ML19350B488

1 to Responses to NRC Requests Re Plant Fill, Submitted as Amend 88 to Application for CP & OL

ML19350B488
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	03/16/1981
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML19350B482	List: ML19350B481 ML19350B484 ML19350B488
References
NUDOCS 8103200650
Download: ML19350B488 (64)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, l O 28 ] D. Hood I Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Revision No.11 To Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill Unit 1: Docket 50-329 Unirt 2: Docket 50-330 h Consumers Power Company 'T810320u(p @ o cene

I (G 1 ) REVISION 11 RESPONSES TO NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL Appendixes A, B, and C are to be relocated immediately following Question 53. These appendixes are presently located between Questions 35 and 36. For ease in re-distribution, remove these appendixes prior to following the redistribution instructions. After you have redistri-buted the material as directed, follow the insertion instructions for Revision 11. Redistribution Instructions Current Location Redistributed Location Volume 4 - Question 28 Volume 4 - Question 28 through-through Tab 90 Figure 42-28 volume 5 - Tab 91 through Volume 5 - Figure 42-49 through Tab-140-Appendix B Volume 6 - Tab 141 through Volume 6~- Appendix C through Tab-144 Tab 134 Volume 7 - Tab.-145 through Volume 7 - Tab 135 through Tab 150' Tab 143 g(Sj Volume-8 --Question--36 Volume 8 - Tab 144 through through Question 43 Tab 147 Volume 9 --Question 44 Volume 9 - Tab 148 through through Question ~53, Tab 150 5 l 2'. > v-W s y e

em CORSumBIS () Power James W Cook Vsce President - Projects, Engsneenng and Construction General offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jackso' MI 49201 * (517) 788-0453 March 16, 1981 Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vashington, DC 20555 MIDLAND PROJECT DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-330 AMENDMENT NO 88 RESPONSES TO NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL FILE: 0485.16, 0485.11 UFI: 71*01*11, 71*01, 00234S SERIAL: 11632 Enclosed herewith is Amendment 88 (Revision 11 to the Responses to hTC Requests Regarding Plant Fill) to the Company's Application for Construction Permits and Operating Licenses containing three (3) signed originals and sixty (60) copies of an update of the previous information supplied, including (1) clarification of Borros Anchor and settlement curves in Question 27; and (2) [3) revisions to Questions 23, 40, 43, and 45. v Also enclosed are sixty (60) copies of revisions to the report " Applicants Position on the Need for Additional Borings." Proof of service upon the parties listed in the revised Service List attached to Mr J E Brunner's October 28, 1980 letter is being provided under separate Cover. l I i /s/ James W Cook JWC/RLT/pg CC RJCook, Resident Inspector 1 1 l j '\\._j oc0381-0267a100 l 1 4

1 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY APPLICATION FOR REACTOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND OPERATING LICENSE DOCKET NO 50-329 DOCKET NO 50-330 AMENDMENT NO 88 - 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 Respons,es 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: 4 1. Clarification of Borros Anchor and settlement curves in Question 27. 2. Revision of Attachment 40-1. s 3. Revision of Figures 2 and 8 from " Applicants Position on the Need for Additional Borings.'" 4. Miscellaneous editorial corrections to Questions 23, 40, 43 and 45. These new and revised pages bear the notation, " Revision 11 2/81" 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 Ef fective Pages."

s,g Consumers Power Company m

-Dated March 16, 1981 By /s/ James W Cook-

James W Cook, Vice. President I

Sworn and: subscribed to before;me on this 16th~ day of March, 1981. - (SEAL) /s/ Barbara P Townsend - Notary Public, Jackson County, Michigan

My commission expires September 8,1984 GFj m"

mjl[

t miO381-0268a100-1 ,,e t-9-- + -v,~ -k, a r-r ,4 ,m~

t T [ )\\. REVISION 11 INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS q Remove Insert Volume 1 CPCo ttansmittal letter Cover sheet, Rev 10 Cover sheet, Rev 11 LOEP 1 through 27 Same Pref ace Sheet 1, 2 Nothing: Correction from Rev 10 . Completion Status Table Nothing: Correction from Rev 10 - Pages 23-9, 25, 30, 54, 55, Pages 23-9, 25, 25a, 30,-54, 55, 57, 78, 79, 89,:90 57, 78, 79, 79a, 89, 90 I Volume 2 Pages 27S-2, ' 2a Same Vblume 4. . [~'y Page 40 Same %J Attachment'40-1,-Sheet 1, 2 Same 1-1, Sheet-4' Same Volume 5 Pages 43-3, 4 .Same Pages ' 4 5-3, 4, 5 Same ' Discussion of - the Applicants Discussion of the Applicants Position on the Need.for Position on the :Need for - Additional Borings for Midland ' Additional Borings for. Midland Plant Units 1. and 2 Plant. Units 1 and 2 Consumers ~ Power. Company Consumers Power. Company Docket - Numbers L50-329 and Docket _. Numbers 50-329 and 50-330-50-330' (NOTE:; This is a separate (Insert pages attached with-submittal-which 'is part of. the - Rev. ll. i.1 place of those- ~ s , response :to.10 CFR 50. 54 ( f ), already;in report.) but it ~is not contained in the-Page 7; Figures 2, 6, 7, 8; soils binders.)- . Table:1 (as'accor.panied with ' Page 7; Figures 2,.6, 7,.' 8 ; Rev'll)' m. ..- l D Thble 1 V 1:

i J t i \\ p 4 f RESPONSES TO THE i NRC 10 CPR 30.54(f) REQUEST REGARDING PLANT FILL FOR b MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY l . DOCKET NUMBERS 50-329 AND 50-330 'le i ' Consisting of: x 1 G /

1. --

Responses to Questions'l-36, 38-53' . 2.- ,, Appendix A',-Summaries [of'Bechtel' Consultants !~ - 3.' Appendix.B, Consultants' Continued Involvement 4. - Appendix C, Consultant!. Communications-l t. t Report Date: April 24, 1979 . Revision 1: May 31, 1979 1 [ Revision-2: July 9, 1979

Revision 3

-September 13 1979 Revision 4: November 13, 1979 Revision 5: February-29, 1980 ll Revision 6:- April-1, 1980 h .Rerision 7: May 5, 1980 {4 Sevision 8: August.15, 1980-Revision 9: . September 14, 1980 l Revision 10: . November' 21,~1980

Revision'11:

February 27, 1981 l l h. g L. t <w7,-* A t + .n sd -ss .+c. , - + - ,,w .n

O, RESPONSES TO 10 CFR 50.54 ' N ?.J REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL 5 LIST OF EFFECTIVE FAGES This list:of ef fective pages identifies those text pages,

tables, figures, and attachnents that are currently effective in, these-responses.

Sheet ID-Latest Revision [ Volume:1:L ' Cover Sheet: 10 j .-LOEP l-10 . :/ .:LOEP 2 10 LOEP:3-10 -LOEP.4 10

LOEP:5~

10 -LOEP 6 11 LOEP.7 11 t .LOEP 8. 11 'LOEP 9 ~10 'LOEP110; f10 LOEPEll= 11- .i !G"! kf .'LOEP 12-- -10 LOEP 13; 10 - LOEP"14 - .10-ELOEPJ151 -10 PLOEP 16'

10'

~ -LOEP 17' 10-LOEP'18,- -11:

• - LOE P ' 19 --

-11 v ~

LOEP'1201

'll 't

ll' J LOEP.' 21

+ -LOEP 22i - ^ 10 iLOEP 23.

10-l LOEP'; 24 ~

~ 11- - -LOEP 25-11- -LOEPJ26 ~ 10L ' 'LOEP 471 ~ 11. ~ s4 ' Tableiof 'Af fected:'Section - ' i Sheet:?l' 17 ,Sheeti2' '7 ~ c ~ . Question 1. 0 1-1;

0f s:1,

1 ~

r -

LOEP-1"-

Revision 11' 4 [;;\\)

s. . aA '2/817 1 'f i ~ t t ~ p, j {- 1 2 J}. - r T s t,. r .~ i: __ ;;a,,. _ w,

l i Sheet-1D Latest Revision O< 1-3 0 1-4. 1 l 0 1 0 1-7 0 Appendix _I Category I .I-1, 0 t f I-2 0 P I-3 0 i I-- 4 0 i-I-5 0 l I-6~ 0 1 I-7. 0 [ I-8 0 j I-9 O . Category II j' -I-10' 1 1-I-11. 0 IF .I, 0 1:

Category III

[~' , ; I' i-1 I:14 1 'i i I-15i 0 i i: I-16~ 0 -~ i !~, I 17' 0 l-L.I-18._ 1 -I-19 0-I-20f 0 "Catiegory IV-t ~ JI-21 0 { -1 I-22 0-

l i

-Attachment-c- ! ;- 1-O. I' E1 -2 0 ^ ' ' l -- 3 0 Ll-4 0 -. El-5 0 'l 0 -l-7 ^ 1, 8 - Chee t':"10 0 4 ~ Sheet 2 Sheet' 3!- ~ 0 .0 i.~, SheetL4. .O t .SheetL5 4 ~ Sheet'6- -0; y -0 ,g . Sheet (7. -0 g ' LOEP-2 '.. LRevision.11~ l 2/81 ) ^ m. s [ r t

d'

.I 1.. L -,5 e,1 e l,.& l,, e.-' A N 5, h sw ~*+-~- Y '='* * ** ~ "* " " * *""' * * ~"** ~~" ~ ~ ~ ~

t 1 l:. i, Sheet ID Latest Revision Sheet 8 0 Sheet 9. O I - Question 2 2-1 0 F . Question 3 l

3-1 0

[ (- Question 4 ~4-1 5 4-2 5 4-3 5 4-4 5 4 5 4-6 5 I 4-7 5 4-8: 5 4-9~ 5 4-10: 6 -- 4 - 6 4 5 ~ l 4-13 5 4. .4-14 5 I 4-15 5 i Question 5

5-1.

0 l.. Question 6 s 6 3 6-2 3 ' ~ Que'stion l7 l7-1 0-7 0 . 7.-3. 3 [ _ Figure._7-1 0 '^ Figure 7 0~ l Figure.7 0 i; Question 8 8-1 0' I ~-8-2: 'O j Figure 8-1. 0 Figure 8-2; O Figure'8 - 0- _ Question:9 9.. 0 Question.10' ~ ( _-10-1/ 0-Question:11' l-1-l' ~ 0 i-Revision 31 i-LOEP-3' j- ' 2/81' {}' 4 c / a -.-._.-.,..-.-,..._.,......,......,--...._,s .-_-.._.-.-_,....___,_-n.-..,..- . ~..

