ML20027E153
| ML20027E153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1982 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Goodie J ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A786 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-328 NUDOCS 8211120154 | |
| Download: ML20027E153 (1) | |
Text
-.
r *:
UNITED STATES I
///
+'
'6,
?!llCl E? R HEGtlLATORY COMMISSION
[
RFGloN til j
7DW ROOSEVELT ROAD E (.
gig j j s,,..y
- P.EN E L LYN, ILLINo S60137 p
MAY 4 1982 s
),udith S. Goodie
)
C IAssistant Attorney General IEnvironmental Control Division i188 W. Randolph St., Suite 2315 Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Ms. Goodie,
This is in reply to your letter dated April 21, 1982, in which you requested a copy of the documents which indicate the status of Commonwealth Edison Company's response to IE Bulletin 82-01.
NRC Region III was aware of the content of IE Bulletin 82-01 prior to its March 31, 1982 date.of issuance. We conducted an inspection during March, 1982 which confirmed that radiographs by Associated Piping andThis Engineering did not have the deficiencies identified in IEB 82-01.
(isdocumentedinNRCInspectionReportNo. 50-373/82-13 issued April 1, 1982 (Enclosure 1).
s Commonwealth Edison had been made aware of the potential problems with the Associated Piping and Engineering radiographs prior to the issuance of the bulletin, and conducted an evaluation which was reported to the NRC in their letter to Mr. A. Schwenzcer, dated March 25, 1982 (Enclosure 2).
Subsequent to the issuance of IEB 82-01, the licensee responded to the bulletin in a letter to J. G. Keppler dated April 9, 1982 (Enclosure 3).
Region III's evaluation of the adequacy of their response is documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-373/82-20 which will soon be issued, and Deficiencies in the Associated d
a_ copy will_be sent to your office.
Piping and Engineering radiographs were not identified in the above -
activities.
If we can be of We hope this information will satisfy your request.
further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely, f
st<. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Programs f
Enclosures:
As stated 9
At9 8211120154 820917 ~
~
~
(
F p
i
?
I FINAL REPORT IN RESPONSE TO PETITION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLINDIS, IN THE MATTER OF REINFORCING STEEL DAMAGED DURING THE INSTALLATION OF CORED AND DRILLED HOLES AND THE MATTER OF THE OFF-GAS BUILDING ROOF FOR LASALLE COUNTY, UNITS 1 & 2
)
Comonwealth Edison Company Chicago, Illinois May 7, 1982
.i t
- /
i a
e
\\
Y. Of 'g(e C
'/ oi gwn sj/gpr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
]
SECTION SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.
l 1
1.0 Summary of Allegation
. { 2.0 Response to Allegation Concering Coring and Drilling Holes 3
( 2.1 Introduction 3
2.2 Definition of Cored and Drilled Holes
~4 2.2.1 Cored Holes 4
2.2.2 Drilled Holes 5
2.3 Classification of Damage to Reinforcing Steel due to Coring and Drilling Operations 5
2.3.1 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Coring Operations 5
2.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilling Operations 6
2.4 Control, Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 7
]
2.4.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 7
2.4.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 8
2.4.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 9
2.4.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 11 2.5 Control, Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements 12 2.5.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Partially Penetrating j
Concrete Elements 12 2.5.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Partially
~
Penetrating Concrete Elements 13 C
2.5.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements 14 11
I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
]
SECTION SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.
.i
- [2.5.3.1 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Equipment Foundations 14 2.5.3.2 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Mechanical Pipe Support Baseplate Assemblies 15 2.5.4 Summary of. Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 16 2.6
' Control, Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Drilling Operations for Concrete Expansion Anchors 17 2.6.1 Application and Use of Concrete Expansion Anchors 17 2.6.2 Control Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 19 2.6.3 Documentation Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete
]
Expansion Anchors 25 2.6.4 Engineering Assessment of Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 27 2.6.5 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 28 2.7 Summary of Detailed Structural Assessment for Damaged Reinforcing Steel 29 2.8 Conclusion in Response to Allegation on Cored and Drilled Holes 34 3.0 Response to Allegation Concerning the Off-Gas Building Roof 37
.i.
t
?
iii l
~
LIST OF FIGURES
)
FIGURE NO.
FIGURE TITLE PAGE NO.
2.2-1 Cored Hole Passing Thru Concrete 39 i
3 2.2-2,
Cored Hole Partially Penetrating Concrete 39 2.2-3 Drilled Hole in Concrete for Expansion Anchor Installation 39 2.2-4 Nicked, Reinforcing Steel 40 2.2-5 Cut Reinforcing Steel 40 2.4-1 General Note No. 44, Drawing S-199 41 2.4-2 General-Note No. 11, Drawing S-213 42 2.4-3 Drawing M-1100, Sheet 23 43 2.7-1 Structural Calculations for Slab Panel 44-47 2.7-2 Structural Calculations for Wall Panel 48-60
)
2.7-3 Structural Calculations for Concrete Beam 61 -68 6
II i
iv
i s
LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO.
TITLE PAGE NO.
2.4-1 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Cored Holes Passing Thru Concrete 12 i
2.5-1 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Cored e
Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete 17 2.6-1 Summary Log of Reinforcing Steel Damage Reports Received by Sargent & Lundy Before and Af ter March 29, 1982 for LaSalle County Units 1&2 69 2.6-2 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Drilling Operations 29 2.7-1 Margins in Sample Areas with Congested Rebar Hits for'LaSalle County, Unit 1 70 2.7-2 Summary of the Number of Concrete Elements for Which Detailed Structural Calculations were Made 71 2.7-3 Summary of All Reinforcing Steel Damage Ior Unit 1 "3
Safety Related Areas and Those Unit 2 Areas Required for Unit 1 Operation 72
/
l i
?
V
i
,i 1.0
_ Summary of Allegation
+
The Office of the Attorney,,' General, State of Illinois, has brought.. '
'.i forward infonnation alleging,
"...that, during the construction of LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2, certain practices related to the
~
drilling of holes in the concrete walls, floors and ceilings of the Units 1 a'd 2 buildings have created a potentially hazardous con-n "dition which, upon the operation of either unit at full power, may be injurious to the public health and safety."
The subject petition contends that, as a matter of course, an unknown number of drilled holes, ranging in the order of thousands, were likely to have been cut through the reinforcing steel.
The petition, which
.m is based on the affidavit of e indicates that
- .).
records of these situations were made at the time the alleged practices occurred, and that the practice of drilling through reirs forcing steel was discontinued or subjected to' the case-by-case approval of an engineer some time in late 1979, early 1980.
The petition also states that the State of Illinois has no information which suggests that any engineering approval was ever obtained frnm l
Comonwealth Edison Company's engineering consultant prior to 1980.
A second affidavit by Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh states that, if the re-inforcing steel was damaged or severed without appropriate i!
structural analysis, and if the drilling practice was wide-spread,
"... i,t seems nearly certain that some safety related structures...would have been affected."
