bechtel in June 1979 to identify those QCIs which call for "Surveillances" and which call for supplementary records documentation reviews.
As a result of this identification, revisions were Os initiated:
(a) to require the utilization of " Inspection" activity for inspections of record, and to limit the utilization of " Surveillance" for defect prevention activity only and (b) to clarify the " Review" activity of supplementary records.
l8 The following additional actions are planned as described in Part (1) Subsection 3.8.
A.
SF/ PSP G-6.1,." Quality Control Inspection Plans,"
will be revised to provide requirements for inspec-tion planning specificity and for the utilization of scientific sampling rather than percentage sampling. This action is scheduled to be completed
!8 by September 15, 1980.
B.
QCIs in use will be reviewed to ascertain that provisions have been included consistent with the revised control document.
This action and any required revisions are scheduled to be completed by September 1, 1980.
l8 C.
The impact of B (above) on completed work will be evaluated, and appropriate actions will be taken as necessary.
This action is scheduled to be completed l8 by November 1, 1980.
23-59 Revision 8 8/80
)
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3) [50.54(f)]
4.2.5 Bechtel Monitoring Activity Improvements The standard monitoring activity, as described in Quality Assurance Department Procedure C-1, was amended September 15, 1977, to provide a more representative assessment of Quality Assurance Program ef fectiveness.
The amended monitoring procedure was structured to use systematic auditing techniques to assess the conformance of a product to the essential requirements of project documents specifying quality.
The effect of the amended procedure was to increase the number of design office documents (drawings, l8 specifications, calculations, etc) that were to be moni,tored.
It caused additional effort to be applied to completed work, as well as to inprocess work.
It required preparation of a list of potential monitoring subjects to be developed from the Quality Assurance Program elements and it required the preparation of checklists which were extracted from the various project procedures and manuals.
The revised monitoring activity has enabled a more (s_/)
thorough assessment of the Quality Assurance Program, and permitted the early identification and correction of potential problems before they could become repetitive.
The first year of activity following the amended procedure resulted in the pertormance of over 300 combined monitoring an3 project audit activities with 76 findings, as ce npared to the performance of approximately 100 combined mc nitoring and project audit activities with 42 findings pe rformed duri.pg the previous year.
l l
l 3(a Revision 8 23-63 8/80 l
D RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3) [50.54(r))
[V 4.2.8 Bechtel Quality Trending Activity The Bechtel quality trending activity, as described in Procedure C-101, was put into effect in July 1976 as a Quality Assurance Program improvement.
Trending provides a working tool for Quality Assurance Engineering and its output is used to identify repetitive nonconformances requiring more effective corrective action.
Repetitive nonconformances warranting corrective action are processed to the responsible organizations via a Quality Action Request, corrective actions are negotiated, and Quality Assurance follows up to assure the adequacy and timeliness of the actions. Publishing of quality trend data was init'iated in July 1976 in the honthly Project Quality Assurance Activity Report addressed to Bechtel &nd CPCo key project personnel.
In April 1978, Bechtel Quality Assurance initiated supplementary quidelines for the trending.
These guidelines provided criteria for initiating graphic trend charts.
Prior to this time, trends were identified and charted based upon the judgement of the reviewer.
()
The nonconformances for approximately 120 repetitive construction processes or portions thereof, are tracked nonthly and issued to CPCo and Bechtel Quality Assurance Management.
Since April 1978, 14 Quality Action Requests have been issued.
As a result of a suggestion made during the NRC's Midterm Inspection of the Midland Project in May 1979, a revision was made to group certain construction l8 activity and nonconformance categories to provide increased sensitivity.
8
(~'N U
23-66 Revision 8 8/80
)
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3)[50.54(f)]
4.2.9 Bechtel Topical Report, BQ-TOP-1A l8 In November 1976, in order to update the QA Program from that which was committed to in the PSAR, the Bechtel QA Program was revised to incorporate the Bechtel Topical Report, which committed the project to the following ANSI Standards and Regulatory Guides:
(Only those marked with an asterisk were a carry over from the PSAR.)
ANSI Standard Regulatory Guide-Revision Date
- N45.2-1971 1.28 - June 7, 1972
" Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities" N45.2.4-1972 1.30 - August 11, 1972
" Installation, Inspection and Testing Requirements for Instrumentation and Electric Equipment During the Conctruction of Nuclear
' ()
Power Ger.erating Stations" N45.2.1-1972 1.37 - March 16, 1973
" Cleaning of Fluid Systems and Associated Components During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants" N45 '.2-1972 1.38 - March 16, 1973 "PacAaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage and Handling of Items for Nuclear Power Plants During the Construction Phase" N45.2.3-1973 1.39 - March 16, 1973
" Housekeeping During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants" N101.4-1972 1.54 - June 1973 l
" Quality Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Facilities" gg U
Revision 8 23-67 8/80
(~N RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3)[50.54(f)]
V 4.2.12 CPCo QA Overview The CPCo QA overview activities started in April 1976 for rebar and in June 1977 for embeds.
For all other civil, mechanical, welding, NDE, electrical, and instru-mentation and controls, the overview activities started at the end of June 1978 and was fully implemented by the end of March 1979 for activities then in progress.
The overview activities implemented between June 1978 and March 1979 was improved over chat which was utilized in 1976 and 1977.
The improvement consisted of review of Bechtel drawings, specifications, field procedures, l8 and quality control instruction for specificity, and of CPCo QA's utilization of specific overinspection plans.
CPCo QA performed overinspection of rebar installation in accordance with Midland Project Quality Assurance Procedure M-8,
" Inspection of Rebar Placement."
From its inception thru December 1978, this overinspection was performed on a 100% basis for Q-listed concrete placements and, thereafter, on less than a 100% basis.
Based on CPCo QA records of Bechtel's inspection results and the simplicity of the remaining concrete pours, there was sufficient confidence that 100% overinspection
[}
was no longer necessary.
CPCo QA performed overinspection of embed installation in 0-listed concrete placements in accordance with Midland Project Quality Assurance Procedure M-12,
" Inspection of Embedded Items."
From its inception through September 1978, this overinspection was performed on a 100% basis.
Based on CPCo QA records of Bechtel's inspection results, there was sufficient confidence to warrant the discontinuance of the overinspection at that time.
With regard to mechanical activities, from November 1978 to October 19, 1979, Bechtel completed 1,382 Quclity Control inspections, whereas in the same time period CPCo GA performed 57 overinspections.
Bechtel inspection in the mechanical area was well underway when the CPCo QA overview activity was started; therefore, there was little opportunity for a corresponding CPCo QA overinspection.
Thus, there is not a direct correlation between the 1,382 inspections completed by Bechtel from November 1978 to November 1979 and the 57 CPCo QA over-l8 inspections performed during the same period.
Fur the.r-O 23-72 Revision 8 8/80
O RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3)[50.54(f)]
more, the most significant aspects of the mecisanical work are the hydrostatic and pneumatic tests.
Since October 1977, all of the hydrostatic and pneumatic tests have been witnessed by QA-PE&C.
The majority of this effort is not reflected in the CPCo QA overinspection figure of 57 because CPCO Quality Assurance's overinspection of hydrostatic and pneumatic tests are accomplished as a witness point in the Bechtel procedures.
With regard to welding, from November 1978 to November 8
1979, Bechtel completed 5,253 inspections, whereas in the same period CPCo QA performed 56 overinspections.
The preceeding discussion regarding the correlation between Bechtel inspection and CPCo overinspection equally applies to the welding area.
Furthermore, for all of Class 1 and Class 2 component and piping welds, radiographic examination is required with minor exceptions and the CPCo QA review of the radiographs has been extensive as indicated below.
From June 1978 to November 1979, Bechtel originated 8
f-4951 field radiographs and CPCo QA reviewed 902.
For
(
the same period, B&W originated 304 primary system field radiographs and CPCo QA reviewed 100%.
CPCo QA l8 will continue to review 100% of B&W's field radio-graphs.
As of November 1979, 1,045 B&W nonprimary l8 system radiographs were made and 670 reviewed.
For all other vendors, over 1,560 vendor radiographs received between December 1978,dnd November 1979 were reviewed l8 by CPCo QA.
The electrical area can be further categorized as indicated in the following paragraphs.
For cable tray supports, Bechtel has completed approxi-mately 200 inspections, whereas CPCo QA has performed 13 overinspections.
For cable tray installations, Becntel has completed approximately 200 inspections, wrereas CPCo QA has performed 26 overinspections.
For conduit, junction boxes, and their supports, Bechtel has completed approximately 500 inspections, whereas CPCo QA has performed 26 overinspections.
^
(O T
23-73 Revision 8 8/80 I
O O
O ACTION ITEMS PROGRAMMATIC AND GENERIC CORRECTIVE ACTIONS COMMITTED TO IN Tile RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1, PART (a)
AND IN Tile RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PARTS (1) AND (2)
Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion i
Number and Reference Organization Date Status 0
1 Consultant reports other than Dames & Moore were considered in accordance with the guidelines a
provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1. 70, Revision 2.
Consultant reports were not attached to the i
FSAR, but portions of consultant reports were extracted and incorporated into the FSAR text itself.
Those portions incorporated into the y
PSAR become commitments.
Therefore, disposition of recommendations in consulting reports has M
been adequa.tely accounted for in the prepara-1 tion of the FSAR.
Verification that those portions of consultant reports determined to be commitments and incor-porated into the PSAR have been adequately a
reflected in project design documents is being accomplished via the PSAR rereview program described in the response to Question 23, Part (2).
i mw se The two Bechtel QA audit findings reported in PE Complete s
our April 24, 1979, response (Paragraph D.1, Page I-8) have been closed out.
The results o
of this audit are being utilized in the FSAR control system study committed to in Subsection 3.3 of this response to Part (1).
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.1, Page I-8 Question 23, Subsection 3.1, Page 7)
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion [ 8 Number and Reference Organization Date Status l
2 On April 3, 1979, Midland Project Engineering PE Complete j
Group Supervisors in all disciplines were reinstructed that the only procedurally correct methods of implementing specification changes are through the use of specification revisions or Specification Change Notices.
This was followed by an interoffice memorandum from the Project Engineer to all Engineering Group Supervisors on April 12, 1979.
(Question 23, Subsection 3.2, Page 8; and Subsection 3.9, Page 24 )
3 Engineering Department Project Instruction PE Complete N
4.49.1 was revised in Revision 2 to state, Y
"Under no circumstances will interoffice j
memoranda, memoranda, telexes, TWXs, etc be used to change the requirements of a specification."
I (Question 1, Appendix I,
Section 0.2.d, Page I-8 I8 Question 23, Subsection 3.2, Page 9, and j
Subsection 3.9, Page 24 )
l mm NG M4 o -
o o
m i
i
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion Number and Reference Organization
__ Date Status 8
4 A review of interoffice memoranda, memoranda, telexes, TWXs, and other correspondence relating to specifications for construction and selected procurements of Q-listed items will be initiated.
I The purpose of the review will be to identify any clarifications which might reasonably have 1
been interpreted as modifying a specification requirement and for which the specification itself was not formally changed.
An evaluation will be made to determine the ef fect on the technical acceptability, safety implications U$
of the potential specification modification, and any work that has been or may be affected.
m If it is determined that the interpretation may have affected any completed work or future work, a formal change will be issued and remedial action necessary for product quality will be taken in accordance with approved procedures.
a The foregoirig procedure will be followed for all j
specifications applying to construction of Q-Listed items.
For specifications concerning the procurement of Q-Listed items, the foregoing procedure will be implemented on a random sampling basis.
PE Complete The sample size has been established and the 4
specification selection has been made.
18
($
(21)
Review and acceptance criteria for the specifi-PE Complete 8
i m cations have been defined.
E (47)
The review of construction and selected PE 10/80 3
procurement specifications is scheduled to be completed by October 1980.
m i
i
i O
O O
-Action Action Item Scheduled 1
Item Description Responsible Completion Completion Number and Reference Organization Date Status 0
'4 If the acceptance criteria are not met, the (cont'd) review will be expanded to include other cpecifications for Q-listed items.
At that time, a revised completion date will be l
established.
(Question 23, Subsection 3.2, Page 9, and Subsection 3.9, Page 25) l5 Complete l8 5
A study was completed which examined current PE 4
I procedures and practices for the preparation and control of the FSAR in view of these
]
y expe riences.
Procedural changes have been l8 e
initiated by the revision of or addition to d
the Engineering Departt.ent Procedures.
I 8
(Question 23, Subsection 3.3, Page 11) 6 An interoffice memorandum dated April 12, 1979, GT Complete was issued by Geotechnical Services to alert personnel of the need to revise or annotate calculations to reflect current design status.
j (Question 23, Subsection 3.4, Page 13) 7 Field Instruction FIC 1.100, "Q-Listed Soils FE Complete Placement Job Responsibilities Matrix," has been
]
prepared and establishes responsibilities for j
performing soils placement and compaction.
i l
(Question 23, Subsection 3.6, Page 18; mm Subsection 3.7, Page 20; and 2s@
Subnection 3.11, Page 30)
E g
o m
a
O O
O 4
i Action Action Item Scheduled j
Item Description Responsible Completion Completion 8
i Number and Reference Organization Date Status 7A Review Field Procedure FPG-3.000 to ensure FE Complete clarity and completeness j
8 (Question 1, Appendix I, Section 0.2, Page I-ll) 1 8
Construction specifications, instructions, and FE Complete procedures were reviewed to identify any other equipment requiring qualification which had not l
yet been qualified.