L + p i t' Sheet 10 Latest Revision Question 12 12-1~ 3 . Table.12 ;~ Sheet-71 3 . Sheet 2-3 Sheet 3 3 Sheet 4 3 Sheet 5 3 ' Attachment to 2 i: Table.12-1. [ Figure.12-1 1 i. Questi~on 13' i i

13-1

-0 i 13-2' 1 i. l 13 -3.' 1 1 13-4 0 I' 5' 0 } -Figure 13-1 0 '13 O p I ~. Figure.13-2 0 I' Figure 13-3-- 0 Figure 113-4

Figure'13-5 ~

10 0 Figure-13-6~. 0 Figure 113-7 : 0 , Figure-13 8 -0 ~

n. ' -

-Figure-13-9. 0 ~

t Figure'13-10

0

r E-Figure.13.

07 L Figure ~.13-12. .0= .QuestionJ14^ ~ 9 14 1-5 if 14-2 ~ '5 };. - ~ 14.-3 l 5-214-4'- 5-t 14-5~- 5: JTable 14-1 j. Sheet:1-5~- U Sheet'2 5-( ' Sheet 3: 5 j Figure 214-11 1-JPigure.14-2-s. 0 -- Figuref1'4-3 :, 0 i .F gure.'14-4: '3 . Figure,;14-5 ' '3. Figure:14-6. ,3-Figure.14-7.~ -LOEP Revision'11 ~ -2/81 Q-g':: -y: A / 1 7 ~? s

_ ~ _ - -. -. _ _. - - -. -. _.. _. - i l Sheet 1D Latest Revision 1 J ' Figure 14-8 5 l Figure 14-9 3 Figure 14 3 l Figure 14-11 3 Figure 14-12 5 - Q60stion 15 j 15-l' 0 i 15-2 3 l 15-3' 3 15-4' 3 --Question 16 16-1 5 Question 17 17-1 5

17-2 5

^ '17-3: 5 .17-4 5 - I ' Table-17 5 . Table 17-2 10 Figure 17-1 10 l Figure 17-2 10 ~ -Question /18. t

18 5 2?

5 L Question l-19: r 5 19_1-(- -'9'-2 5' 4 19-3... 5 Table-19-l! . Sheet'l 0 .' Sheet 2'. O. Fig ure_.-19-1 ' 10 '. Fisare.19-2 0-r ' Figure'.19 0~ EQuestion:20 l 20-1

5-1 20-2 5.

l 1. i-Ques ti~on ~-- 21. 121-l' O 21-2: 0 L 21-3J 0 21-4 10 Table 21~a - 0- . Table c 21a-2.. .0-iTable~21a-3 1- 'O. , ' Table'21a44 -Sheetl? .0-

/

' Sheet'2? 0

LOEP-5!

g[,s'.!

RevisionI11.

2/81

-s 4 t i i r ,s y ,-e-r ),+ e.'- m o

l' i 1 1 Sheet 1D Latest Revision i Table 21a-5 0 i LTable 21a-6 0 j ~Pigure 21.B-1 0 . Figure 21.'B-2 0 Pigure 21.B-3 0 l Question 22 i. 22-1 0

22-2 0

22-3 0 22-4. 0 22-5' 0 '22-6 f. 22-71 ~ 0 i 0

8 0

22-9-' t 0 i 22-10~ ( ' Table 22a--l-' 0 0 Table:22a-2 0 . Table 22b 0 Table:22d-1 t Sheet (1 0 7 } . Sheet-2 0 j i Sileet 3 0 Table'22e-1 0 [ . Question 23'- Part'I. t 'i 4 ii-4 l iii 4 liv. - 4 I 23-1. 4 1: 23-2 4 23-3 4 t-23-4c - 4 i. '23-5: 4 i 23 4 i -- 2 3-7 10 c23 4-23-9 11' 23-10 4- . 11~ 10' .23-12, 4-1 23-13' - 8 23--14 '23 - 10 : ~ ' 2 3--16 '

4 '-

1 J23217' N . 4-123-18 10: i 1 Y LOEP-6 " Revision 11 2/81 ~ 4)., - r i ~_ 1 i ..t r m . q c. ~ J_...;, ;..'.. _ - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4' i 1 - c . Sheet 1D Latest Revision s .23 4 t 23 10 L 21 4 l 23-22 10 23-23 4 23 10 !/ . -2 3-2 5-11 23-25A 11 i. 23 4 23-27 ~ 10 23-28 10 23-29 ' 11 4 ~ 23-30' l' 123-31f 10 [ .23-32.- 10 '23-33: 10 '23-34 4 L '23 10 -Question 23 - Part II L23 4 23-37 4 + '23 4 Attachment'23-1 8 F L 2 3--3 9 4 .23-40 4 23-41L 4 l' .23-42' 4 .23.43 4 ! 44-. 4-P 3-21 4 , 3-3 Sheet-1 .4 i i Sheet 2. 4 +' Sheet-3. 4 Sheet?4L 4 23-45. 4 > -46: 8 i: i 123-47: 10 i [- -: 2 3-4 8 - 10 --- ' Question 23 - Part III ~ 4

23

• 4

> 50' 'a-ja: .23-51': '8 j: ~23-52; 8- ) .D 23-53. ~ 4 -. t 23-541 11 23-55j ~ 11 1 3

2 3--5 6.

'4"

f- '

4 s + MLOEP-7 2 Revision ll: -2/81- ~ ^ 5 N'.'- s f - Uwe ' d M e e-4 g,pr' W "We e-see' s m '.eeT e DV+'**ee

• -*w*

4e Wr*'

• • ?MI *PP48

%N9' .*w---ep4--- py r & - Vwiw (+ine' g og e + -vt r e-e--' 9

_. _ -. =.... -.... - _. _ _ _ _ _ _...... _ _ _... _ _ _ 1( i i Sheet 1D j _ Latest Revision j- !c 23-57 11 1-

23-58 4

'23-59 10 i 23-60 4 23-61 4 h ~23-62 4 23-63 8 j 23-64 4 f 23-65 4 .?3-66 8 '23-67 8 23-68 4 23-69' 4 23-70~ 4 23-71 4 L23-72 23-73 ~ 8 8 23-74 4 23-75 4 r 76-8 ' 77 8 23-78 11 23-79 11 b 23-79A 11 i 23-80.- 8 0 --23-81 8 t j- .23-82' '10

' 83 8

L [ 23 10 ~ 23 10' T23-86 10 s 123 10 23-88 10 1 23-88a 10' i '_ T23-89 -11

f.,

23-90 11 i . Question 23?.Part IV: 23-91 4 h i23-925 4 I -Question-24: t ~24 5. =24 25 124-3 S' .u 24 5

z 24-5'

~S' 24 5-(24-7:

5'

'- 24 5. f ~ LOEP-8 ~ Revision'11 s. s 12/811 r' ',.. 1 l.Hh c s

• .. '/

9 4 v

e. -

.. _.. ~.. _.. _ _ _... _ _ _ ~ I. i-i 1 Sheet ID Latest Revision 24-9 5 24-10 5 24-11 ~ 5 l 24-12 5 24-13 5 i' 24-14 5 j' 24-15. 5 l 24 5 24-17 5 '24-18 5' L _24-19 5 24-20 5 24-21' 5 24-22 5' 24-23 5 24-24 5 , 25 5

l. '

24-26 5

24-27 ~.

5 i 24-28 5 24-29'. ~24-30 ' 5 5 24-31 5 i .24-32 5

i. 33-5 iJ 24-34..

e, [ 24-35' 1h ' 36 10 I-

24-37 5

.24-38. 5 24-39'. 5 Figure 24-1 ~ 5 Fig'ure 24 5 2 j

Figure.'; 24-3 '

5 . Figure 24-4 -5 j Figure r2.4 5' l; ~FigureL24-6 5 Figure 24-7. 5- != . Fiqu re :' 2 4- -5. Figure 24-9,_ 10_ Figure'. 24-10 ; 10 10 Figure ~.24-111 7 1 Figure ~ 24--12 c 10- '4 Figure-L24-13 " . Figure --24-14 ; 5. E . 'Figu re; 24-15 '5 i JFigurel24-16" 5.' Y 6 LOEP--9 Fevision _. 2/e L - i ~ 11 _ i t .g

u - Sheet ID Latest Revision 4: Figure 24-17 5 Figure.24-18 5 Question 24 - Supplemental Information 6 24-S1 6 Supplemental Figure 24-1 6 Question.25 25 5 '25-2: 5 l 25-3 10 25-4. 10 5-5 -Question'26 c26-1: 5 2' 5 Volume!2-Question 127 c '27-1 5 2 7-2. - 5-t 27-3' 5 . t' 27-4 '5' 27--S 5- .27-6L 10 i . ~ u27-7 5 1 27-8 S j -s. ~ 27--9 5-27-10 5- .27-11 .5 ~ 2 Attachment 27-1 Sheet 1-2 10. ' Sheet 2 10 Sheet'3.- - 10 ~ Sheet 4: 10 Snee t- - S - - 10 t Sheet 16 10'

Sheet 7-LSheet-8._

_ 10 10' . Figure.27-l~ 5 j Figures 27 _ .5 Figure.: 27 - 5-Figure 27.5 i ,Figu're 27-5f 5 {u Fig'ure s.27-6.

10 p

.; Figure'27.7a ' 5' +- Figure'27-7b-5 4 c f - LOEP-10~- Revision 11 2/81: 3 t h " ':. .,- I 2 i i T } E., 1

e. -

+ s. ^ ,A .d ) 4 --d., e,w- -s -o -.,,,,...+.cew w.- e 4 7 -+-w .euew+ w.+w--ce ,,w.e--. , i n.me...ni-e,---er-Sn't %n-t =r w- -= ymt-v

m i-Sheet-lD Latest Revision -(... Figure 27-8 5 Figure 27-9 10 Figure 27-10 5 Figure.27-11 5 Figure 27-12 5 ^ Figure ~27-13 5 Figure 27-14 5 ' Figure 27-15; 5 1 Figure 27-16_ 5 l

Question 27 - Supplemental-.

O Information 6- ? 27-S1 6 ' 27-S2 11 i 27-S2a 11 '27-S3 6 27-S4 6 27-SS 6 Attachment'27S-1. Sheet i ' 10 Report' _ 10 Supplemental Figure 27-l' 6 Supplemental-: Figure 27 6 Supplemental Figure 27-3 6 [ - Supplemental -Figure ' 27--4 .6 Supplemental-Figure 27-5 N M-Sheet 1 ~ 10. P ' '~)' -( , Sheet:2: 10 Supplemental. Figure;27-6 Sheet ^10 r- -Sheet,2.