I h
l - _ _.
i
+
The office of the Att,orney General, State of Illinois, also brought
)
forward information alleging, "...that the concrete ceiling or roof of the Off-Gas Building was actually only 8" thick, 5ven though the,
j specifications called for this roof to be 12" thick."
The subject petition further contends that this concrete roof has cracked sub-stantially due to the number of anchor bolt holes drilled in it.
d
(
r 4
2-
t 2.0 Response to Allegation Concerning Cored and Drilled Holes
)
2.1 Introduction i
f i
Commonwealth Edison Company, throughout the course of the LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2 construction, has controlled the drilling through concrete for both cored holes and the installation of con-
, crete expansion anchors via appropriate quality control procedures, and has documented and assessed reinforcing steel reported as having been contacted (nicked or cut) during this operation.
Commonwealth Edison Company and their Consulting Engineers, Sargent & Lundy, met with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory
)
Commission staff in
- Bethesda, Maryl and, at the request of Mr. Harold Denton on March 31, 1982.
The purpose of the meeting was to:
(A) present quality control and documentation procedures im-t plemented by Comonwealth Edison Company throughout the project with regard to reporting reinforcing steel which was contacted during the coring and drilling operations, I
(B) present the engineering controls which were established to
, minimize reinforcing steel damage due to tfie coring and drilling operations, and y
i)
(C) present the structural engineering assessment regarding the
)
adequacy of the safety related concrete elements for all Unit 1 areas and those Unit 2 areas required for trnit 1 operation.
.{
with regard to reinforcing steel damaged during the coring and I
drilling operations.
Subsequent. to the meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, NRC representa-
,tives performed an audit at the LaSalle County site on April 7, 1982, to verify the corresponding field procedures, and also per-p { 1,#.'
fonned araudit at the Sargent & Lundy offices on April 8,1982, to g
review and verify the engineering assessment of the effects of the f
damaged reinforcing steel.
)
2.2 Definition of Cored and Drilled Holes 2.2.1 Cored. Holes Cored holes in concrete are of the following two types:
A.
h which pass through a concrete element to allow for passage of an electrical.
or mechanical component, as illustrated in Figure 2.2-1.
These holes vary from 1-1/4" to j
22" in diameter.
i
~
B.
Holes which partially penetrate a concrete element for the in-stallation of a grouted anchor bolt, as shown in Figure
.}
2.2.-2. Grouted anchor bolts were utilized primarily to anchor /
equipment foundations and/or pipe support baseplates to con-
)
crete elements.
These holes vary from 1-1/2" to 3"
in diameter.
s i
1 2.2.2 Drilled Holes Holes were drilled in concrete for the installation of concrete ex-
,pansion anchors.
The diameter of drilled holes varies with the diameter of the expansion anchor, and ranges between 1/4" to 1".
Such holes vary from 1-1/4" to 8" in depth.
See Figure 2.2-3 for an illustration of a drilled hole.
2.3 Classification of Damage to Reinforcing Steel due to Coring and h
Drilling Operations 2.3.1 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Coring Operations.
Cored holes were, typically, made using a diamond tipped core t
drill.
This particular drill bit is capable of cutting through re-i inforcing steel.
During a coring operation utilizing a core drill, three possibilities existed:
,1 i
A.
No reinforcing steel was contacthd.
B.
Reinforcing steel was partially contacted, and a segment of the bar was cut (see Figure:2.2-5).
l
$h l,
I t
C.
Reinforcing steel was totally contacted by the core drill, and the reinforcing steel was completely severed (see Figure 2.2-5).
i I
Where the diameter of the cored hole was less than the spacing of the reinforcing steel (typically, 9"
to 12"),
there was a
probability that the reinforcing steel would not be contacted.
The
, probability that a bar would be contacted decreases as the diameter of the cored hole decreases and/or the spacing of the reinforcing steel inereases.
2.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilling Operations Drilling of holes in concrete for the installation of expansion anchors was typically. performed' with carbide tipped solid masonry bits, as specified in Form LS-CEA.
These carbide tipped solid masonry bits are not capable of drilling through reinforcing steel.
These bits can produce only a shallow, 1/16" deep and 1/4" wide smooth and well rounded depression in the rebar, called a " nick",
as shown in Figure 2.2-4.
1 Based on laboratory testing and analytical assessment, it has been t; O,h.
conclusively demonstrated that such rebar nicks do not impair the dlCkV, -Q F
M structural integrity of reinforced concrete elements (see Section LF 2.6.2).
-3 1
i l l
Form LS-CEA, which controlled the drilling operations for concrete expansion anchors, allowed the contractor, in certain situations, to drill through reinforcing steel for the installation of a con- -
s crete expansion anchor using a diamond tipped core drill (see Section 2.6.2).
This situation required the contractatto report the subsequent reinforcing steel damage to the Consulting Engineers, d
2.4 Control Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements m
2.4.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete
., )
i Elements The need for cored holes passing through conc' rete elements was determined by an electrical or mechanical designer during the office routing of the mechanical and electrical components, or by
}
the field contractor in the case of field routed electrical and mechanical components.
In the first situation, the cored holes were specified and located on the structural design drawings via a request from the electrical or mechanical designer.
,A structural f
engineer at Sargent & Lundy approved the location of the cared hole) and released the corresponding structural design drawing only af ter an assessment was made regarding the structural effects of
.)
reinforcing steel likely to be damaged by the coring operation.
Section 2.4.3 describes this structural engineering assessment. -. _.
In the second situation, the contractor was required to submit a Field Change Request (FCR) requesting permission to install a cored hole for field routed mechanical and electrical com;ionents prior to,
j the coring operation.
Condonwealth Edison Company, on the recom-i; mendation of Sargent & Lundy, approved this request only af ter a
,s_tructural assessment was made of the effects of any reinforcing t
steel which was likely to be removed or damaged during this
, operation.
Section 2.4.3 describes this structural engineering assessment.
These cored holes were, likewise, subsequently indi-cated on-the structural design drawings. -
2.4.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements
-h A permanent record of all cored holes passing through concrete elements is maintained on the structural design drawings.
These cored holes, either initiated in the office or in the field, are appropriately defined as cored holes on the structural design l
drawings.
The contractor was not required to report reinforcing steel which may have been cut during this coring operation because l
the structural engineering assessment was performed prior to the release of the design drawings or FCR assuming the maximum number i
of bars likely to be damaged.
Inis maximum number was a function of the diameter of the cored hole and the spacing of the rein-f orc'ing steel, both of which were specified on the structural 3
design drawings.
It is emphasized that this was conservatine, since the maximum number of bars assumed to be damaged may, in.
fact, not have been contacted during the coring operation.