No such equipment was i
identified.
i
^
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.1, Page I-11 5
Question 23, Subsection 3.6, Page 18) i l
9 A dimensional tolerance study was completed PE Complete I
4 using the reactor building spray pump and ancillary system as the study mechanism.
o (Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.2.b, Page I-8 )
1 4
10 Engineering reviewed specifications not previously PE Complete reviewed for the specificity or tolerance studies.
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.2.c, Page I-8) i 11 A specific review of the FSAR and specification PE Complete i
requirements for the qualification of electrical cyg and mechanical components has been made as part i
i m<
of the corrective action relating to CPCo's
[
50.55(e) report on component qualification.
l r
j u
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D. 2.e, Page I-8) m l
12 Quality Assurance will schedule yearly audits of QA Complete i
the design calculational process for techniques j
and actual analysis in each of the design disci-l plines.
f (Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.4, Page I-8 )
f
i O
f i
d b
I Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion 8
Number and Reference Organization Date Status 13 Aud its of ITT Grinnell hanger design and CPCo QA Complete relay setting calculation have been conducted.
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.4, Page I-8) 4 14 Bechtel Project Engineering will review design PE Complete drawings for cases where ducts penetrate vertically through foundations.
The possibility of the duct being enlarged over the design requirements and the ef fect this enlargement may have upon the structure's behavior will be evaluated by June 1, 1979.
Proper remedial measures will be taken if the investigation i
shows potential problems.
w Y
(Question 1, Appendix I,
Section C.S.b, Page I-7) m 15 An in-depth audit of U.S. Testing operations, QA Complete covering testing and implementation of their QA program will be conducted in late April or early May 1979, by Bechtel Project QA and Engineering.
(Question 1, Appendix I,
Section C.4.b, Page I-18; and Section D.3.c, Page I-18)
- i 16 An in-depth training session will be given to QA Complete Midland QA Engineers covering the settlement problem and methods to identify similar conditions in the future.
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.l.b, Page I-22) o a
m J
O l'
0\\
V Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Henponnible Completion Completion 4
l Humber and iteforence Organization Date Statun 8
17 An in-depth training nennion will be given to OA Complete all CPCo and llechtel OA Enginecra and Auditorn to increase their awarenenn of the nettlement problem and to discunn auditing and monitoring 4
techniques to increase audit offectivencos.
(Quention 1, Appendix I,
Section D.2, Page I-22) 4 18 An in-depth review of the Ilech tel trend OA Complete 1
program data will be undertaken by nechtel OA management to ensure the identification of i
any other nimilar arcan that were not U
analyzed in aufficient depth in the pant reviewn.
i 0
(Ouestion 1, Appendix I,
Section D.I.a, Page 1-22) l 19 Ouality control Inntructions will be evaluated OC Completc to ennure that the documentation characterintica which are to be innpected (i.e., nurveillance and 8
review callouts) are clearly upecified.
19a (Thin action modifled to inc1ude necennary revi-OC 09/01/80 nion to OCIn renulting from actuation of nurveil-lance and review calloutn.)
8 i
(Ouention 1, Appendix I,
Section D.3.a, Page I-18 I
and Section D.1, Page I-18) 20 Pield Instruction 1.100 has been supplemented Fl:
Complete l8 by entablinhing requirementn for demonntrating equipment capability, including renponnibility G8 for equipment approval, and providing recorda o3 <:
identifying thin capability.
o r.
(4 l
f (Ouention 23, Subnection 3.6, Page 18)
- s a3 21 See Action Item Number 4 PE Complete l8
)
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion Ngnber and Reference Organization Date Status 8
f 22 Guidelines for surveillance of testing operations PC/GT Complete have been developed and included in Field In-8 structions for the onsite Soils Engineer.
Engineering /Geotechnical Services has developed the guidelines.
8 (Question 23, Subsection 3.10, Page 27) 23 Engineering has revised Engineering De, 'rt-PE Complete g
ment Procedure 4.22 to clarify that Engineering personnel preparing the FSAR will follow the g
requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2, w
" Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis W
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (September 1975).
Specifically, Regulatory Guide 1.70 (Pages iv and v of the Introduction) requires that such consul-tant reports only be referenced with the applicable commitments and supporting informa-tion included in the test (third paragraph, Page v).
Such a requirement precludes repetition l8 of this circumstance.
(Question 23, Subsection 3.1, Page 7 and Subsection 3.3d, Page 46) 24 To preclude any future inconsistencies between PE Complete l8 the PSAR and specifications, Engineering Depart-ment Project Instruction 4.1.1 has been revised l8 to state that all specification changes, rather than just " major changes," will be reviewed for
($
consistency with the FSAR.
m<
bI (Question 23, Subsection 3.3, Page ll)
E a
m
U,O U
{J Cs s
Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion l8 Number and Reference Organization Date Status _
l 25 Ouality Assurance will issue a Nuclear Quality OA 9/02/80 g
Assurance Manual amendment to clarify the requirement that procedures include measures for qualifying equipment under specified conditions.
e (Question 23, subsection 3.6, Page 18) 26 In view of Action Item 6, Gootechnical Services GT Completc 8
J has revised Procedure FP-6437 to require that calculations be annotated to reflect current design status.
(Question 23, subsection 3.4, Page 13) w i
y l5 m
27 Engineering Department Procedure 4.37 has also PE Complete 8
been revised to require that calculations be 4
annotated to reflect current design status.
(Ouestion 23, Subsection 3.4, Page 13) l5 28 Civil / Structural Design Criteria 7220-C-501 PE 8/80 will be modified to contain the regairements 8
that a duct bank penetration shall be designed to eliminate the possibility of the nonspecific size duct interacting with the structures.
(Question 23, subsection 3.5, Page 15) 15 29 The civil standard detail drawings have been PC Complete l8 revised to include a detail showing horizontal and vertical cicarance requirements for duct mm bank penetrations.
The detail addresses any l8
];@
mud mat restrictions.
O V' (Ouestion 23, subsection 3.5, Page 15) o D
m l
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Comn1 6 tion Completion Number and Reference Organization Gate Status 8
30 Engineering will clarify specifications and PE 9/12/00 (39)
Construction will prepare procedures (governing the soils compaction equipment) to implement 8
the requirements of the Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual as stated in Action Item 25.
(Question 23, Subsection 3.6, Page 18) 31 Design documents, instructions, and procedures PC 10/24/80 8
for those activities requiring inprocess controls will be reviewed to assess the adequacy of existing procedural controls and technical direction.
w Y
Eng ineering review is scheduled for completion g
by October 24, 1980.
l8 (Question 1, Appendix I,
Section D.2, Page I-ll; and Ouestion 23, subsection 3.7, Page 20; and Subsection 3.11, Page 30) 32 Gu'idelines for surveillance of testing operations have been developed and included in Field Instructions l8 for the onsite Soils Engineer.
Engineering /
Geotechnical Services has developed the guidelines g
and Field Engineering has prepared the instructions.
FE Complete (Question 23, subsection 3.10; Page 27) i 33 The Quality Assurance audit and monitoring program OA 9/12/80 will be revised to emphasize and increase attention 8
to the need for evaluating policy and procedural o3 m adequacy and assessment of product quality.
A h@
specialized audit training program will be or developed and implemented to ensure guidance for this revised approach.
ou (Question 23, Subsection 3.13, Page 35)
O
~
O O
Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion Number and Reference Organization Date Status 8
34 Control Document SP/ PSP G-6.1 will be revised OC 9/15/80 8
to provide requirements for inspection planning specificity and for the utilization of scientific sampling rather than percentage sampling.
(Ouestion 1, Appendix I, Section D.S.f, Page I-20; and Question 23, Subsection 3.8, Page 22; Subsection 3.9, Page 24; 8
Subsection 4.2.2, Page 59) 35 Control Documents SP/ PSP G-3.2, " Control of OC 9/15/80 Nonconforming Items," and U$
36 OADP C-101, " Project Quality Assurance Trend QA Complete i
Analys is" m
8 are in the process of being revised to provide an improved definition of implementing require-ments for identifying repetitive nonconforming 4
conditions.
J (Ouestion 23, subsection 3.12, Page 33) 37 Consistent with the intent of Action Item Numbers OA 12/31/80 l8 35 and 36, Quality Assurance will review noncon-formance reports which were open as of November 13, 1979, or became open prior to implementation of 8
the improved Project Quality Assurance Trend 1
Analysis program as stated in Action Item 36.
This review will be to identify any repetitive nonconforming conditions pertaining to product type or activity, or pertaining to nonconformance "iy cause.
m<
l EI (Question 23, subsection 3.12, Page 33) a m
4
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion Number and Reference Organization Date Status 8
i 38 A study was completed which examined current 18 i
procedures and practices for the preparation and 1 5 control of the FSAR in view of these experiences.
I j
Procedural changes have been initiated by the PE' Complete 18 revision of or addition to the Engineering 1
Department Procedures.
j (Question 23, subsection 3.3, Page ll) 39 Engineering will clarify specifications and FE 10/17/80 8
(30)
Construction will prepare procedures (governing the soils compaction equipment) to impleasnt 3
wy the requirements of the Nuclear Quality Assurance m
Manual as stated in Action Item 25.
5 (Question 23, Subsection 3.6, Page 18) 1 40 Design documents, instructions, and procedures for those activities requiring inprocess controls i
will be reviewed to assess the adequacy of i
existing proceoural controls and technical j
(31) direction.
Engineeriisg review is scheduled for i
completion by October 24, 1980, and Field FE & QC 11/28/80 18 i
Engineering and quality control review is j
scheduled for completion by November 28, 1980.
18 i
j (Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.2, Page I-ll, Question 23, subsection 3.7, Page 20, and Subsection 3.11, Page 30)
RN 83
^
5o
(
m 4
(
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion 8
Number and Reference Organization Date Status 41 QCIs in use will be reviewed to ascertain that QC 09/01/80 8
provisions have been included consistent with the revised control document, SF/ PSP G-6.1,
" Quality Control Inspections Plans."
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.1, Page I-18; j
Question 23, Subsection 3.8, Page 22; and l8 Subsection 3.9,Page 25) 42 Design documents, instructions, and procedures for those activities requiring inprocess controls will be reviewed to assess the adequacy of existing procedural controls and technical (31) direction.
Engineering review is scheduled for
[j completion by October 24, 1980, and Field l8 i
(40)
Engineering and Quality Control review is scheduled for completion by November 28, 1980.
PE, FE & QC 01/23/81 l8 Any revisions required will be completed by January 23, 1981.
l3 i
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.2, Page I-ll; Question 23, Subsection 3.7, Page 20; and Subsection 3.11, Page 30),
l
)
43 The impact of Action Item 41 on completed work QC 11/01/80 l8 i
will be evaluated, and appropriate actions will be taken as necessary.
3 S$
or (Question 23, Subsection 3.8, Page 22; and Subsection 3.9, Page 25) o" 44 FSAR sections are being rereviewed as discussed PE 09/80 l8 in the Response to Question 23, Part (2).
(Question 23, Subsection 3.1, Page 7; 1
Subsection 3.3, Page 11; and 8
Section 4.0, Page 47)
1 O
O O
Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion Number and Reference Organization Date Status 8
1 44A The audit committed to in our response to QA 12/31/80 j
Question 1, Part b, and described in Part (2),
1 Section 5.0 will be conducted once during the i
course of the FSAR rereview (commencing March 17, 8
1980) and again after completion of the rereview (commencing in October 1980).
(Question 23, Part (2), Section 5.0, Page 48)
)
U 4
i 1
m 1
1 j
m i
i I
O m <:
O >*-
(A l
o i
m l
I
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion 8
Number and Reference Opjanization Date Status 45 U.S.
Testing will be required to demonstrate to PE 10/1/80 8
the cognizant Engineering Representative that testing procedures, equipment, and personnel used for quality verification testing (for other than HDE and soils) were, and are, capable of providing accurate test results in accordance with the requirements of applicable design documents.
(Question 1, Appendix I,
Section D.3.b, Page I-18; Question 23, Subsection 3.10, Page 27; and Subsection 3.11, Page 31) 8 46 A sampling of U.S.
Testing's test reports (for PE 10/1/80 y
other than NDE and soils) will be reviewed by the i
cognizant Engineering Representative to ascertain that results ev.idence conformance to testing requirements and design document limits.
(Question 23, Subsection 3.10, Page 28; and Subsection 3.11, Page 31) 47 See Action Item Number 4 PE 10/80 4
48 CPCo will implement overinspection for soils CPCo-QA Complete placement, utilizing a specific overinspection plan.
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section C.2.b, Page I-ll; and
.m Section C.l.c, Page I-16)
Nm
$ h.
49 CPCo will perform overinspection of the U.S.
CPCo-QA NA NA f.
Testing soils testing activities and reports, o
utilizing a specific overinspection plan.
(Question 1, Appendix I,
Section C.3.c, Page I-17)
O O
O Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Completion 8
Number and Reference Organization Date Status 50 CPCo Project Management and QA review field QC UA NA procedures (new and revised) and CPCo QA reviews QCIs (new and revised) in line with Bechtel before release.