10 Supplemental Figure:27-7 1 Shee t 10 Sheet-2 10-Supplemental l Figure'27 _

~

-Sheet is 10-

- Sheet 2 10 Supplemental Figure 27-9 4 . Sheet 1; 10 Shee t : 2 '- Supplemental Figuret27-10f Sheet t ' 10 Sheet.2 Supplemental' Figure 27-11._ -10 . Sheet li 10 - - Sheet 2' 10 '%upplemental Figure 27-12.- Sheetjl'-- 10-j.. -Sheet;2 .10 - LOEP--ll ? 1 Revision 11 j 2/81 m-N.. i I W f ". s v p ph,5 ,.,) ~ y ._ye-- .>mm,- -. w r==* + T+= r v tr y e+-* w 1y7 -

• M+-

\\ Sheet lD Latest Revision Supplemental Fi ure 27-13 t Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Supplemental Figure 27-14 Sheet ~1 10 Sheet 2 10 Supplemental Figure 27-15 Sheet. 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Suppleucntal' Figure 27 Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Supplemental Figure 27-17 Sheet 1. 10 Sheet 2 10 S'upplemental Figure.27-18 10 -Supplemental Figure 27-19 Sheet 1. 10 l Sheet ? 10

Supplemental Figure.27-20

- Sheet-1. 10 Sheet 2~ 10 Volume 3-J/ Supplemental Figure-27.jn/ Sheeti1 10 ' Sheet 2 10 . Supplemental Figure ~27-21A Sheet'1 10 Sheet :. 10

Supplemental Figure 27-22.

10 Supplemental'_ Figure 27 : Sheet 1-10' Sheet:2 10-ESupplemental Figure 27--24 Sheet 1 ~' 0~ E . She"e t -21 10 . Supplemental! Figure.27-25 i: Sheet 1 - 10.~ - Shee t ~ 2. 10.. ~ Supplemental' Figure-27-26; Sheetll~ -10

Sneet'2

.10

Supplemental' Figure _27-27'

_ : Shee t > 110 t Sheet'2;

10 I

~ TSupplemental Figure 27. 9 ' Shee tf 15 b LSheet;2' '10t

10

. e4 LOEP-12: . Revision 11 l--; j:A! i2/811 v- .a. \\ p

. _ =..... 4 1 - Shee t -lD_ - Latest Revision LO SupyLemental Figure 27 C Eneet-1. 10 Sheet.2 10 Supplemer.tal Figure 27-30 10 Supplemental Figure 27-31 i Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2-10 Supplemental Figure 27 Sheet-1 10 Sheet 2 10 ~ . Supplemental Figure 27-33 Sheet 1-10 2 Sheet.2 - 10 Supplemental Figure 27-34 Sheet 1, 10 tSheet 2 10 Supplemental Figure.27-35 Sheet'l-10 . Sheet 2'_ 10

Supplemental-Figurec27-36 Cheet l_

10 = Sheet - 2' 10 . Supplemental-Figure 27-37 10 Supplemental Figure 27-38. -Sheet.1 10 h.- -. 1

Sheet 2_

.10 i1 '.: V Supplemental. Figure 27-39 ~ 1 Sheet l' 10.

Sheet 2 10

' Supplemental [ Figure 27_-40' 10 Supplemental Figure 27 10

Supplemental Figure 27-42'

. Sheet 1 10- . Supplemental Figure'27-43. '1D LSheet 2-Sheet l'- 10- ~ W- ~ Supplemental Figure'.27,-44. 10. ' Sheet 2'- Sheet l' 10 ~ .~ 10~ LSheet12- ? Supplemental Figure27-45~ ~ 10 Sheet'11 .~ T J Sheet:2: 10: H Supplemental Figure.27 - Sheet l? 10: 1 ~ ISheet'2i .. Supplemental Figure 27-47'- .10~ J.:,- _LOEP-13 Revision:11-2/81', .m 3 5 , ~ ~ }, u' j

Y, V

I k ' ..= =. ~, g {, .y

w. =

. =.,

Sheet 1D Latest Revision IA _/ Supplemental Figure 27-48 10 s Supplemental Figure 27-49 Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Supplemental Figure 27-50 10 Supplemental Figure 27-51 10 Supplemental Figure 27-52 10 Supplemental Figure 27-57 10 Supplemental Figure 27-54 10 Supplemental-Figure 27-55 10 Supplemental Figure 27-56 10 Supplemental Figure 27-57 10 Supplemental Figure 27-58 10 Supplemental Figure 27-59 10 Supplemental Figure 27-60 10 Supplemental Figure 27-61 10 - Supplemental Figure 27 10 Supplemental Figure 27-63 10 Supplemental Figure 27-64 10 Supplemental Figure 27-65 10 Supplemental Figure 27-66' 10 Supplemental Figure'27-67 10 ' Supplemental Figure 27-68 10 Supplemental Figure 27-69 10 Supplemental Figure 27-70 10 p), SupplementalLFigure 27-71 10 (_ Supplemental Figure 27-72 10 -Supplemental' Figure 27-73 10 - Supplemental Figure 27-74 ' 10 - Supplemental: Figure 27-75 10 ^ Supplemental Figure 27-76 10 Supplemental Figure 27-77 10 Supplemental. Figure.27-78 10 Supplemental Figure 27-79 10 ' Supplemental _ Figure 27-80 10 Supplemental ~ Figure.27-81 10 Supplemental Figure 27-82 10 Supplemental-Figure 27-83 11 0 Supplemental-_ Figure 27-84 10 Supplemental' Figure 27-85-~ 10 Supplemental' Figure 27-86 -10 SupplementalfFigure 27 10 Supplemental? Figure 27-88 10 ( Suppleme-tal Figure _27 10 - Supplemental Figure 27 10 -Supplemental' Figure 27-91 10 Supplemental Figure ~27-92 10 -LOEP Revic'on 11 2/81 7,f y ) _x

Sheet 1D Latest Revision -\\_ [ Supplemental-Figure 27-93 la Supplemental Figure 27-94 10 Supplemental Figure 2~/-95 10 Supplemental Figure 27-96 10 Supplemental ~ Figure 27-97 10 Supplemental Figure 27-96 10 ' Supplemental Figure ~27-99 10 Supplemental Figure 27-100 10 Supplemental Figure 27-101 10 ' Supplemental Figure 27-102 10 Supplemental' Figure 27-103 10 ' Supplemental Figure 27-104 10 ' Supplemental Figure 27-105 10 Supplemental Figure 27-106 10 t Supplemental Figu;

/-107 10 Supplemental ~Fic".4 27-108 10 Supplemental Fi ure 27-109

'10 3 Supplementa) Figure 27-ll'0 10 Supplemental Figure 27-111- ~10 Supplemental Figure-27-112 10 ' Supplemental' Figure 27-113 10 , Supplemental. Figure 27-114 10 Supplemental Figure 27-115 10 LSupplemental-Figure'27-ll6-10 Supplemental' Figure'27-117. 10 r Suppleme'ntal Figure:27-ll8 10 A(%,) ' ~ zSupplemental Figure 27-119 10 Supplemental Figure 27-120 10. Supplemental: Figure 27-121 10 SupplementaliFigure 27-122 10 CSupplementalfFigure'27-123 10. Supplemental FigureJ27-124 10 SupplementaliFigure 27-125

10 Supplemental EF.igure 27-126 11 0

Supplemen tal'. Figure l 27-127 '-

10 -SupplementalfFigure127-128 10 .Supp1~ementall Figure 27-129 10 Supplemental Figure.272130 10 ,SupplementaliFigure;27-131 10 'S'pplemental: Figure 27-132. 10 u ~ Supplemental Figure 27-133' ?l0

Supplemental. Figure,27-134

-10; y

Supplemental Figure =27-1351

~ .10 Supplemental Figure 127-136 10

Supplemental-Figure _27-137:

-10 !SupplementalEFiguref27-138: 10-g.- iSupplemental FigureF27-139^ 10 'LOEP-15' Revision 11 '2/81-jy sj v

i Sheet 1D Latest Revision Supplemental Figure 27-140 10 ' Supplemental' Figure 27-141 10 -Supplemental Figure 27-is2 10 2 Srpplemental Figure 27-143 10 Supplemental Figure 27-144 10 Supplemental Figure 27-145 10 Supplemental-Figure 27-146 10 Supplemental Figure 27-147 10 Supplemental Figure 27-148 10 Supplemental Figure 27-149 10 Supplemental Figure 27-150 10 Supplemental Figure-27-151 10 Supplemental Figure 27-152 10 ' Supplemental Figure 27-153 10 Supplemental. Figure 27-154 10 Supplemental Figure 27-155 10 .Supplementc.1 Figure 27-156 10 Supplemental Figure 27-157 10 . Supplemental Figub. 27-150 10 Supplemental Figure 27-159 10 Supplemental Figure 27-160 -10 Supplemental: Figure 27-161 10 Supplemental. Figure 27-162' 10 Supplemental Figure 27-163-10 Supplemental Figure 27-164 10 ~3 _ (' ') Supplemental'FigureL27-165 10 Supplemental Figure 27-166 10 Supplemental Figure 27-167' 10 . Supplemental Figure 27-168 '10 SupplementaljFigure 27-169 10 ' Supplemental Figure.27-170 .10 Supplemental ~ Figure ~27-171. 10 Supplemental Figure 27-172- .10 Supplemental, Figure' _27-173. 10 Supplemental Figure 27-174-10 Supplemental Figure 27-175 10 Supplemental Figure 27-176 10 Supplemental Figure.27-177 10 Supplemental Figure 27-178 10 Supplemental Figure 27-179 10 Supplemental Figure 27-180 10 Supplemental. Figure 27-181 10 Supplemental Figure 27-182 10 Supplemental-Figure 27-183; 10 ' Supplemental Figurec27-184. 10. Supplemental Figure 27-185 10 t Supplemental-Figure '.27-186' 10' ~ LOEP-16 -Revision 11 -2/81 <s j i \\

,... ~ - -. ~--- _. - ~. t 4 ): i r i. Sheet 1D Latest Revision Supplemental Figure 27-137 10 j-

Supplemental Figure-27-188 10 j-Supplemental Figure 27-189 10 0

Supplemental Figure'27-190 10 F Supplemental Figure 27-191 10 f.j . Volume 4 -f Question 28 J' 28-1 5 1' ~28-2 5 l l 3. 5 ~ 28-4 5

28-5 5

28-6' 5 , 7. 5 28 5 28-9. 5 1 10 5

28-11 5

t .' Figure'28-1A' 5

Figure-28-18 5

Figure:28 5 Figure 28-3~ 5 l Figure 28 5 - Figure 28-4 5

i Figure.28-6 5

Figure 28-7z 5 a 7 ' Figure.128-8 5 Figure __28-9 5 (Figure 28-10' 5-Figure 28 5 . Figure:28 5 ' Figure 28-13: 5 Figure 28-14 ' "5 f . Question 29: 29-1 5 (. Table.29-1; L ' Sheet 1' 5-f' Sheet 2 5- ~ h. Sheet 3' S-Sheet'4 5 Sheet-5' 5 F- ' Sheet 6 -5' ~ _ Sheet 7-5' ' Sheet 8! 5

LOEP-17 Revision -~11.