An
)
example would be a 3" diameter core, drilled through a concrete element in which the reinforcing steel is spaced 9"ron center. The,
-f probability of contacting a'bar in this instance would be low; hy-e m the engineerina assessment assumed a minimum of two bars damaged (one each f ace).
2.4.3
, Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements Prior to releasing a structural design drawing or approving a field change request containing a cored hole, a structural engineer assessed the effects of any reinforcing steel likely'to be damaged during the coring operation.
As described in Section 2.4.2,- this assessment conservatively assumed the maximum number of bars likely to be damaged as a function of the diameter of. the core and the spacing of the reinforcing steel.
The engineering assessment during this stage of construction consisted primarily of engineering judgement, in which a structural engineer reviewed the concrete element design margins and stress levels in the rein-forcing steel assumed to be damaged.
Engineering judgement was
' appropriate, since, in most cases, the assumed damaged reinforcing i
steel either had no stress or very low stress, and/or the design m a in of the concrete element at the location o,f the assumed
~
damaged reinforcing steel was sufficiently greater than 1.0.
The design margin is defined as the ratio of the area of reinforcing steel actually provided in the concrete element to the area of the 1
1 reinforcing steel required to carry the design loads.
A design
)
margin as close to 1.0 as possible is desirable since it represents a safe as well as an economical structural design.
- There are many,
s
.i situations, however, in which considerations other than the design 1
I loads (such as minimum thickness requirements for shielding) governed the size of a concrete element.
Such situations typically resulted in design margins greater than 1.0.
The design loads used were in accordance with the LaSalle County FSAR corwnitments, and included all normal operating, accident and severe and extreme environmental conditions, including LOCA and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
Detailed structural calculations, which have been performed as described in Section 2.7, verified the h
appropriateness of the initial engineering judgement in this situation and verified that these cored holes have not impaired the structural integrity of any safety related area.
l It should also be pointed out that the. structural engineer, in re-viewing an individual cored hole, had a complete record before him of all other cored holes in a given area _as indicated on the structural design drawings.
Therefore, when a request was made to add an additional cored hole, the structural engineering assessment j
took into consideration the aggregate effect of all other cored l
holes in a given area.
f It is emphasized that, for all coring operations, engineering I
h.
approval was obtained prior to the cutting of the reinforcing
~
steel.
Where the structural engineering assessment had determined
]
that it was required to minimize the cutting or damaging reinforcing steel during the installation of cored holes, this.
{
requirement was specified on the appropriate structural design I
drawing. The following are examples of this situation:
A.
General Note No. 44 on Drawing No. S-199 states that, "For cored holes marked E,
less than 8"
- diameter, use metal detector to locate existing reinforcing prior to core drill.ing.
In case of interference with rebar, holes may be cored in alternate location within 3" radius from location shown on drawing.
(See Figure 2.4-1).
}
B.
Drawing No.
S-213, concerning the Reactor Building floor framing plan at Elevation 761'-0", Note 11 requires the use of metal detectors to avoid cutting of reinforcing steel in this area.
(See Figure 2.4-2)
Commonweal th Edison Company has verified that the contractors' (procedures have addressed the use of metal detectors.
2.4.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing i
Through Concrete Elements 5
/
Table 2.4-1 summarizes the reinforcing steel which has been conservatively assumed to have been damaged due to cored holes passing through concrete elements in all Unit I safety related
, l
~
areas and in those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1
)
operation.
~
{
TABLE 2.4-1 1;
Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Cored Holes Passing Thru Concrete Unit 2 Areas Required Item Unit 1 Areas for Unit 1 Operation
,Nisnber of Cored Holes 844 127 Number of Reinforcing Bars Assumed to have 3632 584 been Damaged Number of Structural Drawings Indicating 76 22 Cored Holes 7
It is, again emphasized that this is the maximum nynber. oLbars A
-)
which could have been damaged by the coring operations.
The actual number of damaged bars is expected to be less than this value.
Section 2.7 addresses the detailed engineering assessment which was performed as a result of this assumed reinforcing steel damage.
l There are no holes cored completely through the primary containment wall s.
H 2.5 Control Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged l
Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Partially Pentrating Concrete 5
Elements i
?
2.5.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements The need for cored holes partially penetrating concrete elements for grouted anchor bolts used to anchor equipment foundations or pipe support baseplates was detemined by a mechanical designer,
.I and/or electrical designer'during the design phase' in Sargent &
4 1
Lundy's office.
The cored holes for the mechanical pipe support baseplate assembly anchor bolts were indicated on the mechanical hanger pipe support drawings, and the cored holes for the
. mechanical equipment foundation anchor bolts were indicated on the mechanical equipment foundation design drawings.
The cored holes for elettrical equipment foundations were indicated on the structural design drawings.
A structural engineer approved the location of these cored holes and returned the mechanical design drawing to the mechanical designer, and incorporated the cored holes for electrical equipment foundations on the structural design drawings only af ter an assessment was made regarding the structural effects of the reinforcing steel likely to be amaged by the coring operation.
Section 2.5.3 describes this structural engineering assessment.
2.5.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements i
A pemanent record of all cored holes partially penetrating I
concrete elements for mechanical and electrical equipment j
foundation grouted anchor bolts is maintained on a separate set of N
drawings known as the cored hole drawings ("CHS" set).
Cored holes
?)
V s
for mechanical pipe support baseplate assembly anchor bolts have
nat been plotted on this set, since the contractor was not
)
permitted to damage reinforcing steel in this situation (see Section 2.5.3.2).
The background for the CHS drawings is a repro,
{
duction of the structural d'esign drawings.
The contractor was not i
required to report reinforcing steel damage due to the coring p g
operations for mechanical and electrical equipment foundation v
anchor bolts, because the structural assessment was perfomed prior g
,tL or coincident with the release of the mechanical and/or
[q structural design drawings aguming__the_ maximum _ number of bars h
SQ /[]
This maximum number was, again, a function likely to be damaged.
of the diameter of the cored hole and the spacing of the O
'f reinforcing steel.
It is emphasized that this was conservative, since the maximun number of bars assumed to be damaged may, in
-)
fact, not have been contacted during the coring operation.
The examples cited in Section 2.4.2 regarding the maximum number of assumed damaged bars is also applicable in this situation.
The contractor was, however, required to report any reinforcing steel damaged during the coring operations for mechanical pipe support baseplate assembly anchor bolts, as referenced in Section 2.5.3.2.
2.5.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements l
I
- 2. 5.3.1 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Equipment Foundations
?
Prior to or coincident with the release of the mechanical and/or
- }
structural design drawings indicating a cored hole for a mechanical or electrical equipment foundation anchor bolt, a structural engineer assessed the effects of any reinforcing steel likely to be damaged during the coring operation.
As described in Section 2.5.2, this assessment conservatively asstned the maximum number of
.i l
bars likely to be damaged as a function of the diameter of the core and the spacing of the reinforcing steel.