4 (Question 1, Appendix I,
Section D.5.b, Page I-19) l 51 In 1978, CPCo implemented an overinspection plan CPCo-QA NA NA to independently verify the adequacy of con-i struction and the Bechtel inspection process, with the exception of civil activities.
Re-4 inforcing steel and embeds were covered in the overinspection.
(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.S.c, Page I-19)
O 52 CPCo reviews onsite subcontractor QA manuals CPCo-QA NA NA and covers their work in the audit process.
i' (Question 1, Appendix I,
Section D.S.d, Page I-19) 53 An ongoing effort is improving the " surveillance" QC NA NA mode called for in the QCIs by causing more specific accountability as to what character-istics are inspected on what specific hardware and in some cases changing " surveillance" to
" inspection."
(Question 1, Appendix I,
Section D.5.e, Page I-19)
- mW N 4
- p.
Om o
a
O' TABLE 30-2 1
REDUCTION IN AREA FROM DIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENT i
1 (Auxiliary Building from El 593'-0" to 608'-0")
OBE SSE Percent Percent Differential Reduction Differential Reduction Direction Displacement in Area Displacement in Area N-S 0.021" 0*
0.042" 0*
8 E-W 0.024" 0.8 0.048" 1.6 Vertical 0.001' O.03 0.002" 0.06
- Axial movement, no reduction in area for this direction O
I O
Revision 8 30-5 8/80
O O
O Index to Consultant Communication (cont'd)
Tab Date Communication Subject i
145 2/80 Report:
Goldberg-Zoino-Dunnicliff &
Consolidation tests
]
Associates, Inc. to Bechtel 146 2/80 Report:
Goldberg-Zoino-Dunnicliff &
Strength tests Associates, Inc. to Bechtel 147 2/80 Report:
Goldberg-Zoino-Dunnicliff &
Miscellaneous tests Associates, Inc. to Bechtel 148 2/80 Report:
Goldberg-Zoino-Dunnicliff &
Soil classification and moisture Associates, Inc. to Bechtel density relation 149 2/80 Report:
Goldberg-Zoino-Dunnicliff &
Aquaducer llose Settlement Gage
?
Associates, Inc. to Bechtel Instrumentation Manual X
1 E
150 7/80 Report:
Bechtel to Consumers Power Test fill program 8
Company t
5 i
(h o -
oo m
O MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT ON TEST FILL PROGRAM PREPARED FOR CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY JACKSON, MICHIGAN JULY 1980 l
l l
l Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation Ann Arbor, Michigan O
I e_
l
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 REPORT ON TEST FILL PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS 1
1.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 2
2.0 TEST FILL PROGRAM 3
2.1 TEST FILL MATERIAL 3
2.2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 3
2.3 TEST FILLS 3
2.4 SOIL TESTING PROGRAM 7
2.5 PENETRATION TESTS ON COMPLETED FILLS 8
3.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 8
3.1 STRUCTURAL SAND 8
3.2 PIT RUN SAND 8
TABLES FIGURES APPENDIXES A
Compaction Equipment Information D
Test Fill Data C
Gradation Requirements and Curves D
Standard Penetration Test Results O
02
PREFACE This report was prepared by J. O. Wanzeck, Project Geotech-nical Coordinator. The report was reviewed by S. S. Afifi, and W. R.
Ferris.
The field work was done under the direction of Norm Thiel.
Borings were inspected by Wayne Kinzer.
O 4
l l
3 O
03 iii
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220
/\\
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 l
REPORT ON
%s TEST FILL PROGRAM
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL The Midland Units 1 and 2 nuclear power plant is being constructed near Midland, Michigan for Consumers Power Company of Jackson, Michigan.
The intent of this program is to verify construction proce-dures for various compactors to meet the requirements of Specification 7220-C-211(Q), Revision 7, Section 8.5.
i The scope of this report is limited to the materials and compaction equipment used in safety-related areas.
The program commenced in May 1979 and continued through October 1979 on an intermittent basis.
The equipment was released for use as the test fills were completed success-tully.
Test pads were constructed using various types of compaction equipment and soils.
The materials consisted of pit run (random) and structural sand in accordance with ~
Specification 7220-C-211.
All work was supervised by the on-site geotechnical soils engineer with an overview by the project soils engineer from the Ann Arbor office.
The lab-oratory and field tests were performed by the on-site testing laboratory.
The details of the test fill ' program which include a des-cription of the test pads, fill materials, and laboratory and field testing are given in Section 2.0 of this report.
The results are summarized and conclusions regarding equip-ment applications for future use for the specified soils and degree of compaction are presanted in Section 3.0.
Data on test fill geometry, test locacions, laboratory test results, standard penetration test results, and gradation require-ments and curves are presented in the appendixes.
1.2 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) delineates the design criteria for fill and backfill to be as follows:
All fill and backfill materials are adequately compacted to insure stability of the fill and to orovide adequate support for structures founded on this fill without excessive settlements.
The consultant's report (Dames & Moore, March 15, 1969) recommends the following compaction criteria for placement
('
of sands.
i 04 1
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 Recommended Minimum Compaction Criteria On-Site Sand Soils Purpose of Fill Percent Relative Density
- Support of 85 Structures Adjacent to 75 Structures Area Fill (not 70 supporting or adjacent to structures)
- Maximum and minimum density of sand soils should be determined in accordance with ASTM
'A st Designation D 2049-64T.
The technical specificatica for backfill requires the follow-ing compaction criteria for sands.
Materials (Sand)
Percent Relative Density Purpose of Fill (Per ASTM D 2049)
Support of All 85 Structures Adjacent to and 80 Away from All Structures
- 1. 3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The intent of the specification is to require that a construc-tion procedure be developed to meet the compaction requirements t
presented in Section 1.2.
The specification states:
1 O
05 2
l
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 Selection and approval of all of the proposed compaction equipment shall be on the basis of demonstrated ability to accomplish adequate compaction without damage to, or overstressing of, the adjacent structural members.
l The following criteria were used in evaluating test fill resultr-a.
At least 80% of the samples tested in each test fill shall have a relative density equal to or exceeding specification requirements.
b.
No samples shall have a relative density 10 percen-tage points below the specified requirements.
- 2. 0 TEST FILL PROGRAM 2.1 TEST FILL MATERIAL Sands meeting specifications for structural and plant area backfill are obtained from off-site sources.
These materials conform to Specification 7220-C-211(Q), Revision 7, Sections 8.1.1 and 8. 2. 3.
- 2. 2 COMPACTION EQUIPMENT A list of compaction equipment used is given in Table 1.
Manufacturer's information on compaction equipment is given in Appendix A.
Water truck, grader, dump truck, and various types of tractors were also used to transport, moisture condition, and place the material.
- 2. 3 TEST FILLS The following procedures were used to evaluate the com-paction equipment except for the rammer type compactor Model RV4B (pogo stick).
The rammer type compactor was used in a number of confined areas with 4-inch loose lifts and eight compactive passes.
All materials were approved by the on-site geotechnical soils engineer prior to placement in the test fill.
The sands used were moistare conditioned on the fill as needed.
a.
Step 1 Each test area was prepared by cleaning the surfact of all loose and deleterious material.
The subgrade was moisture conditioned and com-pacted with six complete coverages of the hand compactor selected for test fills 1 and 2, Model DVU 3001.
3 t
l
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 b.
Step 2 Loose 4-inch or 6-inch lifts of the material to be tested was placed and compacted with the desired number of passes.
Compactive passes included a minimum of 6-inch overlap.
Steel probes with marks and grade stakes were used to insure uniform thickness of each lift prior to compaction.
c.
Step 3 The previous step was repeated until 2 feet of material had been placed and compacted with the passes selected (slope of the fill at the edge was no steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical).
d.
. Step 4 Four sand cone tests (ASTM D 1556) 12 inches below the surface were made.
Density tests were made below the surface to get below any disturbrd soils at the surface of the fill.
Four bulk samples (one at each density location) were taken, identified, and sent to the laboratory.
e.
Step 5
(
A relative density test (ASTM D 2049) was con-ducted on each sample.
f.
Step 6 Test holes were filled and compacted as in Step 2, then one complete lift and the selected number of passes were made as in Step 2.
Steps 4 and 5 were then repeated.
g.
Step 7 Steps 1 through 6 were repeated for all tests.
Final approval of the required construction procedures for each compactor was determined by the pra;3ct soils engineer using the acceptance criteria given in Sec*:nn 1.3.
2.3.1 TEST FILLS ON SANDS The following test fills were conducted to confirm construc-tion procedures for compacting structural sand and pit run (random) sands.
A summary of test fill information is pre-sented in Table 2 which identifies test fill size, material, lift thickness, and number of passes for the various pieces of equipment.
07 4
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 a.
Test Fill 1 Test fill 1 was used to evaluate the ability of a Wacker Vibratory Plate, Model DVU 3001, to compact pit run sand using a 4-inch loose lift chickness and six compactive passes.
Test fill size, field density test locations, and laboratory test results are given in Appendix B, test fill 1.
Figure A shows the relative density values of the 28 tests made to be in the range from 75 to 96%
with an average of about 86%.
Twenty-three tests (82% of the samples) exceeded 80% relative density and five tests had relative densities of 75% or
(
more.
This piece of equipment is considered adequate for placement of the pit run sand at a relative density of 80% in accordance with the acceptance criteria in Section 1.3.
b.
Test Fill 2 Test fill 2 was used to evaluate the ability of a Wacker Vibratory Plate, Model DVU 3001 to compact structural sand using a 4-inch loose lift thickness and six.compactive passes.
Test fill size, field density test locations, and laboratory test results are given in Appendix B, test fill 2.
Figure B shows relative density values for the 28 tests to be in the range of 79 to 99% with an average of about 88%.
Only three tests were marginally below 80% relative density.
This piece of equipment is considered adequate for placement of structural sand at a relative density of 80% in accordance with the acceptance criteria in Section 1. 3.
c.
Test Fill 3A Test fill 3A was used to evaluate the ability of an M-B-W Vibratory Plate, Model GP-7000 to compact structural sand using a 4-inch loose lift thickness and six compactive passes.
Test fill size, field density test locations, and results of laboratory tests are given in Appendix B, test fill 3A.
As shown in Figure C, a total of 14 out of 14 tests passed 80% relative density and 10 out of 14 passed 85% or greater as the average relative density was in excess of 85%.
This piece of equipment is considered adequate for placement of structural sand at 80% relative density in accor-dance with the acceptance criteria in Section 1.3.
O 5
QS
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 d.
Test Fill 3B Test fill 3B was osed to evaluate the ability of a Wacker J-Foot Tamper, Model GVR 220Y to compact structural sand using a 4-inch loose lift thick-ness and six compactive passes.
Test fill size, field density test locations, and results of laboratory tests are given in Appendix B, test fill 3B.
Figure D shows that a total of 14 out of 14 tests passed 85% relative density.
This piece of equip-ment is considered adequate for placement of structural sand for 85% relative density in accor-dance with the acceptance criteria in Section 1.3.
e.
Test Fill 4A Test fill 4A was used to evaluate the ability of Wacker J-Foot Tamper, Model GVR 220Y to compact pit run sand using a 4-inch loose lift thickness and six compactive passes.
Test fill size, field density test locations, and results of laboratory tests are given in Appendix B, test fill 4A.
Figure E shows the relative density was in the range of 85 to 98% except for one value at 78%.
The overall average was 88%.
One test was df.sre-O garded as not reliable because of a high density reported.
Only one value fell out of the range of the majority of the data of 85 to 98%.
This piece of equipment is considered adequate for placement of pit run sand at a relative density of 85% in accordance with the acceptance criteria in Section 1.3.
1 f.
Test Fill 4B Test fill 4B was used to evaluate the ability of an M-B-W Vibratory Plate, Model GP 7000 to compact pit run sand using a 4-inch loose lift thickness and six compactive passes.
Test fill size, loca-tions of field density tests, and results of laboratory tests are given in Appendix B, test fill 4B.
Figure F shows the relative density was in the range of 75 %to 87%.
Only two of the total of 14 tests were below 80% and these were in the range I
of 75 to 80%.
This piece of equipment is consi-dered adequate for placement of pit run sand at 80% relative density in accordance with the accep-tance criteria in Section 1.3.
~
I 03 6
-,,,.,--.-----,--,-n_,,,.
,,~-,,,.,,,---e
,,---+--.,----,-,--.,-.--n--
a
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 g.
Test Fill 8 O
Test fill 8 was used to evaluate the ability of a Self-Propelled Drum Roller Vibro Plus, Model CA-25PD to compact pit run sand using a 6-inch loose lift thickness and 10 compactive passes.
Test fill sir 2, locations of field density tests, and results of laboratory tests are given in Appendix B,
test fill 8.
Figure G shows relative density was in the range of 82 to 105% with an average of 94%.
Twenty-two out of a total of 24 tests (92%) fell above 85%
relative density.
Two values fell in the range of 80 to 85%.
The majority of the tests fell above 85%.
This piece of equipment is considered ade-quate for placement of pit run sand at 85% rela-tive density in accordance with acceptance criteria in Section 1.3.
h.