F-2/81 i, 's h r r i t ^ ~ w_, m_.,,4%._-.

i. r i 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-l~ 5 31-2 5 '31-3 5 31-4 5 Figure 31-1 5 Figure 31-2 5 Figure 31-3 5 Figure 31 5 Figure 31 5 . Figure 31 5 ~~ Figure:31-7 5 Figure 131-8. 5 -Figure'31-9 ; 5 Figure:31-10' 5 . Figure.'31-11 5 -Question 132 32-1. ~ 5 Question:133 1 33-l? 5 5 '33-2. 5 Figure.33 Figure 33-2 5 -Question 34- !34-1 '5 --34-2. 5 234- ~ 5 ~ Quetition ' 35-. 5 '34-4 35-1c 5 3 5-2.-~ 9 - 3 5-3'- 9 .3 5-4'- '5'- f-3 5--5 9 F igure..3 5-1_ .5

Figure

35-2.

5-Figure ' 35--3 .5 LOEP, Revision 511' .2/81- .,s. e P s E t r a ?

,._.__.m .~. _ _ 5 i Sheet 1D Latest Revision ? [ j Question 36 136-1 9 i 36-2 9 i l Figure 36-1 9 Boring Logs 9 Observation Well Construction 9 Summaries Question 38 38-1 9 Question'39 L 39-1 - 10 l L '39-2 10 39-3 10 39-4 10 ~.3 9-5 ~ 10 .39-6 10 39-7 10 r 39-8 10 . Attachment'39-1 ' Sheet 1 10 . Sheet 2 10 ' Sheet-3 10 Figure 39 10 t Question 40 40-1' . 10 10 40-2 40-3'- 10 40 10' 1l' 40 11 ~ ~40-6' 10 40,7 .10 40-8 10 /40-9 10 i 40-10 10-3-- . 40-11'- 10 ~40-12 10 13' 10 ' 40-14 10 40-15' -10 -'40-16' 10-40 10 JAttachment-40-1' Sheet 1 11 ' Sheet-2 11 Figurec40-1: .10 ~

Figure 40-2'

10 Figure.-40-3 10-

. Figure (40-41 .'10 ' Figure 40-5'- 10 ~ ' LOEP-19 -Revision 11 %( i_2/81 a %J 1 g k< 2 l ...p = .y 4dg ,, ~ ~ 3, ww e up.egrg,egw wm1. p >y 4+ y g.,c..m a4-m.9*< n<w#g J3 ,is.uy.we .e q .g p=.m +w,aeg-- yn 9

.... ~.... ~ _._.. - -. l 4 i Sheet 1D Latest Revision .m Figure 40-6 10 Figure 40-7 10 Figure 40-8 10 Figure 40-9 10 f Question 41 l 41-1 10 41-2 10 '41 10 4 41-4 10 5 10 7-e41-6 10 41 10 41-8 10 l 41-9'. 10 t Attachment;41-1 4 I Sheett1 10 Sheet 2 10 Sheet 3 10 Sheet 4 11 1-2 -Sheet 1. 10 Sheet 2 10 i Sheet 3 ~10 Sheet 4 10 Sheet.5' 10 . []. . Sheet 61 10 4 -Q Figu re --; 41-lL 10 Figure 41-2 10 < Figure 41-3 . 10 Figure 41-4' . 10 Figure 41-5 10 Figure <41 10-Figure.41-7 10 J i ~ Figure ~41-8 10 Figure 41 10 ' f Figure 41 -10 -10 cFigure 41-11 - 10 1 Figure 41-12 .10 ; Figure'41-13l 10 1.' Figure'41-14' 10 Figure 41-15 10-1 Figure. 41-16 10- =,. Figure 41-17 10 ~_ -Figure 41-18. 10, . F igure -: 41-19.

10 Figure 41-20 10c

- Figuref41-21' 10- . LOEP-20 Revision ll'c -2/81- "( I I l' = i.' r s-~ -v-e e N -> v. mA,,w r-v-e,

s,

-w~,, w r- ~n-. s .+ w

Sheet 1D Latest Revision (d Figure 41-22 10 Question 42 42-1 10 42-2 10 42-3 10 42-4 10 42-5 10 42-6 10 42-7 10 42-8 10 42-9 10 42-10 10 42-11 10 42-12 10 42-13 10 42-14 10 42-15 10 42-16 10 42-17 10 2-1 Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Sheet 3 10 Sheet 4 10 Sheet 5 10 3 Attachuent 42-2 ( '/ g Sheet i 10 Sheet ii 10 Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Sheet 3 10 Sheet 4 10 Sheet 5 10 Sheet 6 10 2-3 Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2 10 Sheet 3 10 Sheet 4 10 Sheet 5 10 Sheet 6 10 Figure 42-1 10 Figu;e 42-2 10 Figure 42-3 10 Figure-42-4 10 Figure 42-5 10 LOEP-21 Revision 11 2/81 Q]

- -. ~... -. - J Sheet 1D Latest Revision Figure 42-6 10 Figure 42-7 10 i Figure 42-8 10 Figure 42-9 10 Figure 42-10 10 Figure 42-11 10 Figure 42-12 10 . Figure 42-13 10 Figure 42-14 10 Figure 42-15 10 Figure 42-16 10 1 Figure 42-17 10 Figure 42-18 10 Figure 42-19 10 Figure 42-20 10 Figure 42-21 10 Figure 42-22 10 i Figure 42-23 10 Figure.42-24 10 Figure 42-25 10 4' Figure 42-26 10 Figure 42-27 10 Figure.42-28 10 Vol'une 5 j~.7 is_). Figuref42-29, 10 Figure 142-30 10 Figure'42-31 10 Figure 42-32' 10 4 Figure 42-33 -10 Figure 42-34 10' Figure.42-35 10 Figure;42-36> 10 Figure 42-37 10 4 -Figure 42-38' 10 ~ Figure.42-39 10. Figure-42-40 10 Figure.42-41 10 t Figure 42-42 10- ' Figure 42-43 .10 Figure 42-44 10-Figure-42-45 10 Figure 42-46 ~ 10 . Figure 42-47.- -10 Figure 42 = Figure 42 _ 10 10 Figure-42-50 10-l Figure:42-511 -10 Figure 42-52 110' LOEP-22 Revision 11. - ( ) ~ ~2/81 ^~J: : a O a

i 5 1 I i t. Sheet 1D Latest Revision I i j-Figure 42-53 10 j Pigure 42-54 10 i j Figure 42-55 10 l Figure 42-56 10 Figure 42-57 10 Figure 42-58 10 j Figure 42-59 10 j j-. Figure 42-60 10 Figure 42-61 10 1 Figure 42-62 10 Figure 42-63 10 j Figure 42-64 10 Figure 42-65 10 Figure 42-66 10 Ptgure 42-67 10 Figure 42-68 10 t Figure 42-69 10

~

. Figure 42-70 10 i Figure 42-71 10 Figure 42-72 10 Figure 42-73 10 Question 43 ~ r-43-1 10 43-2 10 43 11 i - CN 43-4 11 ! D' 43-5 10 43-6 10 s 43-7 ' 10 -Attachment.43-1 Sheet 1 10 Sheet 2-10 - Shee t '3. Figure 43-1. 10 4 - 10 Question 44 .~44-1 10 44-2 10 , 3~ 10 -Figure 44-1 10' 1 l' -Question 45 45-1 10' i 45-2 10 145-3 11 45 11 i nj LOEP-23 Revision 11 j 12/81' ( t C .1 v 4

1. --.+

..-,4 v..-+-e. ... ~ e

4.. w.

e -wv,.,w.y-- - i~ e et + -n t w e+v + e -e'-w = + - m ee ? ~ r-- m m r- = e w - r w tr-t-- s-y 7 P f "*T

• T'T

-ttV" "*T Tt

q-e l i l l ( S_h_qq t__1_ D Latest Revision 45-5 11 l' 45-6 10 l 45-7 10 j-45-8 lo ~5-9 10 4 j 45-10 10 45-11 10 l l 45-12 10 45-13 10 l 45-14 10 j 45-15 10 j. Figure 45-1 10 ~ Figure 45-2 10 4 Figure 45-3 10 1 Figure 45-4 10 i Figure-45-5 10 j-Figure 45-6 10 t Figure 45-7 10 j Figure 45-8 10 l Figure 45-9 10 Figure 45-10 10 I Figure 45-11 10 Figure 45-12 10 Question 46 40-1 10 l 2 10 46-3 10 'Bori.ng Logs .10 Question 47 47-1 10 4 7-- 2 __ lo_ 47-3 10 47-4 '10 '47-5= 10 ~~47-6 10

47-7 10 47-8.

10-47 10 '47-10 10-

47 10-47-12 10 247 10 47-14~

10_ 47 - 10 .47-16 10 47-17 110. 47 ilo LOEP-24 Revision 11'- 2/81-h L 9 ^. I.

. _... - _ - _ _ - ~.. _.. _. - _ .___ _ _ ~_...__._ j-t Sheet 1D Latest Revision -. /G. 1 !O 47-19 10 47-20 10 47-21 10 47-22 10 47-23 10 47-24 10 -Figure 47-1 10 Figure 47-2 10 Figure.47-3 10 Figure 47-4 10 Figure 47-5 10 . Figure-47 10 Figure 47-7 10 Figure 47-8 10 Figure'47 10 Figure 47 10 Figure 47-11 10 ' Figure 47-12 10 Figure'47-13_ 10 Figure 47 10 Question 48 ~ 4 8-1.. 10 2 10 48-3 10 48-4 10 48-5 10 s 48 10. 46-7 10 48-8 -10 Figure 48-1 10 . Figure 48-2 10-Figure"48-3 10 Figure 48-4 10 .s _ Figure.48-5., 10 Figure;48-61 10 ' Figure 48 10f . Figure 48-8. 10 Question:49 49-1 .10 .4 9-2, 10 49-3

10!

'49 10 49-5 '10 '49-6 '10-49 10 49-8. 10-l Figure 49-1 10-3 LOEP-25 Revision 11. '2/81 ' 4] Q i' e.-'.