A minimum of one damaged d bar was always considered regardless of bar spacing or core dia-y 2
meter.
The engineering assessment during this stage of construction consisted primarily of engineering judgement, in which a structural engineer reviewed the concrete element design margins and stress levels in the reinforcing steel assumed to be damaged.
Engineering judgement in this si'.uation was appropriate, since, in most cases, the assisned damaged reinforcing steel had no stress or very low stress, and/or the concrete element design margin at the location of the assumed damaged reinforcing steel was sufficiently greater than 1.0.
The design margin for concrete elements has been defined in section 2.4.3.
Detailed structural cal'culations, which have been performed as described in Section 2.7, substantiated and l
l verified the appropriateness of initial engineering judgement in this situation and have verified that these cored holes have not jeopardized the structural integrity of any safety related area.
2.5.3.2 Grouted Anchor Bol ts for Mechanical Pipe Support Baseplate i
I, Assemblies b
The installation of cored holes for grouted anchor bbits for the attachment of pipe support baseplate assemblies comenced during !
A the summer of 1980.
Prior to these coring operations, Mechanical Drawing No. M-1100, Sheet 23, issued in January, 1980, placed strict controls on the coring operations to preclude reinforcing steel damage.
(See Figure 2.4-3).
This drawing required the con-I tractor to care _fuQ the concrete to expose the reinforcing f
steel in both directions prior to coring the hole to avoid damage to the reinforcing steel.
This provision implicitly prohibited the contractor ' f rom cutting through the reinforcing steel in this f
situation.
Commonwealth Edison Company has verified that the con-tractors have utilized this procedure.
it g
2.5.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elments Table 2.5-1 s amarizes the reinforcing steel which has been conser-vatively assmed to have been damaged due to cored holes partially penetrating concrete elments in all Unit I safety related areas, and ir, those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 operation.
i
?
r o"
~
TABLE 2.5-1 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Unit 2 Areas Required Item Unit 1 Areas for Unit 1 Operation
-[
Number of Cored Holes
- 512 4
f Number of Reinforcing Bars Assumed to have 512 4
been Damaged Number of CHS Drawings Indicating Cored Holes 12 1
- These cored holes are those associated with the mechanical and electrical equipment foundation anchor bolts.
Cored holes for mechanic 7 pipe support baseplate assemblies have not been plotted on the CHS set or included in the above tabulation, since damage to the reinforcing steel was not. permitted.
-}
It is, again, emphasized that this is the maximum number of bars hud which could have.qdamaged by the coring operations.
The actual number of damaged bars is expected to be less' than this value.
Section 2.7 addresses the detailed engineering assessment resulting from this assumed reinforcing steel damage.
2.6 Control Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Drilling Operations for Concrete Expansion Anchors i
I T.6.1 Application and Use of Concrete Expansion Anchors j
?
}
Concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies were used to support mechanical and electrical components, such as piping, conduits, lighting f'ixtures, etc., only when no other means of attaching to
)
the concrete elements were available.
The most comonly used base-plate assemblies were 9"x9"x1/2" and 12"x12"x3/4" plates, each con-
_{
taining four concrete expansion anchors with diameters varying from i
1/2" to 3/4".
Throughout the course of the project, all engineering disciplines were encouraged to attach to either existing structural steel framing or embedded plates, in lieu of using concrete expansion anchors. Jumerous embedded plates were provided in most concrete elements on a regular grid pattern for this purpose.
During the course of the project, however, it became increasingly difficult to route components and locate supports to attach to the existing
]._
steel framing or the existing embedded plates.
The number of supports increased in the later, stages of the project as a result of revised regulatory requirements, IE Bulletins, and changes in the state-of-the-art design which Commonwealth Edison Company and the nuclear industry chose to adopt.
It became apparent to both l
Commonwealth Edison Company and Sargent & Lundy, in 1976, that the i
use of concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies could not be avoided.
Commonwealth Edison _ Company and Sargent &
Lundy recognized the possibility of reinforcing steel damage due to the installa' tion of concrete 'e'xpansion anchors and, therefore, issued I
E
('.
strict control procedures in Septembar__19_7_6 to pre, vent any rein-forcing steel damage. Common ealth Edison Companyj and Sargent &
Lundy continuously monitored the drilling operations throughout the
.T
\\
course _of_ the ' project, and revised the reinforcing steel procedures to imediately respond to changing conditions (see Section 2.6.2).
i 2.6.2 Control Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors The drilling of holes for concrete expansion anchors Was controlled
{
by Form LS-CEA.
This form was issued in September,1976, and con-I tained the follcwing strict provisions for the protection of the reinforcing steel:
4.
The contractor was not_p. emitted to drill through r_einforcing stegL(Refer to Section 4.1-1 of Form LS-CEA).
B.
The contractor was required to use_a_ deep _ magnetic _dete_ctor_to locate the reinforcing steel in the concrete (see Section 4.1.2 of Fonn LS-CEA).
C.
The contractor was required to_ drill holes in the concrete with carbide tipped solid masonry bits (see Section 4.2.2a of Form LS-CEA).
As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, carbide tipped
~
solid masonry bits are not capable of drilling through rein-forcing steel.
These bits can produce only a shallow,1/16" deep, smooth and well-rounded depression in the reinforcing steel refered to as a " nick" (see Figure 2.2-4).
j D.
The contractor was prohibited from using concrete expansion anchors for any other work (i.e., work not indicated on the design drawings) without prior approval from the consulting
.]
engineers (see Section 1.1 of Form LS-CEA).
Comonwealth Edison Company recognized that these strict provisions 3
were not feasible for the remainder of the project due to the an-
/
ticipated number of expansion anchor baseplate assemblies.
Form LS-CEA, Revision 1,
was thereby issued on December 7,
- 1976, i
relaxing the reinforcing steel control provisions.
The following is a sumary of the revised requirements.
A.
The following areas were identified for all concrete elements such as slabs, beams, walls, columns, foundations, etc,. (see Table 38-2, and Figures 38-5 and 38-6 of Form LS-CEA):
1.
Areas in which a metal detector was not required, and re-inforcing stee? was permitted to be cut.
d.)
2.
Areas where a
metal detector was
- required, and reinforcing steel was not permitted to be cut.
These areas of the various concrete elements were defined as a result of a structural engineering assessment performed by Sargent &
Lundy for Commonwealth Edison Company.
This 9
structural engineering assessment entailed a review nf the stress levels in the various areas of these concrete elements under all design load conditions, as referenced in the LaSalle County FSAR, including all nonnal operating, accident, and
=
s'evere and extreme environmental conditions, indluding LOCA and Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
The areas in whic'h the rein-Q forcing steel was permitted to be cut were those areas in l
which the reinforcing steel was not required for the structural integrity of the concrete element under the design loads.
ij B.