Test Fill 11 Test fill 11 was made on the rammer type compactor Model RV4B (pogo stick) for compacting sands in confined areas.
Two tests were conducted on the structural sand which exceeded 90% relative density (average of 93%), and two tests were conducted on O
the pit ran sand which exceeded 90% relative den-sity (average of 94%).
A relative density test was conducted on each sample in accordance with ASTM D 2049 to determine maxinum and minimum densities.
See Appendix B, test fill 11, for data.
2.4 SOIL TESTING PROGRAM i
Soil sampling and testing were performed by an.on-site test-ing laboratory under the supervision of the on-site geo-technical soils engineer.
Surveying was done by Bechtel and the locations of all tests are shown in Appendix B.
The l
following standards were used for laboratory and field soil testing.
l 2.4.1 In-place density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556-64 (1974) and moisture contents for each test were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2216-71.
Results of these tests are presented in Appendix B.
2.4.2 Sand samples obtained adjacent to each density test l
in the test fill were tested in accordance with ASTM D 2049.
The maximum densities of these tests were made on saturated samples.
Parallel tests made periodically on dry samples l
s indicated that the saturated samples have higher maximum densities.
Results of these tests are presented in Appendix B.
l 3O i
7 i
~
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220
/
2.4.3
\\_))
A grain size analysis was also performed for all Censity tests in accordanct with ASTM D 422-63.
These test results are su==arized in Appendix C.
- 2. 5 PESETRATION TESTS ON COMPLETED TEST FILLS In addition to the standard tests discussed in Section 2.4, standard penetration tests were made on the completed test fills.
These tests were conducted on test fills 1, 2,
3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B.
The locations of the borings and the results of these tests are shown in Appendix D.
The standard penetration tests were made by Raymond Inter-national under the supervision of Bechtel geotechnical personnel.
All sampling and testing was performed under ASTM D 1586-67 (1974).
The penetration testa indicated that both the sands are uni-for=1y well compacted which concurs with the test data.
3.0
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The data discussed in the previous sections are su==arized in Table 2.
Listed below are the pieces of equipcent which are considered adequate for placement of structural sand and pit run sand at the lif t thickness and number of passes required to =eet the specified relative density (Section 1.2)
\\
in accordance with the acceptance criteria given in Section 1.3.
Co=paction equip =ent information is provided in Appendix D.
3.1 STRUCTURAL SAND The test fill progra= showed that structural sand can be co=pacted with the following equipment to =eet the relative densities shown with unco =pacted lift thicknesses and number of passes noted:
Loose Lift Number Pe rcent Thickness of Relative Equip =en t (Inches)
Passes Censity Wacker J Foot Tamper GVR-220Y 4
6 85 M-B-W Vibratory Plate GP-7000 4
6 80 Wacker Vibratory Plate DVU-3001 4
6 80 3.2 PIT RUN SAND l
The test fill progra= showed that pit run sand can be co=-
pacted with the following equip =ent to meet the relative
[,_]s densities shown with unco =pacted lif t thicknesses and number l
of passes noted:
I 1 *-
^
8 l
l l
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220
(
Loose Lift Number Percent w
Thickness of Relative Equipment (Inches)
Passes Density Wacker Vibratory Plate DVU-3001 4
6 80 Wacker J Foot Tamper GVR-220Y 4
6 85 M-B-W Vibratory Plate GP-7000 4
6 80 Vibro-Plus Model CA-25PD 6
10 85 The data were evaluated to determine the ability of the equip-ment, when used as specified in the manufacturer's manuals, to compact structural sand and pit run (ramdom) sand to the den-sity required with the specified uncompacted lift thickness and the number of passes given in Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2.
Table 2, therefore, lists the pieces of compaction equipment considered qualified when used as discussed within the accep-tance criteria specified and in accordance with the require-ments of Specification 7220-C-211(Q).
O l
t O
12 9
RELATIVE DENSITY: is defined to be the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of tne dirrerence between the void ratio of a cohesionless soil in its loosast state
~
Os and the in place void ratio to the difference between the void ratios of the loosest and densest states of the soil. This relationship is commonly computed using the unit weights corresponding to the laboratory maximum and minimum density tests and the in place unit weight of the soil. The equation for computing relative density is:
RD =
y max ( v y min) x 100 y ( ymax y min)
EXAMPLE: A density test is performed in the field on compacted backfill and the in place unit weight is determined. A sample of the same material is then taken to the lab and tested to determine the maximum and minimum densities of the soil. These values might be:
y 124.0 pef y max = 125.0 pef y min = 105.0 pcf Using the above equation, relative density is computed to be 125.0 (124.0 - 105.0) 1 x 100
= 95.8%
124.0 (125.0 - 105.0)
Occassionally, a situation exists where the values obtained may be:
y = 125.5 y max = 124.0 y min = 105.0 Then, the relative density is:
124.0 (125.5 - 105) 2 x 100 =
106.6%
125.5 (124 - 105) l 1
1 4.0 in place
= 99.22/95.8% above 2
125.0 in place
= 101.2%/106.6%
124.0 max a
N*
9
\\w 1**
Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Job 7220 O
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF TEST FILL COMPACTION EQUIPMENT SANDS Test Type of Compaction Fill Soil Type Equipment Used 1
Pit run Wacker-Vibratory Plate sand Model DVU-3001 with 8-Inch Outriggers 2
Structural Wacker-Vibratory Plate sand Model DVU-3001 with 8-Inch Outrigggers 3A Structural M-B-W Vibratory Plate sand Model GP-7000 3B Structural Wacker J-Foot Tamper sand Model GVR-220Y O-4A Pit run Wacker J-Foot Tamper sand Model GVR-220Y 4B Pit run M-B-W Vibratory Plate sand Model GP-7000 8
Pit run Self-Propelled Drum Roller sand Vibro-Plus Model CA-25 PD 11 Pit run Rarner type compactor sand and Model RV4B (pogo stick) structural sand O
?..:-
.----,,-we e,,
--rw,,--w,
,w,v-w-,-w-
---,~,ww--,---we~-w r-,,ow,,
w,r w--------<e w-
-ec
--w
-,~
/'N
)
Midland Units 1 2
V Job 7220 W
if TAllLE 2
SUMMARY
OF DATA a
SANDS Test Nuraber Equal or Pill Lift Number Relative Total Above 4 of Rela-Test Size Thickness Size of Density %
Number tive Density Fill (Feet)
Material (Inches)
Equipment Code Passes Range Average of Tests 80%
USA 1
25 x 40 Pit run 4
Wacker-Vibratory Plate 11 3 6
75-96 86 28 23(82%)
17(61%)
i sand Model DVU-3001 2
25 x 40 Struc-4 Wacker-Vibratory Plate 11 3 6
79-99 88 28 25(89%)
20(71%)
tural Model DVU-3001 sand 3A 25 x 20 Struc-4 M-II-W Vibratory Plate 11 3 6
80-96 89 14 14(1001) 10(71%)
tu ra l GP-7000 sand 1
3 15 25 x 15 Struc-4 Wacker J-Foot Tamper 11 2 6
85-101 96 14 14(100%) 14(1001) tural Model GVR-220Y sand 4A 25 x 15 Pit run 4
Wacker J-Foot Tamper 11 2 6
78-98 88 13 12(92%)
12(92%)
sand Model GVR-220Y 4 11 25 x 20 Pit run 4
M-B-W Vibratory Plate 11 3 6
75-87 83 14 12(86%)
5(36%)
sand Model GP-7000 8
80 x 24 Pit run 6
Self-Propelled Drum S
10 82-105 94 24 24(100%) 22(92%)
sand Roller Vibro-Plus Model CA-25D
, Size Code:
Self-Propelled (large size)
S
=
113 =
Vibratory plate 112 = J-Poot Wacker
O at 95
.0 7s t.
j SPECIFICATION FOR
=
w SUPPORTING STRUCTURES PSAR SUPPORT OF STRUCTURES O
E w
a y
a
=
SPECIFICATIO 4 FOR OTHER A REAS O
R ADJACENT TO STRUCTURES PSAR AREAL FILL g
106 110 115 120 125 130 IN# LACE ORY DENSITY (PCF) l i
MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND LIFT THICKNESS: 4" BECHTEL EQUIPMENT: WACKER-VIBRATORY PLATE LtODEL DVUM1 Af.I AR90R NUMBER OF PASSES: 6 MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 I
RELATIVE DFNSITY VS IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY TEST FILL: 1 Jos satt naamissa asti a r v.
lI 7220 FIGURE A A
-.. _ - _. _,. _ ~. - _. - - - -...
v 100 O
16 5 e
99
, 1..
m h
6 E
t G
SPECIFICATION FOR PSAR SUPPORT b
SUPPORTING STRUCTURES e e OF STRUCTURES o as g.
2 de e
SPECIFICATION FOR OTHER AREAS e
O PSAR ADJACENT T0 STRUCTURES l
PSAR AREAL FILL 106 110 115 120 125 130 IP6 PLACE DRY DENSITY PCF) l l
MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL SANO
~
uFT TmCxNeSS: 4-BECHTEL EQUIPMENT: WACKER Vl8MATORY PLATE MODEL Dvu 3001 Aam AfGOR NUMBER OF PASSES: 8 MIOLANO UNITS 14: 2 O-RELATIVE DENSITY VS IN# LACE DRY DENSITY TEST FILL: 2 JORie0.
DAAWitse batt REY.
^
7220 FIGURE a A
e-
-,--s
-n m
,-,,s-
,,-~,w r--wr
,-e----
-r-------------
.--e--
or w-e-----e e
e,
,--------w-
100 V
. e 96 i
l e
j i
0e 5
e C
g SPECIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING STRUCTURES PSAR SUh0RT OF STRUCTURg g
s P
5 E
SPECIFICATION FOR OTHER AREAS j
O PSAR ADJACENTTO STRUCTURES PSAR AREAL FILL 70 106 110 115 120 125 130 IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY (PCF)
MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL SAND uFTTNiCxNESs: c BECHTEL EQUIPMENT: bl8-W VISRATORY PLATE MODEL GP 7000 Afst Anson WM8ER F PASSES: 8 MIDLANO UNITS 1 & 2 RELATIVE DENSITY VS IN PLACE DRY DENSITY 13 TEST FILL: 3A JOR M ORAwlma sen.
R E v.
7220 FIGURE C A
105 y,
e e
100 oe S
.e1 95 e e
~
e 2
[
90 a
e 5
C SPECIFICATION FOR PSAR SUPPORT OF STRUCTURES SUPPORTING STRUCTURES e
25 wc O
SPECIFICATION FOR OTHER AREAS 80 PSAR ADJACENTTO STRUCTURES 75 PSAR AREAL FILL 105 110 115 120 125 130 IN PLACE DRY DENSITY (PCF) 1,
MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL SAND l
LIFT THICKNESS: 4~
BECHTEL EQUIPMENT: WACKER J FOOT TAMPER -MODEL GVR 220Y ANN AR80R
' f3 l
Nj NUMBER OF PASSES: 6 MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 RELATIVE DENSITY VS 1Q IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY V
TEST FILL: 3B P E Y.
I JOBNO' DR AWING NO.
7220 FIGURE D A
~
100 O
=
e e
e 90 C
E SPECIFICATION FOR e
e 5
SuPPORTiNo STRUCTURES PSAR SupeORT OF STRUCTURES e m w-5 P
5
=
SPECIFICATION FOR OTHER AREAS O
PSAR ADJACENTTO STRUCTURES 75 PSAR AREAL FILL 70 106 110 115 120
?25 130 IN PLACE DRY DENSITY (PCF)
MATERIAL: PIT RuN SAND un TNiCxNEsS: 4-BECHTEL EQUIPMENT: WACKER J FOOT TAMPER - MODEL GVR 220Y AfSI AfWOR l
NUMBER OF PASSES: 6 MlOLAND UNITS 1 & 2 RELATIVE DENSITY VS l
IN-PLACE DRY DENSITY l
TEST FlLL: 4A g
G JOS MfL DRAWINS 900.
R EV.
i g,r I
7220 FIGURE E A
l 1.-
100 0
95 90 0
e
,e C
e g
SPECIFICATION FOR e
SUPPORTING STRUCTURES PSAR SUPPORT OF STRUCTURES g
s_
e Y
d*
e.
SPECIFICATION 3R OTHER AREAS e
e PSAR ADJACENTTO STRUCTURES e
PSAR AREAL FILL 70 105 110 115 120 125 130 IN-PLACE DRY DEN 5;TY (PCF)
MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND uFT THiCxNESS: 4-BEME EQUIPMENT: M-B-W VIBRATORY PLATE MODEL GP 7000 ANN ARSOR MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 RELKTIVE DENSITY VS IN PLACE DRY DENSITY TEST FILL: 4B 21 e
Jos ss(L DRAWlAAA atfL R E V.