Sheet 1D Latest Revision 0, Question 50 50-1 10 50-2 10 Question 51 51-1 10 51-2 10 51-3 10 Question 52 52-1 10 52-2 10 52-3 10 Figure 52-1 10 Figure 52-2 10 Question 53 53-1 10 Appendix A 6 A-1 6 A-2 6 A-3 6 A-4 6 A-5 6 A-6 6 A-7 6 A-d o Figure A-1 6 -O Appendix B 7 u-1 7 B-2 7 Volume 6 Appendix C 7 C-i 7 C-ii 7 C-iii 7 C-iv 7 C-v 7 C-vi 7 C-vii 7 C-viii 7 C-ix 7 C-x. 7 C-xi-7 C-xii 7 C-xiii 7 C-xiv 8 Tabs 1.through 134 LOEP Revision 11 O 2/81 .G)

l I I l 1 ) s i .i Sheet 1D Latest Revisior. l Volume 7 4 Tabs 135 through 143 i t Volume 8 i r f Tabs 144 through 147 ( r Volume 9 2 Tabs 148 through 150 l s 4 i 9 [ 4 LOEP-27 Revision 11 2/81 I I g ...---,..-.....--.m, ..,_..........,,......-.._~_,_.,r.--,-,.._,~,..-..~,_,.. ..-r r

~ -_ _ RESPONSE TO QUESTION i-, PART (1) [50.54(f)] ). v 2. Engineering Department Project Instruction 4.49.1 was revised in Revision 2 to state, "Under no circumstances will interof fice memoranda, nemoranda, telexes, TWXs, etc ce used to change tne requirements of a specification." Corrective Action (Generic): A review of interoffice memoranda, memoranda, telcxes, TWXs, and other corres-pondence relating to specifications for construction and selected procurements of 0-Listed iters will be initiated. The purpose of.the review will be to identify any clarifications which might reasonably have been inter-preted'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, 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 and remedial. action necessary for product quality will be taken in accordance with approved procedures. (M. A j/. .The foregoing procedure will.txt followed for all specifi- . cations 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. The. sample size has. Deen estau- ~ lished and-the specification selection has been made. Review and! acceptance criteria for the specifications have 'been: defined. - 'The' review of the initially selected procurement specifi- ~ cations indicated that the acceptance-criteria _were not ? Emet in:one discipline.' The; review.was expanded to 100% -offtne specifications in that-discipline (both construc-tion and' procurement specifications), and for the other disciplines the sample of procurement specifications - wasLincreased~to permit-each-discipline's review to be Levaluated individually. 7

This' expanded ? review is isc'heduled

to be. completed by.

~ June 15, 1981. .A I i %!; 9-l Revision 11' 2/81 'I

1 . (3 RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (1) (50.54(f)] Corrective Actions (Generic): 1. 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 April 17, 1981. 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 April 17, 1981. 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, safety. implications of the potential specification - [_4; modification, and any work that has been or may be 3s /- affected. If it is determined that'the inter-pretation mayLhave 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. Tne 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 . implemented on a random sampling basis.= Tne- .sampleLsize has been established and the specification sele'ction has been made. -Review and acceptance criteria for the specifications have been def 1d. -[es 1 ' 'f. .23-25' . Revision 11 2/81-

l i-l' RESPONSE TO QUESTION 22 PART (1) [50.54(f)] 1 The. review of the initially selected orocurement speci-i fications' indicated tnat the acceptance criteria were 'not met in one discipline. The review was expanded i to 100% of the specifications in that discipline (no tn i-construction and procurement specifications), and for L the other disciplines the sample of procurement specifi-cations was increased to permit each discipline's re-t view to be evaluated individually. This expanded review is scheduled to be completed by + June 5,'1981. i I ', 4.- p. t I. [Q:O

t. -

5-3 f i T l1 l l ; S.: L 1 1 i 4 l l -- t k ~ p 4 I f l L [W . ghM. ~ j :'.. g.-_ 25a ~ Revis' ion "-11 ^ 2/81

'~

'g,._ s ^ u i" y A j. +.pi, .9g y ~- w4 g-ce-g. w.m i~-*--g y -N, ,M-r e w-w t 9 e.u w w b

[- RE3PONSE 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 investigu-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 cohesive _ 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 for cohesive material (unless otherwise directed by the -onsite geotechnical soils engi-neer) will be accompanied by a separate labora-tory standard which will provide a direct com-parison.- This'was directed by a letter to U.S. .[ /) Testing and reflects Specification Change \\_ Notice C-208-9004, dated April 13, 1979e 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 FIC 1.100, "Q-Listed Soils Placement Job ~ Responsibilities Matrix," has been prepared _and establishes responsibilities for' performing surveillance of testing operations.- Corrective Actions (Generic): 1.- Design documents, -' instructions, and procedures for -those activities requiring inprocess controls will be reviewel to assess tne adequacy of-existing procedural controls and technical direction.-

Engineering. review has been completed, and Field Engineering-and Quality Control review is scheduled for colapletion by February 27, 1981.

Any revisions

required will be completed by April 17, 1981.'

,e 4 v_J. 23-301 Revision 11 2/81

RESPONSU TO QUESTION 23, PART (3)[50.54(f)] . f.ss -t .,N-] 9. NRC implemented an " increased inspection" program. 10. The number of CPCo Quality Assurance professional personnel (excluding auditors) overviewing the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program was increased from nine to twenty-two. 11. Bechtel and CPCo reviewed specifications to improve specificity. 12. Bechtel QC and CPCo QA reviewed Quality Control Instructions (QCIs) to improve inspection callouts in the QCIs. 13. The - Bechtel monitoring activity was improved to conduct more product-related monitors. 14. Bechtel QA management audits were increased from one to two per year. 15 '.. The ASME Code ~ Stamp Authorizations were extended to 'Bechtel for another three years. 1978 f) \\_) -1.- CPCo_ Quality Assurance overinspection ot all other areas, in addition to the civil area, was institute.l. 2. Approximately 30 CPCo Quality. Assurance.overinspection _ plans were prepared and implemented. 3. One hundred' percent.CPCo Quality Assurance review of supplier radiographs Deing received with new deliver-ies was instituted. 4. Fifteen to Quality Assurance' Department Procedures -were c. seted, revised or originated dealing with depa'. ten t procedures; organization; personnel-train-ing, qualification end: certification; processing _ pro-curement documents; source and receiving inspection planning and inspections;_nonconformance reporting,. corrective : actions and 'statusing; periodic reporting; review of' quality-related regulations, codes, stan- 'dards,-specifications', and.other external documents;- procurement _ quality assurance ~ requirements; inspec-tion stamp control; qualification and certification ~ 4 l + 54-Revision 11-- 2/81-

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3)[50.54(f)] of quality assurance audit team leaders; qualifica-tion and certification of quality assurance audit team members; qualification, training and certifi-cation of. inspection and test personnel; analysis and resolution of significant quality problems; overinspection and primary inspection. 5. The primary responsibility for the overview of tne B&W NSSS installation was given to CPCo Quality Assurance. 6. The number of CPCo Quality Assurance audits performed was doubled from the previous year. 7. Resident inspection-was instituted by NRC. 8. The number of CPCo Quality Assurance professional personnel'(excluding auditors) overviewing the Bechtel Quality Assurance Program was increased from twenty-two to twenty-three. 1979- -1. .The rereview-of qualification test data for Bechtel -(~Y procured items was completed. Q,1 2. The rereview of qualification test data for B&W procured items was initiated. 3. LThe rereview of quality documentation for B&W procured ~ items was completed.. 4. 1The rereview of quality documentation for Bechtel procured items was initiated. ' 5.. " Surveillance" was eliminated-as a Bechtel final inspection technique.

6..

Nonscientific sampling.was. eliminated;(with minor exceptions) as.a Bechtell final' inspection technique. 7. . ASME Code Stamp ' Authorizations were granted for B&W-site installation: work. -8. 'A CPCo Quality. Assurance: Program Procedure'was originated-and implemented ~for processing NRC Bulletins, Circulars, 'and Information Notices. t i' '? 23-55 Revision 11-2/81' A__

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23, PART (3)l50.54(f)] $q,) 4.2 Specifics of Selected Improvements 4.2.1 Review of Specifications In September 1977, a review of specifications was initi-ated by Bechtel Engineering and CPCo Quality Assurance. This review was performed in associaticn with the review of Quality Control Instructions (QCIs) as described in Subsection 4.2.2. The specifications reviewed were selected specifications for Q-listed equipment and activities. Reviewers (Quality Assurance Engineers, Quality Engineers, and cognizant dis-cipline engineers) were to determine any areas where the specifications lacked clarity, conflicted with other pro-ject. criteria, or lacked necessary criteria, including dimensions.or tolerances. A total of 50 specifications, as follows, were reviewed by CPCo Quality Assurance, and 23 of these 50 specifications were also. reviewed by Bechtel. Project Engineering: 5 ar-chitectural, 25 civil, 11 mechanical, 1 control systems, and,8 general specifications. At that time, there was a total of 189 Q-listed specifications issued for use on the Midland project. p) LAs a result of this review, specification revisions were .-'\\# made-in-12 instances to provide specific tolerances or fur- - ther clarity, or correction of editorial comments. A review of.those specifications being used for construc-tion and not included in the reviews described above was initiated on May-8, 1979, and was completed by Project Engineering onjJuly.13,:1979, resulting in revision to three. specifications. In addition to the above' spec 2 fication reviews, the Bech- ~

tel Chief Engineering _ Staff, Lnd CPCo QA, performed a dim-ensional tolerancing review'os a-portion;of the containment.

spray system ~from: November:2,to December. 13, 1977. This was a review to determine if.there were any problems associated with talerancing for. specified dimensions. As a result:of. the dimensionalctolerancing review,'there were approximately; eight revisions to_ specifications to provide tolerances or ~ more clarity. .. X d n -(.L z 23-57L Revision 11 2/81 W -_a.