The contractor was required to report any reinforcing steel 5
which was either cut or nicked in those areas where a metal detector was required to be used (see Note 2, Table 38-2 of Form LS-CEA).
It should be noted, however, that the contrac-tors, throughout the course of the drilling operations, re-ported reinforcing steel damage, regardless of the area, as
~
specTfied in Table 38-2 (see Section 2.6.3).
C.
The contractor was required to notify the consulting engineers when the metal detector indicated the presence of reinforcing steel at the location of an expansion anchor prior to cutting the bar (see Note 2, Table 38-2 of Form LS-CEA).
Revision 2 to Form LS-CEA was issued on November 29, 1978.
How-ever, it did not alter the reinforcing steel control provisions of Revision 1.
t l
Revision 3 to Form LS-CEA was issued on July 20, 1979, and incor-porsted the following additional requirements with regard to the
}
control procedures for the protection of reinforcing st, eel:
h i
k standard form was provided for reporting damageh reinforcing A.
steel (Form '.5-CEA 1.0).
Prior to this revision of LS-CEA, t t
3 each contractor utilized his own us.ique form for reporting re-3 inforcing steel damage.
Form LS-CEA 1.0 required that the
)
^
~.,
con' tractor differentiate between a cut and a nicked bar.
It was at this point in time that Comonwealth Edison Company and
]
Sargent & Lundy had reviewed sufficient analytical and test data to indicate that nicked reinforcing steel may not be detrimental to structural integrity as previously assumed.
It therefore, became advantageous to differentiate between a cut and a nicked bar at this time.
B.
The provisions for cutting reinforcing steel were tightened in areas in which metal detection was not previously required (see Section 3.2.9 of Form LS-CEA):
1.
The contractor was required to submit a damage report for any reinforcing steel contacted in these areas (see Section 3.2.9a of Form LS-CEA).
As previously noted, contractors had in fact reported reinf orcing steel damage, regardless of area.
2.
The contractor was required to mark the location of l
damaged reinforcing steel on the concrete element in these areas to permit other contractors to identify the f
need for the use of a metal detector per the provisions of item 3 below (see Section 3.2.9a of Form Lh,-CEA).
~
?.
3.
The use of a metal detector was required for any further drilling operations in these areas once a reinforcing bar had been dnaged.
This requirement was predicated on the spacing of the reinforcing steel in the concrete element
'i and its proximity to other damaged reinforcing bars (see Section 3.2.9C of Form LS-CEA).
4.
The contractor was permitted to cut one reinforcing bar f
~
jper concrete anchor baseplate assembly within these areas.
However, once one bar was cut, the requirement for use of a metal detector for subsequent drilling was, thereby, invoked, and no more reinforcing steel was per-mitted to be daaged without reior approval of the con-sulting engineers (see Section 3.2.9d of Form LS-CEA).
- ~,,
Comonwealth Edison Company was continuously c'ognizant of the s
drilling operations and its assocbated-effect on reinforcing steel and thereby invoked these additional procedures in the areas in which a metal detector was previously not required when it became apparent that the use of concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies would be greater than initially anticipated in 1976.
I i
Revision 4 of Form LS-CEA was issued on September 7, g 1979.
This f
revision was made primarily in response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 regarding the capacity of installed anchors, and did nbt alter the l
l 4}
previously instituted reinforcing steel control requirements.
This.
revision differentiated the documentation of the concrete expansion anchor inspection requirements by the following areas (see Section 1.1 of Form LS-CEA):
?.
i A.
Safety Related Work in Safety Related Areas I
The contractor was required to provide complete documentation of the installation and testing procedures for all concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies.
This included submit-tal of all damage reports indicating nicked or cut reinforcing steeTduring the installation as previously required.
B.
Non-Safety Related Work in Safety Related Areas The contractor was required to provide complete documentation of the installation procedures. for the concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies including the submittal of all damage reports indicating nicked or cut reinforcing steel during the installation as previously required.
Only the documentation of the inspection of the installed anchor was waived.
C.
Non-Safety Related Work in Non-Safety Related Areas i
{
Most documentation of the installation and inspection proce-dures were waived.
The contractor was not pennitted to cut or
.;}
damage reinforcing steel. _ _.
D.
The contractor was required to use a diamond tipped bit to cut reinforcing steel where prior permission to do so had been granted (see Section 3.2.9e of Form LS-CEA).
s i
}
Revision 5 to Form LS-CEA was issued on December 10, 1979.
This revision gave the contractor additional flexibility in relocating concrete expansion anchor holes when reinforcing steel was encoun-tered (see'Section 3.2.14 of Form LS-CEA).
Revisions 6 and 7 to Form LS-CEA were issued on February 13, 1980 andOctob 27, 1980, respectively.
These revisions, however, did not alter the prior reinforcing steel control provisions.
During the period 1978 through 1981, Commonwealth Edison Company
)
conducted extensive investigations tn determine the effect on rein-forcing steel which is nicked during the installation of concrete expansion anchors.
These investigations conclusively demonstrated that reinforcing steel, nicked by a carbide tipped drill bit during the installation of concrete expansion anchors, does not impair the structural integrity of reinforced concrete elements.
This con-clusion was based upon both laboratory testing and analytical assessment.
Fonn LS-CEA, Revision 8, was subsequently issued on May 13, 1981, deleting the requirements for reporting of. nicked re-i i
inforcing steel.
i 2.6.3 Documentation Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion
-)
Anchors Contractors have been required to report any reinforcing steel which has been cut ~ 'or nicked in specified areas during the installation of concrete expansion anchors, as referenced in F
j Section 2.6.2.
Comonwealth Edison Company has verified that, as a f
matter of course,(all contractorsJ during the period 1976 through 1979, have also reported cut or nicked reinforcing steel which as not required to be reported by Table 38-2, Revision 2 of Form LS-CEA.
As each report was received by Sargent & Lundy, it was logged in and assigned a unique number.
The damaged reinforcing steel locatjons were then plotted on a separate set of reinforcing g
steel hit drawings ("RHS" set).
The background for these drawings is a reproduction of the structural design drawings, and were initiated in 1977.
A pemanent record therefore exists of all reported reinforcing steel damaged due to the drilling operations. h It is emphasized that these drawings also indicate non-detrimental nicks, since contractors were not required to differentiate between a cut and nick during the period 1976 thru 1979.
l
~
Commonwealth Edison Company, stated at the meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, on March 31, 1982, that the process of verifying that all reinforcing steel damage reports had been received by Sargent &
Lundy and incorporated on the RHS drawings was still in progress.
This verification is now complete. / Table 2.6-1 summarizes th r
j number of reinforcing steel damage reports generated by} each site
~
contractor and the number of reports received by Sargent & Lundy before and af ter March 29, 1982.
Also summarized is the number of
.)
additional cut reinforcing bars which were identified and plotted i
l '
l i
4 I
on the RHS drawings af ter the meeting.