I 7220 FIGURE F
A
106 j
O 100 e
e e O
M d
s O
e*
Y
~
G k#
e s g
O
$p SPECIFICATION FOR j
SUPPORTING STRUCTURES I SAR SUPPORT OF STPUCTURES as me e
O SPECIFICATION FOR OTHER AREAS g
PSAR ADJACENT TO STRUCTURES i
PSAR AREAL FILL 106 110 115 120 125 130 IN PLACE DRY DENSITY (PCF)
MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND LIFT THICKNESS: 8" BECHTEL EOUiPMENT: SELF-PROPELLED DRUM ROLLER-VIBRO.PLUS AfSI ARBOR MODEL CA 25 PD NUMBER OF PASSES: 10 MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 RELATIVE DENSITY VS lN-PLACE DRY DENSITY TE.7. FILL: 8 9 c, e.ma m nemme m a rv.
~'
Y 7220 FIGURE G A
l
O l
APPENDIX A Compaction Equipment Information O
4 f
l l
O 23
. ~ - -
Appandix 'A i
1.
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT:
Wacker-Vioratory Plate Model DVU-3001 O
WEIGHT:
1,385 pounds PLATE SIZE:
39 x 40 inches MAXIMUM SPEED:
60 feet / minute a
CENTRIFUGAL FORCE:
8,000 pounds EXCITOR-FREQUENCY:
1,100-1,885 rpm i
2.
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT:
M-B-W Vibratory Plate Model GP-7000 WEIGHT:
655 pounds i
PLATE SIZE:
26 x 30 inches TRAVEL SPEED:
100 feet / minute TOTAL FORCE:
7,900 pounds FREQUENCY:
2,800 blows / minute 3.
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT:
Wacker J-Foot Tamper Model GVR-220Y WEIGHT:
204 pounds O
PLATE SIZE:
15 x 16 inches 2
SPEED:
3,520 f t /hr APPLIED ENERGY:
73.1 foot-pounds FREQUENCY:
580 blows / minute 4.
TYPE OF EQUIPMENT:
Vibro-Plus Dynapac. Vibratory
. Model CA-25PD WEIGHT:
24,000 pounds SIZE:
68-inch diameter CONTACT AREA:
22.5 square inches i
SPEED:
0-5 mph TOTAL FORCE:
58,500 pounds FREQUENCY:
1,700 vpm a
24 A-1
_ _ _, _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ ~ _
= _ _ _ _ _
i Appendix A 1
i Gradation Requirements for Backfill 1.
Sand from offsite sources shall be 100% passing the 3/4-inch sieve and a maximum of 12% passing the number 200 sieve.
1 1
2.
Structural backfill shall have the fc11owing gradation.
Sieve Size Percent Fine Retained Coarse 1"
0 0
i 64 0
25
- 10 0
50 i
- 40 40 95
- 200 95 100 i
i l.
I l
O I
1 l
l l
l I
O uv A-2 1
1 i
l I
APPENDIX B f
Test Fill Data 90
~ v
.-.-,.,--...-,.__.,_..,.,,,-,.,n,__._,,,.,..,.,
,,n_,;_,,-,,__.-,,___,,,,.-,--.--..
l MIDLAND 10 2 TEST FILLS 1,2,3A,38,4A & 48 0 + 00 SAND & STRUCTUAL BACKFILL M
H O
PIT i,
RUN TEST FILL 1 SAND i
0 + 40 0 + 45 STRUCTURAL BACKFI':.L TEST FILL 2 0 + 86 0
)"0 + 90 ST.9UCTURAL BACKFILL TEST FILL 3 A
1+10 1 + 15 B
t STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 1 + 30 1+5 MT RUN SAND TEST FILL 4 A
1 + 30
) 1 + 55 B
MT RUN F
SAND
,O 1 + 75 e
25' ---*
2'i
MIDLAND NO.1 th 2, TEST FILL 1 TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND) 3 O
T.
TEST FILL NO.1 O+M LIFT f 4O. 3 DEN NO.1 DEN NO. 3 i
g 9
-- 0 + 10 1
O 0 + 20 I
I DEN NO.4 DEN NO. 2 g
9 0+M i
i e
?.S
MIDI >140 NO.10 2 TEST FILL 1 TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND)
O O + 00 W
H TEST FILL NO.1 LIFT NO. 4 DEN NO. 5 0
0 + 10 t
i O
DEN NO.7 DEN NO. 6 O + 20 I
0 + 30 DEN NO. 8 g
8 0 + 40 i
e 23
MIDLAND NO.1G 2 TEST FILL 1 TYPE MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND)
O N-0 + 00 TEST FILL NO.1 LIFT NO. 5 I
-- 0 + 10 e
DEN NO. 9 DEN NO.10 e
e O
0 + 20 DEN NO.11 DEN NO.12 e
e l
l 0 + 30 l
i I
l O + 40 O
1 8
39 w.
.. _ - - - _ - _. _. - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - ~, -,.
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 1 TYPE MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND)
O E
M H
-- 0 + 00 TEST FILL NO.1 LIFT NO. 6 DEN NO.13 9
l 0 + 10 e
DEN NO.14 O
0 + 20 i
l 8
l 0 + 30 DEN NO.15 DEN NO.16 9
9 0I 0 + 40
\\
t 31
MIDLAND NO 10 2 TEST FILL 1 TYPE MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND)
H T.
i 0 + 00 t
DEN NO.17 TEST FILL NO.1 9
LIFT NO. 7 0+10
, DEN,NO.18 O'
O 0 + 20 i
l DEN NO.19 O + 30 DEN NO. 20 e
o + 40
~,
dM
--,,r..,,
._.,_.._._,-..,_m
MIDLAND NO.1 C: 2 TEST FILL 1 TYPE MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND)
M!
0 + 00 TEST FILL NO.1 LIFT NO. 8 4> DEN NO.21
-- 0 + 10 1
(> DEN NO.22 O
0+M I
(> DEN NO. 23 t
1
- 0 +30 2
il DEN NO.24 O
~
d,s >
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 1 TYPE MATERIAL: PIT RUN (SAND)
M W
O t
0 + 00 TEST FILL " J,1 LIFT NO. 9 s
OEN NO.25 DEN NO.26 g
g
._ 0 + 10 I
i i
O O.,
{
l 1
DEN NO. 27 OEN NO. 28 U + 30 e
g 1
0 + 40 O
34 l
MIDLAND UNMS 10 2 JOS NO. 7ZN Terr FILL 1
MATERMd4 Pit Run Sands j
PEN $lTY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE-LAB MAX
'.A8 MIN
% RD REMARKS P
NO.
NO.
((L/' DEN 5 TTY sy oRy wr lb/ft Ib/ft 3'
1 3435 121.6 9.4 1 6.6 93.9 11 7.0 Dry 7
3:
1 3435 121.6 9.4 124.6*
93.9 92.5 Wet I
2 3436 121.9 8.9 117.8 94.4 113.6 Dry 3-2 3436 121.9 8.9 125.5*
94.4 91.0 Wet 3
3 3440 119.0 9.4 116.2 94.0 110.0 Dry 3
3 3440 119.0 9.4 125.4*
94.0 83.9 Wet 3
4 3441 120.9 9.3 117.0 92.2 112.0 Dry 3
4 3441 120.9 9.3 125.4*
92.2 89.7 Wet 4
5 3446 119.8 9.3 116.1 93.1 112.5 Dry 4
5 3446 119.8 9.3 124.3*
93.1 88.8 Wet 4
6 3447 120.5 9.5 117.3 92.0 109.7 Dry 6
3447 120.5 9.5 123.0*
92.0 93.8 Wet 4
7 3448 120.5 9.7 115.7 94.6 117.9 Dry 4
7 3448 120.5
- 9. 7 123.9*
94.6 90.9 Wet 4
8 3449 120.9 9.0 116.5
! 4.'5 115.6 Dry 4
8 3449 120.9 9.0 124.1*
.4.5 91.5 Wet 5
9 3457 119.3 10.0 117.6 93.9 105.6 Dry 5
9 3457 119.3 10.0 122.4*
93.9 91.4 Wet 5
10 3456 120.3 9.6 117.0 93.1 110.7 Dry 5
10 3456 120.3 9.6 122.1*
93.1 95.2 Wet 5
11 3455 117.5 10.1 117.1 93.7 101.4 Dry 5
11 3455 117.5 10.1 121.8*
93.7 87.8 Wet 5
12 3454 118.4 9.9 114.4 92.0 113.9 Dry l
5 12 3454 118.4 9.9 124.0*
92.0 86.4 Wet 13 3473 115.7
- 9. 3 113.7 88.7 106.1 Dry 6
13 3473 115.7
- 9. 3 123.9*
88.7 82.'1 Wet 9/
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAB MAX.
ASTM D 2049-69 i
MIDLAND UNIT 310 2 J08 No. 7mo TEST FILL l
MATERIAL: Pit Run Sands fENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE LA8 MAX LA8 MIN
% RD REMARKS S
NO, NO.
D((,QE SITY 8Y DRY VW 3
3 lh/ft lb/ft 6
14 3472 117.1 10.1 113.3 91.7
. 115.9 Dry 6
14 3472 117.1 10.1 122.6*
91.7 87.6 Wet 6
15 3471 118.8
- 9. 3 115.8 92.7 110.1 Dry 6
15 3471 118.8 9.3 123.9*
92.7 87.2 Wet 6
16 3470 121.0 8.2 116.1 96.0 119.1 Dry 6
16 3470 121.0 7.9 122.4*
96.0 55.8 Wet 7
17 3486 118.0
- 7. 9 114.4 91.6 112.3 Dry 7
17 3486 118.0
- 7. 9 129.9*
91.6 75.9 Wet 7
18 3487 116.3
- 7. 8 113.6 88.6 108.2 Dry 7
18 3487 116.3 7.8 129.0*
88.6 76.1 Wet 7
19 3488 117.9 9.5 114.4 88.2 110.0 Dry 19 3488 117.9 9.5 123.8*
88.2 84.0 Wet 7
20 3489 119.8
- 7. 8 115.9 91.6 112..
Dry 7
20 3489 119.8 7.8 133.2*
91.6 75.4 Wet 8
21 3502 118.0 7.3 114.2 90.2 112.1 Dry
' 8 21 3502 118.0 7.3 123.4*
90.2 8.7.6 Wet 8
22 3503 116.0
- 7. 3 117.4 94.8 94.9 Dry 8
22 3503 116.0 7.3 124.5*
94.8 76.6 Wet 8
23 3504 119.2 7.1 116.4 92.1 108.9 Dry 8
23 3504 119.2 7.1 122.8*
92.1 90.9 Wat j
8 24 3505 118.6 8.0 118.2 97.8 101.6 Dry '.
S 24 3505 118.6 8.0 124.4*
97.8 82.0 Wet 9
25 3519 115.9 8.5 122.3*
91.7 83.5 Wet I
9 26 3518 117.6 8.0 122.5*
99.6 81.9 Wet 27 3521 118.0 8.0 122.2*
93.5 88.4 Wet q
9 28 3520 115.5
- 9. 0 171.4*
97.1 74.7 Wet nn 00
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAS MAX.
ASTM D 2049-69
MIDLAND NO. I a 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL O
N-0 + 45 TEST FILL NO.2 LIFT NO. 3 DEN NO.1 DEN NO.3 9
9
-- 0 + 55 I
O 0 + 65 a
t l
i DEN NO.4 DEN NO. 2 9
9
- 0 + 75 I
l 37
MIDLAND NO.10 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE OF MATJRIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL O
N-0 + 45 TEST FILL NO. 2 LIFT NO. 4 1
DEN NO. 5 0
-- 0 + 55 O
DEN NO. 7 DEN NO. 6 g.
0 0+E I
l 1
0 + 75 DEN NO. 8 1
0 + 85 Ob
M MIDLAND NO. la 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACK FILL O
s 0 + 45 TEST FILL NO.2 UFT NO. 5
-- 0 + 55 DEN NO.9 DEN NO.10 4
9 O
0 + 65 1
DEN NO 11 DEN NO.12 9
4 I
0 + 75 I
4
)
se
MIDLAND NO.1 a 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE Of MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL SAND O
N-DEN NO.13 LIFT NO. 6 g
0+55 1
' DEN NO.14 0
0 0 + 66
-- 0 + 75 DEN NO.15 DEN NO.16 9
e-0 + 85 O
.( :
MIDLAND NO.10 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL O
N-0 + 45 TEST FILL NO. 2 LIFT NO. 7 DEN NO.17 9
s a
0 + 55 g DEN NO.18 O
0+E 1
DEN NO.19 g
0 + 75 DEN NO. 20 O
+-
41
MIDLAND NO.10 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE OF MATERIAL:
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL O
T.
m t
't 0 + 45 TEST FILL NO. 2 DEN NO. 21 LIFT NO. 8 (g
0 + 55 1
D EN 22 4D O
0+n i
DEN NO. 23 0
i
- 0 + 75 l
l l
DEN NO.24 4D 0 + 86
. O i
e 1.