.J K ,-f n. Y Action Action Item Scheduled ' Item Description . Responsible Completion Completion !! umber and Reference Organization Date Status .4' 'A review'ofLinteroffice. memoranda,-memoranda, telexesi 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, safety implications' of tne potential specification modification,. and.any work that has been or may be af fected. .g If it'is determined that.the interpretation u-4 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. The foregoing procedure will;be followed for all specifications _ applying to construction of Q-Listed items. For specifications concerning the procurement of Q-Listed items, the foregoing procedure will wx tm implemented on,a randon_ sampling basis. PE Complete ); * ' The sample size has been established and the rg specification l selection has been ma5e. l8 H- .(21) Review and acceptance criteria scr the specifi-PE Couplete cations have been defined. 8 s l10 l10

r- ,. ~. As Action Action Item Scheduled Item Description Responsible Completion Colaple tion Number and Reference Organization Date Status 4 The review of the initially selected pro-(cont'd) curement specifications indicated that the acceptance criteria were noc met in one discipline. The review was expanded to 100% of the specifications in that discipline (both construction and procurement specifications), and for the other disci-plines the sample of procurement specifica-tions was increased to permit each disci-pline's review to be evaluated separately. (47) This expandea review is scheduled to be com-pleted Dy June 5, 1381. (Question 23, Subsection 3.2, Page 9, and O Subsection 3.9, Page 25) l5 I 5 A study was completed which examined current PE Coraple te l8 procedures and practices for the preparation and control of the FS.\\R in view of these experiences. Procedural changes have been 0 . initiated by tne revision of or addition to the Engineering Department Procedures. 8 (Question 23, Subsection 3.3, Page 11) 6 An interoffice memorandum dated April 12, 1979, GT Completu was issued by Geotechnical Services to alert NN personnel of the need to revise or annotate D$ calculations to reflect current design status. H W-m (Question 23, Subsection 3.4, Page 13) --o D H H

,~ p ~ ' (,,) LI Action Action Item Seneduled Item Description Responsible. Completion Completion Number and Reference Organization Date Status 7 Field Instruct ion FIC 1.100, "Q-Listed' Soils FC Complete Placement' Job Responsibilities Matrix," has been prepared and establishes responsioilities for performing soils placement and compaction. (Question 23, subsection 3.6, Page '18;. Subsection 3.7, Page 20; and Subsection 3.11,-Page 30) w W 'l -J W D NN No m< H e-W V-o D H

NI w) Action' Action. Item Scheduled Item Description. ' Responsible Completion Completion 8 Number-and Reference-Organization Date ~ Status 1 ul Complete 45 U.S.nTesting was required to demonstrate to PE ' cognizant Engineering Representatives that l8 testing procedures, equipment, and personnel used for quality verification testing (for other than.NDE and. soils) were capable l10 of;providing_ accurate-test results in accordance with-the requirements of applicable design documents. TQuestion 1, Appendix I, Section D.3.b, Page I-18; Question 23, Subsection 3.10, Page 27; and l8 Subsection 3.11, Page 31) 46 A sampling of U.S. Testing's test reports (for PE Complete 10 U other than NDE and soils) were reviewed by 4 cognizant Engineering Representatives to ascertain w that results evidence conformance to testing .' requirements and design document limits. (Question 23, Subsection 3.10,-Page 78; and Subsection 3.ll,.Page 31) i 47 See Action Item Number 4 (47) PE 06/05/81 to '48 CPCo performs overinspection for soils CPCo-QA Conolete placement, utilizing a specific overinspection plan. iQuestion,1, Appendix I, Section C.2.b, Page I-ll; and $l3. Section C l.c, Page I-16) m E 49 CPCo performs overinspection of the U.S. CPCo-QA Complete l10 D Testing soils testing activities and reports, [. utilizing a specific overinspection plan. (Question 1, Appendix ~I, Section C.3.c, Pag 6 I-17)

g s

/ q

()

V(~)

(~) V c ~ ' Action' Action Item Seneduled ' Item ' Description ' Responsible Completion. Completion 8 1 Number and Reference Organization ~ Date ' Status 50 'CPCo Project Management and QA review field QC . Complete 10 ' procedures (new and revised) Land CPCo QA reviews QCIs (new and revised):.in line with Bechtel before release.. 5 (Question.1,jAppendix 7, _ Section D.5'.b, Page-I-19) Sli .I'n ' 1978, CPCo implemented. an overinspection plan. CPCo-VA. Complete 10 to independently verify' the adequacy of con-struction and the Bechtel inspection process, 1 .with the' exception ~of' civil; activities. Es - l ~inforcing steel'and embedsfwere. covered-in the Joverinspection.: i(Question 1, Appendix,1,.Section D.S.c, Page I-19) N Ig 52 CPCo-~raviews onsite subcontractor.QA' manuals CPCo-QA Complete l10 .and covers'their work.insthe audit process. .(Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.5'.d, Page I-19)- 15 3 An ongoing' effort-is. improving the " surveillance" QC Complete l10 mode? called for in th'e QCIs by causing more ~ specific accountability as to what character-istics are inspected on what specific nardware and in some cason' changing " surveillance" to '" inspection." (($. (Question 1, Appendix I, Section D.S.e, Page I-19) c: < - H H-m' W.o3 H H.

(7) to s ur ch a rge load. The approximate pond water elevations rose from el 622' in November 1978 to el 627' in April 1979. 7he surcharge lead program started approximately the last 6 week of January 1979 and a 20-foot surcharge was completed in the first week of April 1979. The detailed surcharge load history is presented in the response to Question 27, in l 10 Figure 27-2. The majority of the piezometers which were under the influence of surcharge showed a rapid rise during the period between the last week of March 1979 and the first week of April 1979. This period coincided with the time when the last 10 feet of surcharge was placed. (The pond reached its maximum level of approximately el 627' in the beginning of April 1979). Almost all these piezometers, which respond to the surcharge load dissipated very rapidly within a short period (approximately 1 to 2 weeks af ter com-pletion of surcharge load). Thereafter, all the piezometer readings remained at a steady elevation until the surcharge load was removed during the second half of August 1979. In general, because of the sandy t.ature of the clayey fill 6 under the diesel generator building, the pore water pressure response was small and, in turr., consolidation was rapid, as demonstrated by the load settlement behavior of the building. SETTLEMENT r' / d 7he building settlement during the surcharge period was monitored using 28 settlement markers on the building walls and diesel generator pedestals. The location of these li settlement markers is shown in Figure 27-3 of the response to Ouestion 27. In addition,' Figure 27-3 also shows four 10 deep borros anchors instalked during the montn of June 1979 in an attempt to improve settlement accuracy after the building rate of movement became very small. The settlement plots for settlement marker DC-3 are shown in the response 6 to Question 27, Figure 27-6. The settlement plots for remainina settlement markers DG-1 and DG-4 through DC-29 are presented in Supplemental Figures 27-51 through 27-77. l l0 Supplemental Figure 27-78 shows the settlement plots of the four deep borros anchors. The slopes of the secondary compression, C a,- from these plots are shown.in these 6 figures-and also presented in a plan view of the building and pedestals in Figure 27-8 of the response to Question 27. BORROS ANCHORS 10 Prior to placing the surcharge, 60 Borros anchors (BA) were ~ installed within and outside the boundaries of the diesel 27S-2 Revision 11 2/81

'h generator building (Supplemental 1, Figure 27-79). These Borros anchors were installed at various elevations in the backfill and the natural soil below it. The settlement time 10 data for each of these Borros anchors is presented in Supple-mental Figures 27-80 through 27-139. The lower ordinate of these figures indicates cumulative time in days and the 11 upper ordinate indicates actual calender days, months, and years. SETTLEMENT PLATES Prior to placing the surcharge, 52 settlement plates (PL) 10 were installed within and outside the boundaries of the -diesel generator building. The plan locations of all the settlement plates are-shown in Supplemental Figure 27-79. The settlement time data collected during the period of the surcharge is presented in' Supplemental Figures 27-140 through 27-191. The lower ordinate of these figures indicates . cumulative time in days and the upper ordinate indicates 11 actual calender days, months, and years. Additional information is provided in Attachment 27S-1 which includes the Diesel Generator Building Report on Sondex 10 Gages and Borros Anchors, Volumes 1 and 2, by Goldberg, Zoino, Dunnicliff & Associates, Inc., July 1980. ( , (_,/ On the borros anchors and settlement plates, it should be noted that some of the settlement data show no changes over short periods of' time. The data was plotted this way even though no measurements were taken on these settlement markers 11 during these successive days. The curves will be corrected at a later date to show no data points on those particular days.- This.will cause no significant change to the curves. 4 > Jin 5' + : (,/ 1 Rev is ion -'ll -27S-2a 2/81 i T

( Consolidated undrained laboratory strength tests with pore water pressure measurements were conducted on samples of plant area fill having characteristics similar to those under the diesel generator building. To provide a conserva-tive analysis, five samples with low dry unit weights in the range of 114 to 119 lb/cu f t were selected. Based on the results obtained from_these samples, the effective angle of shearing resistance 19) was found to be 29 degrees and the cohesion intercept (C) was found to be 114 lb/sq ft. The drained angle of shearing resistance is known to be primarily a function of the plasticity characteristics of the soil and, because the plasticity of the samples tested is within the range found beneath the diesel generator building, these !0 tests are representative and testing of samples from below the diesel generator building would not result in signifi-cantly dif ferent design values. This laboratory test data is summarized on Table 40-1. The strength data is presented on a modified ef fective stress Mohr-Coulomb diagram in Figures 40-3 and 40-4. Total and effective strength data at failure shown in Figure 40-4 are comparable and indicate that the pore water pressures existing in the samples tested were close to zero at failure. As shown in Attachment 40-1, the net ultimate bearir.g capacity factor of safety is approxi-mately six using 9 = 29 degrees and C = 114 psf and gi approximately five if the C term is assumed to be zero, (^3 assuming the water table will be lowered to below the foun-(_,/ dation influence depth. Under earthquake conditions, an additional loading equal to approximately 30% of the static loading will be applied. This load will be instantaneous and would occur under un-drained soil conditions. Factors of safety for seismic conditions.will be above acceptable limits. Respo nse (Ouestion 40, Part 3) The preload program carried out at the diesel generator building _ has been successfully completed. The intended 10 . objectives of accelerating residual settlement and improving compressibility diaracteristics of the backfill material under the diesel generator building have been achieved to the extent that settlement has now reached a trend whereby the 40-year operaticnal plant life settlement can be reliably predicted by simple extrapolation of the secondary compres-sion portion of settlement versus log of time. A comparison of measured and predicted settlements during the last 12-month period following the. removal of the surcharge shown in Figure 27-9 (Revision _6). indicates that the predicted settle-ment ~is ve ry ' conservative. ( i" 40-5 Revision 11 2/81'

ATTACHMENT 40-1

SUMMARY

OF BFARING CAPAC'TY CALCULATIONS DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING Bearing Capacity N A. Based on all triaxial shear strength CIU tests (See Figure 41-3) 3 = 29' c = 260 psf Foundation' width, B, is 10 feet; maximum net contact pressure at el 628' due to net dead and design, live loads is 4,061 psf and due to dead load is 3 400 psf; II grade is el 634'. 1. From Terzaghi and Peck (1967), p 222. the bearing capacity factors are: N = 27; N = 16; N y= 15 Ultimate bearing capacity, ~q ec mes d O 260)(27) + (125)(6)(16) + 1/2(125)(10)(15) q = V d = 7,020 + 12,000 + 9,375 28,395 psf = (q ) net = 27,645' psf d F.S. = 27, = 8.13 (net. dead loads ) 3 5 P.S. = = 6.81 (net dead loads plus design live ~ loads) 2.- From Winterkorn and Fang (1975), p 127, the bearing capacity factors are: N = 27.9 N =,16.4N;.N y= 19 /qd - (260)(27.9) + (125)(6)(16.4) + 1/2(125)(10)(19) = 7,254'+ 12,300 + 11,875 30 = 31,429 psf (q ne = 0,679. psf d f $ )y.I Sheet 1 of 2 Revision 11. 2/81

l I 9.02 (net dead loads) F.S. = = 7.55 (net dead loads plus design FS.= = live loads) i B. Based on five samples with lower densities (See l Figure 40-3), soil parameters are: i ) = 29' c = 114 psf 1. From Terzaghi and Peck (1967), p 222, bearing capacity factors are: Nc" I q" Y I = 10 (114)(27) + (125)(6)(16) + 1/2(125)(10)(15) g d = 3,078 + 12,000 + 9,375 = 24,453 psf i (qd) net = 23,703 psf F.S. = 23 = 6.97 (net dead loads) I .F.S. = 23 3 = 5.84 (net dead' loads plus design live loads)

2..