It can be seen that the
)
total number of damage reports identified after the meeting, 216, is only 6.0% of the total number of damage reports for all Unit 1
- safety related areas and those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 operation.
4 It is also noted that there remain 4 reinforcing steel damage reports prepared by The Zack Company which cannot be located.
The drilled holes for the concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblie[ associated with these 4 reports have been plotted on the RHS drawings, and it was conservatively assumed that a bar was cut at each hole location.
2.6.4 Engineering Assessment of Drilled Holes for Concrete Expan'sion Anchors I
A structural engineer reviewed the individual damaged reinforcing steel reports as they were submitted by the contractor.
During the period 1976 through 1979, the contractors did not distinguish between a cut and a nicked bar.
In these situations, the structural engineer conservatively assumed all reinforcing steel to be cut.
The review of. the individual damaged reinforcing steel i;
consisted of a determination of the imediate, local. impact of the
~
j damaged bar.
This review, in most instances, 3onsisted of engineering judgement based 'upon the existing stress ievels in the
,]
damaged reinforcing steel.
The existing stress levels were, again, determined as a function of the design loads in accordance with the,
1
LaSalle County FSAR, as specified in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.5.3.
In addition to reviewing the individual damaged reinforcing steel
)
reports, a structural engineering assessment was periodically made, considering' the overall effe ts of the accumulation of all damaged
{.
reinforcing steel.
This entailed a review of the structural design drawings indicating the location of cored holes passing through concrete elements, the CHS drawings indicating the location of all cored holes for equipment foundation anchor bolts, and the RHS drawings for the drilled holes for concrete expansion anchors.
This structural engineering assessment,
- again, consisted of engineerin[ judgement, in which the structural engineer reviewed the stress levels in all the damaged reinforcing steel.
During the ! )
final load check, which was completed just prior to initial fuel load, a final overall engineering assessment was again perfonned.
)
Subsequent detailed structural calculations have substantiated and verified that the engineering judgement which was consistently used through'out the course of the project was appropriate (see Section 2.7) and have verified that these drilled holes have not jeopar-dized the structural integrity of any safety related area.
2.6.5 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors Table 2.6-2 summarizes the number of holes and the number of rein-
~
forcing bars reported as being damaged due to tihe drilling operations for concrete expansion anchors in all Unit 1 saf ety
}
related areas, and in those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 operation..
~
TABLE 2.6-2 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Drilling 0perations Unit 2 Areas Required Item Unit 1 Areas for Unit f Operation Estimated Number of Drilled Holes 50,000 8,000 Number of Reported Damaged Reinforcing 3,498 213 Bars
- Number of RHS Drawings Indicating Reinforcing 118 20 Steel Damage
- This does not include those bars which are known to have been only nicked during the drilling operation.
It is emphasized that the__ numb _er of damage _d__b3rs__lj_S.ted include bars which may have been only nicked but cannot be identified _as such from the damage reports between the periods 1916-through 1979.
Where a nick could not be clearly identified, the bar was assumed
- to be cut, and was totally discounted in the structdral assessment.
b 2.7 Summary of Detailed Structural Assessment for Damaged Reinforcing Steel l
Throughout the course of the project, the effects of damaged rein-
.ii forcing steel were continuously reviewed by a structur,a1 engineer.
As re{erenced in Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6, this: review was primarily based upon engineering judgement.
As cored holes were
- -}
incorporated on the structural design drawings and mechanical j.
drawings, and as the contractors submitted the damaged reinforcing steel reports for drilled holes, a complete record of all damaged
]
reinforcing steel was maintained on the following documents:
p j
A.
Damage due to cored holes passing through concrete - indicated on the structural design drawings.
B.
Damage due to cored holes partially penetrating concrete -
indicated on the "CHS" drawings.
C.
DamaF due to drilled holes for concrete expansion anchors -
indicated on the "RHS" drawings.
l A review of these three categories of drawings locating reinforcing
)
steel damage indicated that the damage was sparce and randomly scattered throughout the safety related areas.
The engineering judgement which was utilized consisted of a review of the location of the damaged reinforcing steel in relation to the design stress levels in the reinforcing steel and the existing design margins in the concrete elements.
During this review, the structural engineer had the benefit of the complete picture of the acctsnulation of all damaged-reinforcing steel in a given area and this was taken into consideration in the assessment.
It is
?
Commonwealth Edison Company's belief that this review, based upon engineering judgement, satisfies the State of Illidois' concern that an assessment should be made on a case-by-case basis.
g Sargent & Lundy state.d in the hearing held in Bethesda, Maryland on
~
March 31, 1982, that the amount of damaged reinforcing steel which could be tolerated in any one area was not a fixed percentage. The amount of damaged reinforcing steel which could be tolerated is a' j
function of the design margins in the concrete elements and the stress levels in the reinforcing steel in relation to the location of the damaged reinforcing steel.
The engineering assessment which was made continuously throughout the course of the project did, in
" fact, account for all damaged reinforcing steel on a case-by-case basis.
In response to the petition by the Attorney General, State of Illinois, however, a detailed set of structural calculations was made to further support this engineering judgement.
Prior to the March 31, meeting, nine representative safety related concrete elements comprised of two slab panels, six wall panels, and one concrete beam were selected by Sargent & L un'dy.
These nine concrete elements which are located in the Unit 1 Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings, were selected because the RHS, CHS and structural design drawings indicated a
relatively high cc.1 centration of reinforcing steel damage in these areas.
Table 2.7-1 summarizes the results of detailed structural assessment.
For each concrete element, the following data has been indicated:
?
A.
', Design margin assuming no damaged reinforcingj steel (Column j).
f
) - - - -
B.
Number of damaged reinforcing bar locations due to drilling operations (Co10mn f) k C.
Total number of reinforcing bars damaged due to drilling operations (Column g)
D.
Total number of cored holes (Columnh)
E.
Total number of reinforcing bars damaged due to cored holes (Column 1)
F.
Design margin with reinforcing bar damage without taking credit for the actual in-place material strengths (Column k) 9 G.
Design margin with reinforcing bar damage considering actual material strengths (Column 1)
It can be seen that, in all nine areas, the design margins were not reduced below 1.0.
It is again pointed out that a design margin equal to 1.0 represents both an economical and safe structural design.
It is Comonwealth Edison Company's and Sargent & Lundy's belief that these detailed calculations justify the use of prior I
engineering judgement.
,i a
A concern was raised at the conference in Bethesdi, Maryland on March 31, 1982, that the sample selected was too small, and that
<,p there may be more critical concrete elements which only had e
e design margins close to 1.0 without considering the reinforcing steel damage.
Subsequent to' this meeting, detailed structural ~
)
calculations were performed on all structural elements; in all Unit q f-I I areas and in those Unit 2. areas. required for Unit >l operation r
l where damaged reinforcing bars were ' identified. during coring' ' or drilling operation.