- b. ~
I
2-
_a MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 2 TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL N-0+45 TEST FILL NO. 2 LIFT NO. 9 DEN NO.25 DEN NO 26 0 + 55 g
g I
O 0 + 66 l
6 l
t DEN NO.27 DEN NO. 28 0 + 75 g
g I
O I
a
MIDLANO UNITS 10 2 StructurC1
- M' D TEFT FILL 2
MATERIAL:
C-21I
_ 'FT DENSITY U.1 TESTING IN PLACE
% RD REMARK 3 NO-NO-DyY DEySt SY DRY Vrr 3
f Ib /f t 33ff,3 3
1 3434 123.1 6.6 124.7 102.4 94.0 Dry 3
1 3434 123.1 6.6 126.6*
102.4 88.0 Wet 3
2 3437 121.1 8.1 124.5 103.0 86.5 Dry 3
2 3437 121.1 8.1 127.1*
103.0 78.8 Wet (Failure) 3 3
3438 124.3
- 7. 5 124.6 97.3
.99.1 Dry 3
3 3438 124.3
- 7. 5 127.3*
97.3 9?. 1 Wet 3
4 3439 122.6
- 7. 3 124.0 101.9 94.7 Dry 3
4 3439 122.6
- 7. 3 127.2*
101.9 84.9 Wet 4
5 3445 123.3 7.1 123.1 97.8 100.6 Dry 4
5 3445 123.3 7.1 127.0*
97.8 89.9 Wet 4
6 3444 124.0 7.7 124.7 101.8 97.5 Dry 4
6 3444 124.0
- 7. 7 126.8*
101.8 90.8 Wet 7
3443 123.4
- 7. 2 125.2 100.9 93.9 Dry 4
7 3443 123.4
- 7. 2 128.2*
100.9 95.9 Wet 4
8 3442 122.9
- 7. 9 124.1 100.2 95.9 Dry
~4 8
3442 122.9
- 7. 9 126.5*
100.2 88.S Wet 5
9 3453 124.1
- 7. 8 124.9 103.3 96.9 Dry 5
9 3453 124.1
- 7. 8 126.3*
103.3 92.0 Wet 5
10 3452 124.4
- 6. 7 125.0 103.1 97.7 Dry 5
10 3452 124.4 6.7 127.1*
103.3 90.6 Wet 5
11 3451 124.4
- 7. 3 124.8 103.5 98.4 Dry 5
11 3451 124.4
- 7. 3 125.6*
103.5 95.5 Wet 5
12 3450 122.6
- 7. 4 126.4 103.9 85.7 Dry 5
12 3450 122.6 7.4 128.0*
103.9 81.0 Wet 6
13 3469 125.6
- 7. 8 125.0 101.5 102.1 Dry i
13 3469 125.6
- 7. 8 128.8*
101.5 90.6 Wet I\\~,
b '#
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAS MAX PT
- l An* D 2049-69 i
Moot.ANo uw Ts102 Structural JoS NO. 72ao 2
C-211 TEST FILI.
MATERIAt.:
O *J.
T DENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE LAS My LAS MIN
% RD REMAmsts
% MOISTURE NO.
NO.
Dy) gy pay wy lb/ft 1b/ft3 I
1 6
14 3468 123.3
- 7. 3 124.6 100.9 95.5 Dry 6
14 3468 123.3 7.3 129.0*
100.9 83.4 Wet 6
15 3467 122.9 7.6 126.3 105.3 86.1 Dry 6
15 3467 122.9
- 7. 6 127.0*
105.3 81.8 Wet 6
16 2466 122.7
- 6. 8 125.9 105.8 86.3 Dry 6
16 3466 122.7 6.8 128.1*
105.8 79.1 Wet 7
17 3482 123.1 7.8 124.2 101.5 96.0 Dry 7
17 3482 123.1
- 7. 8 126.4*
101.5 89.1 Wet 7
18 3493 123.7 6.9 124.7 101.5 96.5 Dry 7
18 3483 123.7 6.9 129.1*
101.5 83.9 Wet 7
19 3484 122.9 8.1 125.0 102.1 92.4 Dry 7
19 3484 122.9 8.1 126.4*
102.1 88.0 Wet 7
20 3485 122.4 8.0 '
124.2 101.2 93.5 Dry 7
20 3485 s 122.4 8.0 129.5*
101.2 79.3 Wet 8
21 3498 124.9
- 7. 7 123.7 99.4 103.9 Dry 8
21 3498 124.9
- 7. 7 127.0*
99.4 93.9 Wet 8
22 3499 126.0 6.7 122.9 98.9 110.1 Dry 8
22 3499 126.0 6.7 127.1*
98.9 96.9 Wet 3
23 3500 126.1 7.;
123.9 101.0 107.7 Dry 8
23 3500 126.1
- 7. 7 126.5*
101.0 98.7 Wet 8
24 3501 123.3 7.2 123.5 100.9 99.3 Dry 8
24 3501 123.3
- 7. 2 127.4*
100.9 87.3 Wet 9
25 3515 123.5
- 7. 5 127.6*
103.8 85.5 Wet j
9 26 3514 124.2
- 7. 0 127.0*
103.3 90.2 Wet 9
27 3517 123.2 8.1 127.7*
104.0 84.0 Wet 9
28 3516 123.1
- 7. 8 126.6*
101.6 88.4 Wet gii s
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAS MAX PT ASTM D 2049L69
=
i MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 3A & 38 N
i TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFIL L Q
0 + 90 TEST FILL NO.3 A&B LIFT NO.3 i
3A 1 + 00 0
DEN NO.2 O
O 7/
/,
/A
/
/
e l
DEN NO.1 e
1+20 t
DEN NO.2 O
i a
I
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 3A & 3B TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL O
N-t 0 + 90 TEST FILL NO.3 A &B DEN NO. 3 LIFT NO. 4 0
1
-- 1 + 00 1
DEN NO. 4 9
O 1 + 10 i
/
/
I I
DEN.3 9
1 + 20 l
DEN NO.4 0
1 + 30 0
1 l
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 3A & 3B TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL N-t 0 + 90 TEST FILL NO.3 A&B O
LIFT NO. 5 t
3A DEN NO. 6 i
1 0
1 + 10
/
,1+15 (p DEN NO.5 1+20 38 1
l DENINO. 6 O
i 4s
.... -.._ : -... 2,-
)
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 3A & 3B TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL O
N-e 0 + 90 TEST FILL NO. 3A&P DEN NO.7 O
I
?3A
-- 1 + 00 l
l DEN NO. 8 O
,7 p
./
/
/
,,E DEN NO. 7 I'+ 20 0
38 l.
i DEN NO.8 O
i i
l n
i
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2
- EST FILL 3A a 38 TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTURAL BACKFILL
(,
M H
0 + 90 TEST FILL NO.3 A&B LIFT NO. 7 DEN NO.9 3A' O
1 + 00 DEN NO.10 9
O 1 + 10 l
1+15 I
i 1 + 20
.38 DEN NO. 9 O
l DEN NO.10 0
1 I
1 + 30 I
m.
m--
,,-----n,,, - - -
,,--.---,_,,m
-,, -..----~w--,-,-
MIDLAND NO.10 2 TEST FILL 3A G 3B TYPE OF MATERIAL: STRUCTUR AL BACKFILL N~
O s
0 + 90 TEST FILL NO.3 A&B LIFT NO. 8 1
DEN NO.11 9
-- 1 + 00 DEN NO.12 O
1 + 10 b
/b DEN NO.11 I
g 1 + 20 38 DEN NO.12 9
I - 1 + 30 o
l s1 l
MIDLAND NO 1 & 2 TEST FILL 3 A & 3B TYPE OF MATERIAL-STRUCTURAL BACKFILL H
F 0 + 90 DEN NO.13 TEST FILL NO.3 A&B LIFT NO. 9 EA.
._ t + 00 DEN NO.14 0
1 + 10
/
'/
1 + 15 DEN NO.13 -
1 +' 20
'as' S
DEN NO.14 i
l I
sa i.].,.____
uitRAND UNM310 2 Structural 3A&B C~211 T
F MATERIAL:
Ll hENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE LAB X
LAB IN
% RD REMARKS NL NO.
NO.
gjgEgSITY SY DRY WT lb/ft lb/ft 3
1A 3461 125.5 8.3 124.1 100.5 104.8 Dry 3
1A 3461 125.5
- 8. 3 126.9*
100.5 95.8 Wet 3
2A 3460 124.7
- 9. 0 123.7 100.2 103.4 Dry
)
3 2A 3460 124.7 9.0 125.9*
100.2 96.2 Wet 3
1B 3459 124.9 8.2 124.1 100.7
.102.8 Dry 3
1B 3459 124.9 8.2 127.0*
100.7 93.6 Wet 3
2B 3458 124.3 8.6 123.6 98.3 102.2 Dry 3
2B 3458 124.3
- 8. 6 126.4*
98.3 94.1 Wet 4
3A 3474 124.1 8.0 123.3 99.8 102.7 Dry 4
3A 3474 124.1 8.0 127.6*
99.8 89.9 Wet 4
4A 3475 124.5 8.7 124.3 99.3 100.6 Dry l
g4A 3475 124.5, 8.7 127.4*
99.3 91.8 Ret 4
3B 3476 127.9 7.6 124.5 104.6 114.0 Dry 4
3B 3476 127.9 7.6 127.6*
104.6 101.1 Vet 4
4B 3477 126.6 8.1 124.2 103.2 109.3.
Dry 4
4B 3477 126.6 8.1 127.2*
103.2 98.0 Wet 5
5A 3490 120.5 8.4 124.0 98.6 83.7 Dry 5
5A 3490 120.5 8.4 127.2*
98.6 80.1 Wet 5
6A 3491 124.0
- 8. 8 125.0 100.3 96.7 Dry 5
6A 3491 124.0
- 8. 8 128.4*
100.3 87.3 Wet 5
5B 3492 126.1
- 8. 6 123.9 96.2 106.1 Dry 5
SB 3492 126.1 8.6 126.2*
96.2
.99.7 Wet 5
63 3493 124.3 7.2 123.6 96.8 102.0 Dry 5
6B 3493 124.3
- 7. 2 126.0*
96.3 95.5 Wet
{
) 7A 3506 122.5
- 7. 9 127.4*
101.6 84.2 Wet 6
8A 3507 124.2
- 7. 8 127.5*
102.6 89.1 Wet
- COMMENT &
WET METHOD USED FOR LAB max.
ASTM D 2049-69
MIDLAND UNITS 10 2 Structural 3A&B TEST F MATERIAL:
Ll IENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE LA8 X
LABglN
% RD REMARKS OgjgSITY NL.
NO.
NO.
BY DRY WT lb/ft lb/ft 6
7B 3508 123.7
- 7. 8 127.1*
101.7
~ 89.0 Wet 6
8B 3509 126.6 6.7 127.3*
102.9 97.7 Wet 7
9A 5522 123.7
- 6. 7 127.0*
101.1 89.6 Wet 7
10A 5523 124.1 6.8 125.8*
102.9 93.8 Wet 7
9B 5525 125.0 6.3 126.7*
94.6 96.0 Wet 7
10B 5524 127.3 6.0 127.2*
99.7 100.3 Wet 8
11A 5530 122.6
- 7. 0 128.1*
101.1 83.2 Wet 8
12A 5531 123.6 7.1 127.4*
101.5 88.0 Wet 8
11B 5532 126.1 7.6 127.2*
100.7 96.7 Wet 8
12B 5533 121.2 6.1 126.2*
98.4 85.4 Wet 9
13A 5533 121.7
- 7. 8 128.1*
100.2 81.1 Wet 14A 5539 123.6
- 7. 4 126.8*
98.7 90.9 Wet 9
133 5540 126.9
- 7. 2 127.0*
98.6 99.7 Wet 9
14B 5541 124.4 8.5 127.1*
99.3 92.2 Wet
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAS MAX.
ASD4 D 2049-69
MlDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 4A a 4B TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND
~1 Q
1+35 TEST FILL NO.4 A&B DEN NO.1 LIFT NO. 3 O
l I
4A DEN NO. 2 0
-- 1 +4s I
/
/
/
/
O
/
/
~
l DEN NO.1 0
1 e
DEN NO. 2 g
- 1+65 l
4e l
e I
l
-1+15 0
I l
1 l
1 W M
I MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 4A & 4B TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND O
N-t 1 + 35 DEN NO. 3 O
TEST FILL NO. 4 A&B LIFT NO. 4 1
4A 1 + 45 DEN NO 4 0
o
//..
//
1 + 55 I
i 48 DEN NO. 3 1 + 65 g
- DEN NO.4 O
sr l
1
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 4A & 48 TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND O
N-
~
1 + 35 TEST FILL NO.4 A&B DEN NO. 5 LIFT NO. 5 O
I 4A 1 + 45 DEN NO. 6 O
O A
A DEN NO.5 0
1 I
l 4B DEN NO. 6 1 + 65 9
l l
l 1
3 O
D.
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 4A & 48 TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND O
y, w
1 + 35 TEST FILL NO.4 A&B LIFT NO. 6 DEN NO.7 3.
4A DEN NO.8 9
1 + 45 e
1 + 50 1 + 55 1
DEN NO.7 0
t l
1 4B 1 + 66 DEN NO.8 O
1 + 75 O
1 l
b3
MIDLAND NO.152 TEST FILL 4A & 4B TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND
%g>p o
e 1 + 35 DEN NO.9 O
TEST FILL NO.4 A&B LIFT NO.7 i
4 A.
DEN NO.10 0
- 1 + 45 i
1 + 50 l
1 + 55 DEN NO. 9 l
8
-- 1 + 65 DEN NO.10 0
1 + 75 O
L
MIDLAND NO.1 & 2 TEST FILL 4A & 4B TYPE CF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND 7
O N-1 + 35
- ^
DEN NO.11 g
LIFT NO. 8 DEN NO.12 4A 1 + 45 (p
1 1 + 50 1 + 55 DEN NO.11 l
DEN NO.12 48-g 1+66 l
1 + 75
,)
i30 l
-,y,.-,
,.--+-.---,-,--.,,--------------,.,_,-.--.--yr
--.y,- - -.