When n?glecting E (i.e., assuming E = 0): qd = (125)(6)(16) + 1/2(125)(10)(15) =.12,000 + 9,375 10 =.21,375 psf (q ) net = 20,625 psf d ' F.S. = 20,625 6.07 -(net dead loads ) 9 P.S. = 20,62 = 5.07- (net dead ' loads plus design

live loads)-

a g Sneet 2 of.'2: Revision'11 2/81

[ "3 According to Potyondy, the friction angle \\s ' between steel e.nd soil is (0.65 and 0.8) of 7. 10 For conservat ism: l 11 6 = 0.8 x J2* = 25' c=0 F= 27r 11 (U tan 6 ) + 2:Yli C 3 h = 2m (7/12)(20)(5,408)(0.47) tan 25 = 86,632 % 44 tons c. Calculation of F 4 Soil-drained parameters: E = 32' and c = 590 psf 9'

• U " Y + cN

+ 9'N (S wers & Sowers, page 461) j c g 10 s ( T = 80; N = 80; N = 130 q_) .. Y q c

q. = 1.17(130) x (80)/2 + 590(130) + 6,084(80) i

= 590,624 psf 0 = Axq. = n (7/12) 2 x 598,624 = 639,931 pounds = 320 tons

SUMMARY

ANil CONCLUSIONS Downdrag loads = F +F ~ 30 tons 2 Ultimate pile capacity = F +F2+F3+F4 = 391 tons '~ (Sheet 4 of 4) Revision 11' 2/81 1

() Standard Penetration Blowcount s (per foot ) l Approximate Boring Range Average T-14 19-31 25 T-15 17-59 29 Some low shear strength values were observed from Torvane tests pe rformed on tube soil samples and these were incon-sistant relative to the remaining field and laboratory tests. The 3nw Torvane test values occur where the soil was disturbed by sampling or where sof t seams occur within the sample. - These low values do not represent the overall consistency of the fill as shown by the Standard Penetration Test blowcounts which are obtained over a larger interval. The exploratory borings T-22 through T-26, (see Figure 31-2, fo r loca tiot.s ), showed isolated low blowcounts at the different depths in the fill.' The estimated consistency corresponding n) to the low blowcounts was soft. Subsequent to this explora-tion, the undesirable and soft fill materials have been removed and replaced with ruitable compacted fill to plant grade ele-vation. An examination of Figures 33-3 and 33-4, where blowcounts of all associated boring including T-22 through T-26 were included, show that the average soil conditions are satisfactory to support the tanks. A similar observation [_/.,{ concerning soil conditions can be made from the average \\_ blowcounts presented in Table 31-1. The dif ferential. ttlement between the center and the edge of the. tank was computed based on the theory of elasticity (see reference). In accordance with this theory the settle-ment at the edge of a uniformly loaded flexible plate was approximately 0.65 times that at the center. Thus, the dif ferential settlement due to primary and long-term settlements, between the edge and center, was about one-and-one-half inch. Respo nse (Ouestion 4 L Part Ib) The stresses in the ring beams, tank walls,and tank bottom due ~ to present and future settlement are currently under Il ' review based on behavior during the full-scale load tests. The results will be provided. at a later date. Response (Ouestion 43, Part 2) The shear strength of the. fill material was determined by ni pe rfo rming triaxial shear strength tests on tube samples-taken during fill exploration. The results of these tests, are-plotted on Figure 35-3, included in the response to ~s 43-3 Revision 11 I ) 2/81 v l - - - + ~ '

,T~ 3 Question 35, 10 CFR 50.54(f). In Figure 35-3, the labora-(,/ tory shear strength based on maximum effective principal stress ratio are plotted against the confining pressure applied during the shear tests. Figure 43-1 shows shear strength da ta in terms of maximum deviator stress. The undrained shear strength, at appropriate confining pressure for normally consolidated conditions, were selected f rom Figure 35-3 to use in bearing capacity calculations reported in the response to Ouestion 31. A summary of the bearing capacity calculations is included in Attachment 43-1. These cal cula t ions include foundation design criteria assumptions, adopted soil prope rties, ultimate bearing capacity, and factors of safety for static and seismic loads. The bearing capacity calculations were examined in the light of the assumptions and the assumed site and field conditions. Based on this examination, the calculated ultimate bearing capacity is considered conservative for the following reasons: 1. The analysis is performed based on the groundwater table (CWT) at el 627'. After the site is dewatered, the CNT will be at approximately el 595'. Because of this ch ?nge in GWT, the effective stress below the foundation will increase. The corresponding shearing strength for the increased confining stresses will be 10 h ighe r.

l

) 2. The ultimate bearing capacity calculations, assuming the dynamic and static loads occurring at the same time after soil has already been consolidated under static load, are conservative. The actual factor of safety for dead, live, and seismic load will be higher than cal cula ted. Avbiletle data do not support the statement that a sof t stratum is indicated by boring T-15. Although a low Torvane shear strength value of 120 psf is reported at approximately el 621.1', another Torvane value on the same sample at el 620.5' showed a strength value of 1,520 psf. This indi-cates the low value is due either to sample disturbance at the top of the sample or due to limited local variation in pr ope rt ies. It should be noted that the standard penetra-tion test blowcount values of 19 and 28 were obtained above and below the tube sample of approximately el 623' and 627', res pe ct ively. The remaining SPT blowcount data for this boring and the da ta discussed above, indicate that the soils are competent and no sof t soil stratum exists. 43-4 Revision 11 2/81

v (3 \\~ l by state-of-the-art methods. Therefit t.a, provide results of the seismic analysis of the slopes leading to an estimate of the pe rmanent deformation of the pipes. Please provide the following : (1) a plan showing the pipe location with respect to other nearby structures, slopes of the reservoir and the coordinate system; (2) cross-sections showing the pipes, normal pool levels, slopes, subsurface conditions as interpreted from borings and/or logs or excavations at (a) a location parallel. to _ and about 50 ft from the southeast outside wall of the service water pipe structure and (b) a location where the ' cross section will include both discharge structures. Actual boring logs should be shown on the profiles; their of f set from the-profile noted, and soils should be described using the Unified Soil Classification System; (3) discussion of available shear strength data and choice of strengths used in stability analysis; (4) determination of static g3 factor or safety, critical earthquake acceleration, and location of : critical circle; (5) calculation of residual movement by the method presented by Newmark (1965) or Makdisi and Seed (1978); and (6) a determination of whether or not the pipes can function. properly af ter such movements. Respo nse (Ouestion 45,'Part la) It is. assumed that the water circulating pipes referred _ (~'g to in this question are the circulating water discharge pipes. V - These pipes have. diameters of.72 and 96 inches for Unit 1 andH2, respectively. Because of the size, it is possible to manually s inspect the_ interior of these pipes without using video cameras and sensing devices. As stated in the response. to Question 19, roundness measure-ments -were taken on ione of the--circulating water lines to determine if -; internal -reinforcement was needed during the preload program. Line 96"-2YBJ-4 was chosen because it is l 11 closest to_ the diesel generator building and would receive the;la rgest ~ 1oading. from the preload. _ As stated ~ in Question 19, 1the roundness measurements at 15 locations along the= pipe indicated.that the pipe was generally oval;in shape, with the vertical axis larger than the: horizontal axis. ~ 4 L'niis condition remained the same throughout the preload pro-gram with an average l change' in ' dimensions of -0.09 inch and +0.-06 inch and 'afmaximumichange in the ' dimensions of -0.25 inch K) and +0.38 inch for the vertical -and horizontal axes, respectively. Slopefmeasurements iof Ethe pipes :and inspection of the welds-Tere not consideredEnecessary because the pipes were not placed Lin ~ plant fill but -have been 'placed on natural' soil at - el _6 05' and z 602' for t units 1E and.2, respectively, as shown in FigureL 4 5-1. ! /'- \\ ]' 43-3 Revision:ll -2/81E

.O(v - Respo nse (Oue s tion 45, Part lb) J The duct banks were not inspected while the preload was in pl a c e. The inspection capabilities were physical limited because the duct banks were covered by the preload. The tops of the duct banks are at el 635', as shown in Figure 7-2, with the preload extending up to approximately el 654 ', which allowed inspection only before placement and af ter removal of the preload. The inspection verified that there was sufficient space in the conduits to perform their design function. Further evaluation was made to provide a comparison between loads already experienced and future design loads. The evaluation was based on envisioning what could happen if the duct banks had been damaged. Two types of structural dis-continuity appeared possible if the loadings imposed on the duct' banks were greater than their capacities. The first type of discontinuity would occur from excess flexure resulting in a sharp bend in the duct bank (see Figure 45-2a). The .second type of discontinuity would be shearing, resulting in an offset in.the duct bank (see Figure 45-2b). 10 Both of.the above types of discontinuities, either individually or in combination, would have been detected by the method of inspection used. v As was stated in'the response to Question 7, the maximum

load imposed on. the duct banks by direct bearing of the diesel. generator building footings on the duct banks was estimated at :1,000 kips maximum on the duct bank in Bay 4.

In - November 19 78, the. duct banks were isolated from the diesel generator building footings and expansion joints ;were constructed that. will allow a minimum of 12 inches vertical dif ferential movement between the duct banks and the diesel 3 ^ generator building footings. As of September 1980, the - maximum diesel building settlement was approximately

7. 4 3. inches, of'which 2.72 inches had occurred before construction of. the expansion jointe in November 1978.