These detailed calculations verified that the' design margins in all concr'ete elements in these areas are ' greater s
i than 1.0 with the damaged reinforcing steel considered.*
s 1
Out of all elements reviewed in the affected areas, 30 elements were evaluated using actual material pruperties.
This constituted
(
only 1.49% of the total elements in Unit 1 and in Unit 2 required for Unit 1 operation.
Additional conservatism is adherent in these)
)
calculations since a minimum component support load of one kip per
~
T square foot was utilized in all areas.
In many cases, this load is less than one kip per square foot.
Table 2.7-2 summarizes the total number of concrete elements where damaged reinforcing was identified and for which detail.'d calculations were made, and also the corresponding total number of concrete elements in all Unit 1 areas and Unit 2 areas requirec" for
\\
Unit 1 operation:
/
i This evaluation verified.that in no area have the design margins i
been re5uced to a value less than 1.0, further substantiating that the engineering judgement used originally throughout tiie project J.-)
was appropriate'.
a
o Approximately 2500 pages of detailed structural calculations were made as part of this evaluation.
The following sample calculations I
are attached to illustrate the type of detailed structural a
s b 'I calculation which was made for each concrete element:
I ;
I i
A.
Figure 2.7 Structural Calculations for Slab Panel 8,.
Figure 2.7 Structural Calculations for Wall Panel C.
Figure-2.7 Structural Calculations for Concrete Beam The structural assessment, as mentioned throughout this report, considered those Unit 2 areas required for Unit 1 operation.
It should be pointed out that, while the work at Unit I has been com-pleted, work in Unit 2 areas will continue for approximately one year.
It is anticipated that additional reinforcing steel may be damaged in these areas.
However the program which has been imple-mented to control, document and assess any reinforcing steel damage in these areas will ensure that the safety and operability of Unit I will not be impaired in.any manner as a result of continuing con-struction in Unit 2.
l i
2I8 Conclusion in Response to Allegation on Cored and Drilled Holes h
Commonwealth Edison Company has presented evidence, which has been A
subsequently audited by the NRC staff, to substantiate that the
.)
drilling and coring of holes in the LaSalle County, Unit 1 safety
' 4
,-ene_
v
..wn,
,,-.-en, e
a
related areas and in those Unit 2 safety related areas requis - for Unit 1 operation have not impaired the structural integrity or created a potentially hazardous condition which may be injurious to the public health and safety. Comonwealth Edison Company does not I
j dispute statement that he seldom failed to contact reinforc ng stee in the coring operations.
It has been pointed.
out that this loss of reinforcing steel.was reviewed and assessed prior to the coring operations, and there was no requirement placed on the contractor to report the subsequent reinforcing steel damage.
Comonwealth Edison Company, likewise, does not contest that a number of holes, ranging in the order of thousands, have been cut through the reinforcing s teel.
The total number of reported cut bars however are known, (See Table 2.7-3) and have been recorded as described in Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6.
Mr. Bridenbaugh stated that, if reinforcing steel was damaged or severed without appropriate structural analysis, that it was nearly certain that some safety related structures would have been affected.
It has been pointed out that this structural engineering analys is was, in fact, performed throughout the course of the -
project, and that the structural integrity has not been impaired.
In conclusion, the drilling operations performed at LaSalle County, i,
Units 1 and 2, have been accomplished maintaining design margins of safety related structures, above specified limits and. the quality I
requir'ements imposed by the U.S. Code of Federal Reguldtion,10CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for f[uclear Power
..)
Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants have been satisfied.
l
-3s.
1 Commonwealth Edison Company has demonstrated that it has implemented appropriate procedures to control reinforcing steel
)
damage, and has exercised sound engineering judgement. and due pre-caution with regard to the drilling of concrete for co[ red holes and
}
for the installation of concrete expansion anchors.
I G
e N
I I
s I
E - -
3.0 Response to Allegation Concerning the Off-Gas Building Roof The petition brought forward by the Attorney General, State of s
Illinois, alleged that the Off-Gas Building roof was only 8" thick, I
i whereas the design drawings required this roof to be 12" thick.
It was also alleged that this roof had cracked substantially due to the number of expansion anchor bolts drilled in it.
Comonwealth Edison Company presented data at the conference held in Bethesda, Miryland on March 31, 1982, substantiating that the roof was, in fact, poured to a nominal 12" thickness, and that the cracking which was observed was surficial in nature, and not due to rein-forcing steel damage due to the installation of concrete expansion anchors.
A total of 55 damaged reinforcing steel reports were submitted by the contractors for the Off-Gas Building roof area (five panels, each 15'-0" by 37'-6").
None of the reports posit [ively identified that any of the contacted reinforcity steel was cut.
However, each report has been reviewed and it was conservatively assumed that each damage was a cut.
Detailed structural calculations were made for the slab roof panel (panel area 15'-0" by 37'-6"), which had the greatest number of reported reinforcing steel damage.
There were a total of 27 reinforcing damage steel reports in this area.
i i
This corresponded to a maximum of 47 reinforcing bars assumed to be damage.d.
The structural assessment indicated thati the design margin was reduced from 4.7 to 2.79.
The final design margin of l}
2.79 substantiates that the cracking which was observed in the roof I
was surficial in nature (i.e., due to normal concrete shrinkage),
and not due to reinforcing steel damaged by the installation - of 3
1.
concrete expansion anchors.
I
=
b I
1 1
1 e
f' m
i I
i
}
}
i i
l s
i
. r
LA SALLE. COUNTY c TATioN a
UN IT l 4 '2 f
]
mr-e cs coNoviT, etc.
~
x $
g
- otr' b
r cu g~IP=cI)4TO2f
~
F I Cw U RE 2.2 - 1 CoREt?
HOLE.
PASSING THROUGH COMCRETE.
ANCHOR S CLT j p a,. :-
. r, l:
P.
- ~,
M 9
'9. -
l l
?
I g% f7:IM TO B" Fi c,U R E 2.2-2 CORED. HOLE PARTIALLY FeNETRATING.
C O N C R E T E.
gCONCRETE E%PANGION ANCHOR.
n E
1
=
4
.38.
h' p
.,:r =
7 d
hT g
%V io j
's s
FIG U R E 2.2 - 3 DR'lLLED HOLE IM CONCRI:_TE FOK EVPAN6 tom ANCHoM IM'JTALLATION.
i
A 6ALLE, COUNTY MATicMJ U bJL T I 4 2 L
CARSIDE TI P'P"ED DRILL EblT -
7
=
CONC. 8!KJRFACE.