.3.__,-
..---,-.--y.
.-,,--.------,e.-
.s-,
MIDL.AND NO.102 TEST FILL 4A & 48 TYPE OF MATERIAL: PIT RUN SAND O
N-t
' 1 + 35 DEN NO.13 TEST FILL NO.4 A&B LIFT NO. 9 I
4A 1 + 45 DEN NO.14 O
i 1 + 50
/
1 + 55 i
DEN NO.13 0
l l
i + as DEN NO.14 O
I
(
I l
61
~
MIDLAND UNIT 310 2 JOB NO. ZD0 TEST FILt. 4A&R MATERIAL: Pit Rim Sand L
ENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE LAB MAX LAB MIN
% RD REMARKS NO.
NO.
DF{Y Q SITY BY DRY WT 3
3 737p ysfy 3
1A 3465 120.4
- 9. 8 116.7 95.2 113.6 Dry 3
1A 3465 120.4 9.8 125.6*
95.2 86.5 Wet 3
2A 3464 120.4
- 8. 7 116.1 95.7 116.8 Dry 3
2A 3464 120.4
- 8. 7 122.2*
95.7 94.6 Wet 3
'B 3463 116.0 9.7 115.3 91.5
-102.3 Dry 3
1B 3463 116.0 9.7 123.0*
91.5 82.5 Wet 3
2B 3462 115.4 10.2 115.3 92.1 100.3 Dry 3
2B 3462 115.4 10.2 122.6*
92.1 81.2 Ret e
4 3A 3481 116.3 10.0 115.3 92.0 101.7 Dry 4
3A 3481 116.3 10.0 125.8*
92.0 77.8 Wet 4
4A 3480 120.5 8.8 115.7 92.4 115.8 Dry 4A 3460 120.5 8.8 123.7*
92.4 92.2 Wet I
I 4
33 3479 119.3 8.6 116.7 94.7 109.4 Dry 4
3B 3479 119.3 8.6 124.0*
94.7 87.3 Wet 4
4B 3478 118.2 8.9 115.3 92.9 110.2 Dry
'4 4B 3.478 118.2
- 8. 9 123.3*
92.9 86.8 Wet i
j 5
5A 3494 119.8 8.6 116.4 94.4 112.2 D ry f
5 5A 3494 119.8 8.6 122.4*
94.4 92.7 Wet 5
6A 3495 120.2 8.8 117.0 95.6 111.9 Dry I
5 6A 3495 120.2
- 8. 8 120.9*
95.6 97.8 Wet s
5 5B 3496 117.0 9.1 114.6 89.2 107.2 Dry l
5 5B 3496 117.0 9.1 124.1*
89.2 84.5 Wet 1
5~
6B 3497 116.1 9.1 114.0 91.3 107.3 Dry 5
6B 3497 116.1 9.1 123.8*
91.3 81.4 Wec l
l
/
7A 3510 122.8 8.4 117.9 91.0 113.5 Dry I
I 6
7A 3510 122.8 8.4 119.8*
91.0 107.7 Wet
~
pr
~
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAB MAX.
ASM D 204g
MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 JOS NO. 7220 4A&B TEST FILL MATERIAL: Pit Run Sand I
LIP ENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTUNE LAS MAX LAB MIN
% RD REMARKS f0.
NO.
DY E SITY BY DRY WT 3yf,,3 3y7,,3 6
8A 3511 121.6
- 7. 7 123.5*
93.9 95.0 Wet 6
7B 3512 118.2 7.9 122.7*
93.3 87.9 Wet 6
8B 3513 113.6 8.1 121.4*
94.3 74.9 Wet 7
9A 5527 121.5 8.6 124.8*
94.8 91.4 Wet 7
lot.
5526 120.4 8.0 122.7*
84.0 95.9 Wet 7
9B 5528 116.4 7.5 123.0*
84.5 87.6 Wet 7
10B 5529 116.0 7.5 123.5*
83.1 86.7 Wet 8
llA 5534 117.4 8.4 123.8*
91.0 84.9 Wet 8
12A 5535 118.8
- 7. 7 123.7*
93.8 87.1 Wet 8
11E 5536 116.3
- 8. 2 123.6*
90.0 83.2 Wet 8
12B 5537 116.1 8.6 122.8*
90.7 83.7 Wet 9
13A 5542 120.2
- 7. 6 122.2*
85.9 96.1 Wet
~
l.* A 5543 117.3 7.0 122.0*
94.3 86.4 Wet 9
13t 5544 116.7
- 7. 6 122.8*
85.7 87.9 Wet 9
14B 5545 115.5 7.4 122.2*
95.4 79.1 Wet 93
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAB MAX.
ASTM D 2049-69
.a O
MIDLAND 1 & 2 TEST FILL 8 PIT RUN SAND O
ELECT DUCT BANK.
W493 WEST OF WAREHOUSE NO.1 Q
N sasoo-W L
g l
3 1
1 I
I I
I LIFT NO.1 g
i S4610 I
I I
DEN NO.1l 1
m8
~
l l
I l
DEN NO.2 \\
i
~da O
1 i
i i
i i
DEN NO. 3 g
l I
I I
I I
I i
DEN NO. 4 l
- s4 -
1 I
I I
seats 1 - w I
l DEN NO. 5 i
l
_um t
Et su +.
1 I
I I
I I
p ir
=
=
'7' d
1
{ ogu no,e,
{
1 0\\
l 1
I
,4,,,
= = r4 pr O.
j j
i i
. - RA - - eNSIO -
_e S ',
MIDLAND 1 & 2 TEST FILL 8 SAND O
ELECT DUCT BANK.
WEST OF WAREHOUSE NO.1
.s H
p W-493
- S-4600 l
I LIFT NO. 2 l
1 1
I I
l l
1 I
I
- S 4610 I
i l
i i
l i
I I DEN NO.7 l'
c
- S-4620 l
I I
I I
I I
I I
DEN NO.8 l' e
- S 4630 1
I l
l' I
i DEN NO.9 l 1'
- S-4640 l
l I
I I
i l
l l
l l
l
)
l DEN NO. 'o I
- S-4650 I
I SCALE = 1" = 10' I
I I
l l
l l DEN NO.11 1
- S oe0 g
i EL 634 +
q l
=
ir ir
=
i i
p
/
l DEN NO.12 l
- l \\
i
>o Q
He
H l
l 1
1
' AVERAGE DIMENSIONS l
l I
I
- S 46ao QG uv
MIDLAND 1 & 2 TEST FILL 8 SAND O
M ELECT DUCT BANK W493 WEST OF WAREHOdSE NO.1 4
s 4soo l
I LIFT NO. 3 1
j i
J I
s 461o l
I l
I i
I
-l l
I l
DEN NO.131 s4620 a
I I
l i
I I
! DEN NO.14 l
,A s4s30 I
l I
I I
I I
DEN NO 15 l l
l l
l l
I I
I l DEN,NO.16 I
I l
l I
I SCALE = 1" = lo' DEN NO.171 s-4660 EL 634 +/
=
=
1,
=:
l l
r,,
/
l o="~g=l lc N i
s4ezo w,=
=.m l
l a
AVERAGE DIMENSIONS y
i l
i um 63
MIDLAND 1 & 2 TEST FILL 8 SAND ELECT DUCT BANK.
WEST OF WAREHOUSE NO.1 W493 N-1 I
LIFT NO. 4 I
g I
I I
I l
l i
_ S4610 l
I I
I l
l l
DEN t'O, M
_ M 620 l
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I S4630 O
l l
l DEN NO. 209 l
I l
_ S.4s40 i
I I
DEN NO.21l l
I l
[
l
_ S4650 l
SCALE 1' = 10' l
I I
DEN NO.22 ap i
i i,
i i
_ S4eeo i
I EL 834 +.
I I
l I
DEN NO.23
+
ir
=
=
.1x m
j
[
l d\\
l i
_ S4870 w,=
=a l
DEN NO.24l O
4I AVERAGE DIMENSIONS l
l I
l
_ S.4680 1
9;
,----y-we9--,
aw--
MIDLANO UNITS 10 2 JOS P.'0. ZD0 O
Pit Run Sand TEST Flu MATERIAL:
4 fENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE LA8 MAX LAS MIN
% RD R EMAR KS P
N O.
NO.
D R,Y
, SITY BY ORY WT
,yf,,3 3., f,,3 N
1 1
5676 119.6 8.7 121.4 94.3
,94.8 Wet 1
2 5677 119.1 8.5 120.5 93.2 96.0 Wet 1
3 5678 118.4 8.9 118.9 90.4 78.7 Wet 1
4 5679 119.8 8.5 121.2 88.6 97.0 Wet 1
5 5680 116.9 7.3 124.0 90.6 83.5 Wet 1
6 5681 118.3 8.0 119.5 89.2 97.0 Eet 2
7 5682 117.9 8.7 120.7 89.4 93.2 Wet 1
8 5633 117.8 6.8 121.0 94.2 90.5 Wet 2
9 5684 117.8 6.9 120.1 95.3 92.5 Wet 2
10 56S5 119.0 7.1 121.9 95.0 91.4 Wet 2
11 56S6 118.5 7.5 120.6 93.7 93.3 Wet 12 56S7 119.2
- 7. 3 120.9 94.4 94.9 Wet l
l 3
13 5683 119.1 7.7 121.9 94.8 91.8 Wet 3
14 5689 117.5 6.5 121.7 90.4 89.7 Wet 3
15 5690 117.0 6.8 121.4 90.9 88.8 Wet 3
16 5691 120.3 7.1 121.9 90.1 96.2 Wet 3
17 5692 119.0 7.4 120.8 93.0 94.9 Wet i
3 IS 5693 118.9 6.S 118.3 93.8 101.9 Wet l
l 4
19 5694 115.5 7.0 122.1 92.7 82.0 Wet 4
20 5695 115.8
- 6. 6 119.2 94.7 83.7 Wet 4
21 5696 118.0
- 7. 5 121.8 94.2 89.0 Uet 4
22 5697 116.7 7.9 116.2 94.2 101.8 Wet 4
23 5693 118.4 7.0 121.8 94.9 89.9 Wet 4
24 5699 119.6 7.5 117.8 91.1 105.1 Wet l
I 93
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USEL FOR LAB MAX.
MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 O
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RV 4B TEST FILL POSEYVILLE TEST SITE TEST FILL NO.11 l
0 + 00 TEST FILL NO.1 w
H 0 + 20
/-
"N SAND AND CLAY I
I l
8 l
l 0 + 40
/- - -
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
AREAS INVOLVED IN RV4B TEST FILL O
(SEE SHEETS 2 & 3 )
TEST FILL NO.2 0 + 60 STRUCTURAL "Q" SAND i
1 I
I I
I 1
I
[
0 + 80
(_,)
l I
l
_ __ 4 __ _
1 + 00 1+20 O.
SCALE: 1" = 20' f
SHEET NO.1 l
l 60
i
~~
~ - - -
MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RV4B TEST FILL POSEYVILLE TEST SITE TEST FILL NO.11 0 + 00 9.
0 + 10 t
I TYPICAL TEST
,l l
0 + 20
)
LOCATIONS 2' X 2* SOUARE 1.5 5.5 1
0 + 30 2
l
{
l
- 0. 0 o
Scale.,...
SHEET NO. 2 l0
,-m-
-w
--,,--,.----w, r-,wvw<~
w
I MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY O
RV4B TEST FILL POSEYVILLE TEST SITE TEST FILL NO.11 M_
0 + 50 N-0 + 60 O
TYPICAL TEST
&,l 0+70 LOCATIONS 2' X 2' SOUARE l
d4 <
0+M Z
l l
0 + 86
-s w
n O
SCALE: 1" = 5' SHEET NO. 3 71
MIDLAND UNITS 10 2 MB NO. M 11 Sand TEST FILL MATERIAL:
d hENSITY U.S. TESTING IN PLACE
% MOISTURE LAB MAX LAB MIN
% RD REMARKS N..
NO.
NO.
3 ggjpp 1h/ft 1
P-1 5959 127.2
- 7. 8 128.5 103.3 95.8 Structural 1
P-2 5961 123.8
- 3. 3 126.9 101.3 90.1 Structural 1
P-3 5962 120.1
- 7. 3 123.3 94.4 91.3 Sand (Pit Run) 1 P-4 5963 123.0 3.1 124.3 98.4 96.0 Sand (Pit Run) 1 I
- 7...
l
- COMMENTS:
WET METHOD USED FOR LAB MAX, ASTM D 2049-69 1
I 1
APPENDIX C Gradation Requirements and Curves
- 7. v9
f\\
s 1
US STANDAR0 SIEVE SIZE S 3"
2" I"3/4" 3/II" 4
10 20 40 60 100 200 ioo 4
a =
T..{1.....
e q p.g - i,A
- q J e
].