From Question 27, the. predicted future diesel building settlement, including - se ttleme nt from static, dewatering, and earthquake . shakedown is 2.58 inches. Therefore, 'the settlement of the diesel generator building footings will not exceed the allowances made for it. The pressure on the ground surface during the preload program was 'approximately 2.2 ksf plus the building weight. No combination of predi.cted future loads' including seismic loads will approach this. Seismic ' loads,have-been addressed in the response to Ouestion 30. The refo re, the duct banks have~already been subjected to.the ' largest; 1oads. they will experience during the design life of the plant and have-been inspected to verify their continuity. ~ f3 t i \\' 45-4 Revision 11 2/81-

t l 0 ( i All of the conduits in the four duct banks were checked 1 \\- af ter isolation of the duct banks from the diesel generator g bu ildi ng foot ing s, as stated in the response to Question 7, by pulling a segmented, hard fiber composition rabbit through thera (see Figure 7-3). The continuity check was repeated after removal of the preload in May 1960. No obstructions or discontinuities were detected by incrersed pulling difficulty or blockage during either inspection. Conclusion The four duct banks that run from the auxiliary building to the diesel generator building have already experienced the largest loads of their design life. Inspections after application of these loads have found no sign of any discon-tinuity that. could prevent the duct banks from performing their design f unction. Therefore, is is our conclusion that the duct banks will be able to perform their design function under all future loadings. Response (Ouestion 4 5, Part Ic) This Ouestions will be answered at a later date af ter discussions with the NRC staff and their technical consultanti. 4 Response (Ouestion 45, Part Id) 10 rx t \\ 's- / Thet pipe ; sleeve in the' west borated tank pit will be ett flush with the wall. Measurements indicate.the slope of the piping to be 1*-10' resultingl in.a calculated clearance at the end of ' the pene- -tration._ sleeve of 3/16 inches. . The ' service wa ter piping was inspected af ter removal of _ t;ue r spa ce rs. Although the coating'on the pipe was scraped, there was. no visual damage to the piping itself. (1 ) The minimum seismic'rattlespace varies for individual - ripe flines. Table 45-1 lists the~ existing rattlespace and the' minimum rattlespace requi' red to accomodate seismic - povements, (2) Table 45-1 lists design and as-built conditions for all o Seismic Category I piping passing.from major structures into -the soil. All measurements were'taken on September 17,-1980, - from inside the : structures. During excava tion-for foundation-work to the service water . structure,: the-pipes will. be exposed and atJ that time will be' reset'to'their original design elevations where they - leave the structure. This will ensure adequate space for L/~3 seismic displacement. 1 .t

U/ :

45-5 Revision 11 2/81 T

g / v Where loads are applied gradually and/or maintained for a period of time to allow pore water pressures to dissipate, soil parameters should be selected based an drained laboratory strength tests or consolidated undrained laboratory strength tests with pore water pressure measurements. The building loads for the a.esel generator building structure were applied gradually and maintained over a period of more than 18 months; therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate bearing capacity based on drained conditions. Consolidated undrained laboratory strength tests with pore water pressure measurements were conducted on samples of plant area fill having characteristics similar to those under the diesel generator building. To provide a conservative analysis, five samples with low dry unit weights in the range of 114 to 119 pounds / cubic foot were selected. Based on the results obtained fror these samples, the effective angle of shearing resistance (9) was found to be 29 degrees and tne cohesion intercept (C) was found to be 114 pounds / square foot. The drained angle of shearing resistance is known to be primarily a function of the plasticity I I characteristics of the soil and as the plasticity of fs the samples tested is within the range found beneath the diesel generator building, these tests are repre-sentative and testing of samples from below the diesel building would not result in significantly different design values. This laboratory test data is summarized on Table 1. The strength data is presented on a modified -effective stress Mohr-Coulomb diagram in Figures 6 and 7. Tota] and effective strength data at failure shown on Figure 7 are comparable and indicate the port water pressures existing in the samples tested were close to zero at failure. As shown on Figure 8, the net ultimate bearing capacity factors of safety is approximately 7 and 6 using 9'= 29 degreen and C = 114 p;f and approximately 6 and 5 if the C term is-assumed to be zero for the dead load case and dead load plas design live load case, res-pectively, assuming the water table will be lowered to below the foundation influence depth. Under' earthquake conditions,-an additional loading equal to.about 30 percent of.the static loading will be: applied.. This load will be instantaneous and would occur under undrained soil conditions. Factors of safety for seismic conditions will be above acceptable limits.

FIGURE 2 OQ LOAD (KSF) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STRESS INCREMENT DUE / TO DEAD STRUCTUR AL LOADS BEFORE SURCHARGE REMOVAL m / / / 623 (1) (2)(4)(5) (6) (3) / STRESS INCREMENT / DUE TO DEAD STRUCTURAL LOADS, LIVE [ P 618 LOAD & LOWERING GWT / FROM 627 TO S60 AFTER g SURCHARGE REMOVAL / 4

• 9 I

Q ESTIMATED f DEAD LOAD ADDED AFTER 613 '. SURCHARGE w REMOV4 v = IN-SITU EFFECTIVE STRESS 1 (GWT 627) I { STRESS INCREMEN i . DUE TO SU RCHARG nt YL NOTES:

1. (1) In-situ affective overburden pressure

4. (4) Total effective pressure due to in-situ (GWT at 627).

effective overburden pressure and total

2. (2) Total effective pressure before surcharge structural dead loads.

removal due to in-situ effective overburden

5. (5) Total effective pressure due to in-situ pressure and structural dead loads.

' effective overburden pressure, total

3. (3) Total effective pressure at the end of structural dead loads, & expected live loads.

surcharge dua to in-situ effective overburden

6. (6) Total effective pressure during the life pressure, r* uctural dead loads, & surcharge loads.

of plant operation due to In-situ effective overburden pressure, structural dead loads, dowatering le, & expected live loads. . fm COMPARISON OF EF'FECTIVE STRESS AT ( )

1) END OF SURCHARGE AND

'v/

2) DURING LIFE OF PLANT OPERATION SOUTHWEST CCRNER OF DIESEL GENERATOR BUILD:NG P00R ORG NAL

O O O i- '.5000 "- p' - q' c.- 6 ~' a = 100 PSF. c = 115 PSF i 4000-- l a = 26 6 = 29.2 O / / / s 1 }. / y / I' -3000 " / G 7 / ca. / m i / ce / 26 o@ / / Dm i 'cr 2000 / 0 f g / g / + 1 7 / ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION $ = SIN ~ (TAN a) +- O/ COHESION INTERCEPT = a/cos $ .g i-1000.-- /' / I / ./ 1 s '/ / i = 100 PSF .0 1000 '2000 3000 4003 5000 6000 700n ai' + 03' PSF STRENGTil PARAMETERS BASED ON P,= 2 EFFECTIVE STRESS PARAMETIUtS 1

O OL O s l LEGEND S LID SYMBOLS REPRESENT TOTAL STRESS 8000 O OPEN SYMBOLS REPRESENT EFFECTIVE STRFSS i i 6000 - h 24 o, i

o r oe b ~,

nc a. on MO e c D4 ^ 4000- - .O o ro I N g I ~ G O v l l -er 2000 --- , o O i a 20'00 4000 .6000 8000 10,000 12,000 0 c1 ' + 03' PSF COMPARISON OF TOTAL AND EFFECTIVE P," STRESS STRENGTH PARAMETFJtS 2 I

.~. . - _ _. _ ~.. - _ ~... ~. i. .i l' ). Figure 8 (Sh 1 of 2) (See Reference 1) J BEARING CAPACITY (D/G BLDG) f A. BASED ON ALL CIU TESTS

1. = 29*

t i-l j c = 150' psf a) Use--T & P 27' N = 16 N = 15 N' = c q Y r. f' . qd = (260) (27) + (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15) ' -7,020 + 12,000 +.9,375 =- '28395 psf '.= f 27,645 .r (qd) net = 1 27,' 6 4 5 _. =. 8.13 (net dead loads) F. S. = g 3,400 l -F.S.L= 27,645 = 6.81'(net' dead loads plus design live loads) 4,061 t. b ).- 'Use Vesici 16.4 Nf = 19 27.9 N -- N s = c g s-qd =.,(260).L(27.9).+1(125)-(6) (16.4) + 1/2-(125) (10) (19) L jc ~ 7/254Et 12,300 t 11,' 87 5 =. 31, =. 4 25 " psf ' i = l.

(qd) net'=D30,679zpsf.

F.S. = 30,679- =--9.02(net' dead loads)- ~ j._ ,3,_400 _ P. S. : = - 3 0,' 6 7 9, = 7.55L(net dead loads.plus' design" live loads). i 4,061'- a g h ~~ i P _ . ~... -

u.- s Fig re 8 (Sh 2 of 2) 4' B. BASED ON FIVE SAMPLES WITH' LOWER DENSITIES 4 j p = 29' l -c = 114 psf. t. -N = 27 N- = 16 NY = 15 ,.j c q U + 'q =-(114) (27) + (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15) f = 3,078 + 12,000 + 9,375 = 24,453 psf. F -{ ' _(qd) net"=-23,703~ psf. ~ E . F. S. = 23,703 =-:6.971(net dead loads) .3,400 i [... F.S.-='23,703 =15.84-(net dead loads plus design live loads) f' i. 4: 4,061-fI " ~IF WE'NEGLECTnc, ASSUME ~= 0; ~ ~ 9d- - (125) ---( 6 ) 7 (16 )1. t 1/2. (125) (10) (15) ~ = i ~ =-,12,000f+ 9,375

- = i 21,3 75 - ps f.

I ~ .'(qj ) netH = ~ 20',625~. psE t l i e i: F.S. = 20,625' ='~6.07.(net dead loads) t: 3,400 t ~ '= 5.'07f(net: dead loads plus design. live loads) ') ,1 'F.S. ="20,625 }' ~ ~ 4,061-- ~ s yf s q._ A ~ ^ e w l - + 4 ^ e o e ~ ,h .w..

~-.,. - i-i' I TABLE 1 LABORATORY TEST DATA I + r

1. ~

SUMMARY

OF SOIL PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE p' - q ' RELATIONSilIP. 51 + 5 3-q' = 2 51 - 53 Boring - Sample w p' 2 = - Test: Series -d (pcf) (%) (psf) (psf) i 1T9 213 117.9 14.4 2,000 1,100 Tis'-'3 - 222 118.6 14.2 7,200 i 3,850 ~ T16

5 - : 22 5 '

114.4' 16.9 2,100 1,225 -TR2 --U2 - 140 114.6 14.6 3,600 1,800 t -TRS:- 2 147 117.9 14.1 -6,000 3,100 [.. i 1- ' NOTES: 1 fYd.= dry; unit' weight'. '~ t w = water content 3 J - 1 = effective major principa'l stress 5'3.= effective-minor principal stress ~ ? h I ) s A. A

,._2.t m

~ .}}