,i i
~
so l
lQ y:g:.u s
l a+
s
- g
- i:;g:n r
'e 80 i
kJ-h r
{
}
M ro l
- Fe;; 6F ;tng:&
- 44 g
l
-- Aj;:
- p.
< q 2
i w so
- pi.:w.
i i
s 3r i
\\.::.:
S) x L
M m.i tL
-.t-1-
t --
g i
l g-l 3 ii l
'1 l!!)
m So
$p
- m
+ggg i 3:.
-2.sj: li.M l g
l 8
L i
w i
e
(
i
.:::6 j
iE 40 4
s
- -i;).:
%.;.:iii 3:4 !
Sk.
k-l l
g i
i
.: )
$ 30 l
l
( -: 3s4444 $ 4fik l
i i
L mea n. A i
e s
e g i:
i:it :~
p 20 l
- j fS.jj ;
E::
l l
l
%%w:
lo 8
_-Mjj k...
- e...
p g,
4 I
8 I
I N,g~::
'i 3
0 loo 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.0 01 G R AIN SIZE IN MILLIME T ERS i
1 BOUL GRAVEL SAND FINES COB 8LES DERS COARSE l fin [
COARSE l MEDIUM l
FINE SILT SIZES l CL AY SIZES i
BCRING NO ELEV OR DEPTH NAT WC LL PL Pl DE SCRIPTION OR CL ASSlFICATION GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION STRUCTURAL BACKFILL HIDLAND POWER PLAlfr UNITS 1&2 SPEC.C-211 l
.]
,:u i
1 l
I l
l]
s S
N E
0 I
O 1
Z S
I 0
T O
YA U
L B
t C
n I
l R
a 2 T
M &
S m1 ID os S
P t i
E S
E d n 1
N 0
FI E
Z nU Z
I I
a O
S S
i d
T s
N L
I S
A R
G 0
i i '
l I
i l
i '
il.
2 l y I
S 0'
O R
S 0 E
E 0'
T E
N Z 1 E
I O
N I
MI F
TI S
0 E6' L
A L
I V
3 I
C E
\\
M l
F S0 I
I t
S 4'
e l
i '
li' i :
i
,i j
h, l
ii N
S 6
\\
O
( h' I
A l
e,\\
R D
L l
t 3
E N M C
i f
A
\\
Z A u f
i O0' I
S N 2 O
O R
k L
h S
s O
c A
E a
x 1
N T
S
\\
I M
P.
2 A
N R
O G
I l
0
\\
l T
a l
u1 T
E P
r l
S
\\
I u
i R
R t
A C
c
\\
O S
u t
4',i i
I'
- ,i i! s
,l i'
C E
r s
D t
e s
S
'f E
"8 0
a I
/'
m_
1 Fi P
3 L
E L
V P
"4 l
i'
'sl, 8 '
i il, i
R l
L A
/3 "B'
G L
E S
C R
W A
O TA "2 '
C N
H "3'
lI' l
i ii
,i i'
l i '
i' l
,i i
l i
T 0
P 0
S E
1 E
D L8 R
S O
O Y
C E
L L S E
U R s
O E O
B D M
'\\
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
G 0
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
6 N
1 R
3 I
$eW8 >e
,wi'
$ ek O
E B
dtC
ll O
1 Z
S M
E 0
I E
S 0
O Y
l Et A
L n
C a
l R
P 2
Mr 6
W m1 P
s S
d t I
EU E
S
,n i 8
N n
E
'U 0
FI Z
O S
S D'
T i
L S
00
'i 3
i i-
.I ll 2
!3 I
S O
R S 0 E
E I
\\
0 T
E N
Z 1 E
M IN O
S 0
\\
I F
TI L
A E6
\\
8 L
I l
t V
3 I
C l
E
\\
M l
FI i
f e
O.
l l
i' S0
, I l
i-
't i
g?
S OD f
N S
i 4
(
k L
\\,
I A
c R
O L
a E
N M C
B 2
A L
Z A
u D0 I
4 N2 5
S S
A O
0 R
l O
a l
T s
1 N
E S
N I
M r
l A
N u
i t 7 F O
S R
I c 1 0
4 G
l T
u 4 t
U1 E
w S
P r
s I
t D e m
R R
S R T A
C s
O S
C E
,i
,I i
ii ilI e 1
, i l
D 4i
\\
"8 E
m
/.
0 a
Pl 3
1 F
N
,1 l
- i
,i l
! i R
l L
L E
L V
P "4
A
/3 "1g G
L E
S C
R W
A O
T A
"2 C
M H
"3 i,I l
,,i
-l I
l
, i
, l l
T 0
P 0
E 1
D R
O V
E L
L S E
_ O l
U R O E O
S D N
o T
6 5
4 3
O f
o O
0 0
0 0
G 0
N g0 IR o, 5
>g
- >e mZ = 0 =E I3 0
8 n'
l i4 l
l'l1 I
lli
ll S
N E
o I
O Z
S I
g T
o YA U
L B
r C
N I
l R
AL T
P S
R2 I
E&
D W1 O
S PS E
S E
T N
DI E
Z NN g
FI Z
AU I
I g
S S
L D
T I
t N
M L
I S
A
_ R.
R 0,
G
~
0, i
i '
i i l
i,
i' i'
0 2
71 I
S 01 O
R S 0, 4
E E
0 T
E N
Z 1 1
I 1
E IN O
S CI MI F
TI 0,
I 1
L A
E6 1I I
C L
L I
L V
E M
l F
I I
S F
s S0 8
- l i i ;e i '
ei
, : i ; i i'
,;l 8
N S
K D 4
O I
A C E R
O L
A T E
N M C
B A
S Z
O0 I
A u N 2 O
D R
L E S
S e
T A
O A
T i
E R
N S
S I
M U
A N
T A O
C R
I U
l 0
U1 G
T ES P
R I
T R
R S
A C
l O
S 4,,8 i lI
,i
'le i
l i'
l
- l i C
E D
E l'
0 N
l
/,
s P
3 1
F L
E L
V P
4 A
/
l'
, ;e i';l '
,l i
li R
l L
3 "I.
G L
E S
C R
W A
O T
A "2,
C N
H "3,
Illi I
, i i '
l l
l l
i' l
i T
0 P
0 ED 1
RO V
E L
L S E
U R O E O
B D M
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
g 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
G N
R s
H z.U *
>a 5 E 8'
$ g,g 0
8 1s-l:ll l
i '
O 1
Z O
ll S
N E
0 I
I S
0 T
0 YA U
L B
T C
N I
l R
AL T
P S
R2 I
E6 D
W1 O
S PS E
S E
T DI 8
N E
Z NN 0
FI Z
AU I
I 0
S S
LD I
1 7*
N H
L 1
I S
A I
I R
G I
I C
I I
I 0
i l
ii l
l l,
i i
l i,.'
0' 2
7 1
S 0
9 R
S 0 E
E 3
0' T
Z 1 E
N I
E I
O S
W N
0 O
MI F
TI L
L A
E6' L
V I
C E
M l
FI 8
l
$0 i
, l e s'
e, ei i '
8
,l,
.l
- 8 l
N S
D 4'
D I
A ND
~
AE R
D L
ST E
N u C
S A
Z A u NE D0' I
I S
N 2 0
D R
UT S
l A
O R
T E
S 8
I M
S N
A N
TA O
I R
l TI P
0 U1 G
ES P
I R
R A
C O
S 4',i 8
l i,
i l8 l
il '
l i e C
E D
"8 E
/'
0 am l
P 3
1 F
L E
L "4
V P
/
A 3
u-i,
l; 8
,il' i '
t ile ii R
l L
"I' G
L E
S C
R W
A O
T "2 '
C A
N 1
H "3'
i,li i ;i
'l I
I l
l' i'
l
,i i
l i t l
T 0
P 0
S E
4 E
D L8 R
S O
O C
V E
L L S E
O U R O E O
S D N
O 9
e 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
g O
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 G
M N
I 8
R ry2 8 >e r E'
$w eg 0
8 d w.
i
O APPENDIX D Standard Penetration Test Results O
U O
79
'l STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS O
ON COMPLETED TEST TEST FILL NUMBER 1 PIT RUN SAND 0.5-1.5' 2.0-3.0' LOCATION BLOWS /Fr BLOWS /FT Sta. 0 + 05,'2.5' vest 8
29 Sta. 0 + 05, 2.5' east 9
38 Sta. 0 + 05, 7.5' east 7
40 Sta. 0 + 10, 2.5' vest 8
30 Sta. 0 + 10, 2.5' east 8
33 Sea. 0 + 10, 7.5' east 7
32 Sta. 0 + 15, 2.5' west 7
33 Sta. 0 + 15, 2.5' east 8
35 Sta. 0 + 15, 7.5' east 6
33 Sta. 0 + 20, 2.5' vest 7
32 Sta. 0 + 20, 2.5' east 7
36
, ()
Sta. 0 + 20, 7.5' east 8
27 Sta. 0 + 25, 2.5' west 6
28 Sta. 0 + 25, 2.5' east 7
36 Sta. 0 + 25, 7.5' east 7
34 Sts. 0 + 30, 2.5' vest 7
30 Sta. 0 + 30, 2.5' east 8
36 Sta. 0 + 35, 2.5' west 6
28
(
Sta. 0 + 35, 2.5' east 8
32 Sta. 0 + 35, 7.5' east 7
33 l
ASTM D-1586 l
O
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS O
ON COMPLETED TEST TEST FILL NUMBER 2 STRUCTUAL SAND 0.5-1.5' 2.0-3.0' LOCATION BLOWS /FT BLOWS /FT Sta. 0 + 50, 2.5' west 8
36 Sta. 0 + 50, 2.5' east 8
33 Sta. 0 + 55, 2.5' west 8
36 Sta. 0 + 55, 2.5' east 8
37 Sta. 0 + 60,-2.5' west 10 35 Sta. 0 + 60, 2.5' eas:
9 33 Sta. 0 + 60, 7.5' east 7
32 Sta. 0 + 65, 2.5' west 9
36 Sta. 0 + 65, 2.5' east 9
35 Sta. 0 + 65, 7.5' east 7
33
()
Sta. 0 + 70, 2.5' west 8
39 Sta. 0 + 70, 2.5' east 8
34 Sta. 0 + 70, 7.5' east 7
36 Sta. 0 + 75, 2.5' west 8
34 Sta. 0 + 75, 2.5' east 7
34 Sta. 0 + 80, 2.5' east 7
31 Sta. 0 + 80, 7.5' east 8
35 Sta. 0 + 80, 2.5' west 7
39 l
O e,
-+
..,_,.y
O STANDARD T N TRATION TESTS ON COMPLETED TEST TEST FILL NUMBER 3A STRUCTUAL SAND 0.5-1.5'
- 2. 0-3. 0 '
LOCATION BLOWS /FT BLOWS /FT Sta. 0 + 92, on(
8 30 Sta. 0 + 95, S' west 7
33 Sta. 0 + 95, 5' east 8
34 Sta. 0 + 97, on k 8
33 Sta. 1 + 00, S' west 7
36 Sta. 1 + 00, on (
4 36 i
Sta. 1 + 00, S' east 9
33 Sta. 1 + 05, S' vest 6
30 Sta. 1 + 05, onk 6
32 Sta. 1 + 05, S' east 9
36 i
l I
s O
s2
l STANDARD PE?ETRATION TESTS ON COMPLETED TEST TEST FILL Nt.'MBER 3B STRUCTUAL SAND i
0.5=1.5' 2.0-3.0' l
LOCATION BLOWS /FT BLOWS /FT l
l Sta. 1 + 20, S' west 9
33 Sta. 1 + 20,
- 2. 5 ' eas t 10 40 Sta. 1 + 20, 8' east 8
48
(
9
.51 Sta. 1 +.22, on Sta. 1 + 25, 7' vest 8
32 Sta. 1 + 25, 2.5' east 10 43
(
10 47 Sta. 1 + 27, on J
l f
4 I
I 6
Q!.
..--.--,-,,,.-,*.~wwwy--c,.-
--.,,,--,,e-------,-
.-w-y--
-eg-
.- +
STANDARD PENETRAITON TESTS O
ON COMPLETED TEST TEST FILL NUMBER 4A PIT RUN SAND i
l 0.5-1.5' 2.0-3.0' LOCATION BLOWS /FT BLOWS /FT, d
5 32 Sta. 1 + 37, on 1
l Sta. 1 + 40, 5' vest 9
34 Sta. 1 + 40, 2.5' east 8
(
7 40 Sta. 1 + 42, on Sta. 1 + 45, 2.5' east 8
35 Sta. 1 + 48, on (
8 34 l
Sta. 1 + 48, S' west 8
33 0
9 O
8 c.
F STANDARD PENETPATION TESTS ON COMPLETED TEST TEST FILL hTM3ER 4B PIT RUN SAh3 0.5-1.5' 2.0-3.0' LOCATION BLOWS /FT BLOWS /FT Sta. 1 + 60, S' vest 11 28 Sta. 1 + 60, on d 7
30 Sta. 1 + 60, 5' east 7
32 Sta. 1 + 65, 2.5' vest 6
26 Sta. 1 + 65, 2.5' east 6
29 k
7 29 Sta. 1 + 68, on Sta. 1 + 70, 7' vest
.7 27 Sta. 1 + 70, 5' east 8
24 O
9 w
. -, -