Tf A4 R'EESAR
=
. Nk:k w v e
/
-g ar ac
/
-K 1
1gg
- ,1 4-ik
^'
SECTION
--)
FIGURE 2.2-4 Nicker)
REINFORCING STEE.L n
~'
%;c u
ReSAR COMPT.E7ELY e MEE5AR
~
GavtLRE.D PAKTl ALLY CUT f
l
)
by'-
-Q ;.
r
~
e P'L A bj 1
FIG U RE 2.2-5
.-)
cut RFINFORCIMG GTEEL - _ _
4-\\ \\\\
2
- 3..
_ _ - - - =. _ _
_...n,...
-- - n =__,.: w,.-- u.,s.
,9,. :...
- p. q.
y n,. n. : ~ :. _. -...,, _.
p
. r: -.:
,s
.i
-.s
,.. D :i
.:.:15 5 -mLL 5=
(.
l.~.
P L. ~..
6-. 3.T 2 FtL.a A t ' :'
Tir. N.; - 2 ~., ? ?
{ b*.
dl.*. - 2_"
E A.'i iM f> r E Ci d ;.:
.Lc r.' y 0._ L.
s' 'k * *
- '.x % G :. *.4 A.~ ~ ~~
1
~
~ ~ ' ~... ~
GVW.'S.. C ON$ 7NUC. T,s.r~ ht4C3 N..".'
s
~f*'*k'FG~ Ata/
U.*
IIIli-
~~* - S.5 ~ STR U C TL.WE...
V..
..l.~J. C. 3.,".114.L L B i" e L..
y-,
a 4.1, 4'
9.,.i ~~~ViC,2.L..C.C...
..,1~
4 s C,.
~f I-
~ C '.' * 'i "~
CC Nt; t ):T IN AC.C 0 5.";; a\\N L*3 Vy.' M
. s.
.sI.l.
5 T..,,
m 42.
' * *. in'?C1T'061fxL E'?s'~&%C?k.1'a M 2 s "*'
i '*f ' ~
' # 2
- t.' T 2^L.STEEt SEE :PGT Glti;D&T &~ C'. % 0' I a':-
1..r;.
9 6 ::3 l'..
43.
COct COREC HOLE DIAMETER
%EE SLEEVE SCHEDULES.
LUSS 'i' HAM B" @ uM
- .~
c
> M. '"kCA CCFEsp HC' GG mar./ 8D 1
M ETAL. DE.TETGR TC '#ATn E.%TiMG FE.HF. PRICR '
4.
.t, TC CCFri DRJLLING, ll4 CASG 4.~ nMTE.R.FE.RO 4Ca Wmi
." 2 '
F.5EA 4, H CL.E.s V1/N B E '.'C F.E D IN ALTERNATG.
! ?SI LCCADCt4 WITHit 4 i 3 ' RADIUS F-ROld LC4AT Ct4
.U.I.
03 S H o w ;4 o N O w C-.
5 '[".'-{
45.
EX19 Iu : ~
OPawtNG6 6 HALL 63 C,L O 6 E.') WiTH CC hi..~. i. T.:
oR Nou - 6HRtSau'. C couT.
. i: 0. N NO......... _ '.,.c..:.a. _:. W,........,N O T.ip '
- 2
- '.c
.. i. r i 4 ( D_ _.:. A
--w.
4(,g. i:cs " 0: CAL MAIN T&NANct -%.& ' v2 LU W ~
\\M F."
n r:8 TAl' 6B E: pY+Cg. (,9 /2.3,,6:';.
/
7-R:)C*no4
.i u-p-
s.
N
- /.I ! I.
d
.s..
Im 3
L t
<i.,,.a..
m i
[
3 9,i i
i N
-_y
>g-ty.
s OI 4
si g f
.e N z 2
4 I.
i
(
f.
(
si i.
i
.g tr f
0 i
x i
B.
g O
O FIGURE 2.4-1
=
4 f
.s Wg
_41
l
.,>....u.....,..
I
.i j
q l
j c
-l
,r,....
7i
.b.
s.
.? f y r.
1 MW Bl. 761'.8
',v't== y r A.~2 e= A
.g -.
i
-; e..
L u., n c.
,w.
~
1, i, i rm c.r.nEut.. e i.s c.. cw,. s.. u.
vcao3 !, e.ge:.
g.
l2
/. t. ' C C N C R ETC. C N Ti l t S..
.* '3. ' 2.- L '
- 't B A. 40 UN LE ! '-
EL 76 -
i
,[
..r.. _ p.
'y
/C*; CCL A 'J bCt:EOL L'i.c.2 E L. 5 "239 8
' Et M.IC W l,*.8L E..' i U ' W G. 5 *; 4 '4 l3 FO '.
5 3
3.
v0R SL kB 5C.u'. DuLE Si.".
- v. a
- c. cit.c:.* @
Ed G.*
FC..% EQOlPME NT FOUNDAT'ON DOWR5 Str. CWG. M-ISC2..
7, FOR EME.ED.'.'ENTS
'N L/NCEW.L. ' 7 UL AP, SE7..w6. 3- ?,CS.
l m
- 6. I ~CR EVJf EDDED DoETM* ':4 (. '.'.. i 5tiF"T9 '=~4 Of'o. A-f 34 S
l 9.
< FOX. 5LEEVE sd'.HEDU! E S SEE PV!d'6 6 1177, S-U7.5
}
E. 6-I!9E,.
I l
t
~10 m vnLL %. Ta Be-f%'eeo A TEE bJ5T/ LLA.T!cd c.
- g,. a,,,,
4, -
~.,...M\\..f.li.
~bCE f/ ETA.L. DETEC70!' ~; '> J C Ct-Ts C.C*<:' D H C L EL
- .EV. : 2 22 C-
- m.,p _. I Te>.bl t.0 d Wi pd 6 W...>J{.-A G r.G, V 2 t 7-y A B-l....v. 2 i
r
' ])'4, " j. l OPENilwQ. MARKED TituS (M I4EED N 07 LE CLOSE-D 1._;
FiraA.u W ot,- :. o c <
. :.. i n.s
- a t p.
g g,.,n..
4 lE. i A
[ g.f;,/.,y,-F-oc=N_Ml,wicae.e-
-- -.cis-m:-ue. mu :s. :c.cm.:, :-M-
.:- m-_m -
['
/
~
I, s
1
+.-. w t 4 a.k.C. m.' N 1 E n. u v e.. ;~:1... -. :
,,;.s..~
u:.ss.d.
.u.:,.aiG.4 EIGdRE2.4-2
\\
v L
l 1
PI-LS-16
,,.....u Appendix.i Rev. 6 4-1-82 Page 25,
- , q e-seEAR DIRECTim DISTAHcE TO OPEDaNs T DISTAniCE TO WEX,T EuOLT y DnGTA>4CC "Yo EwP'N. AwCuo61-7
.e ad i
y l
p om PSA-ATTACHMOJT ad = EVP44. AwCwom tuotDwt=T REQuRtut4T g,
r * ~f/
)
==
&&EE llc.C A)
( MATERIAL A-)G ))
k,THlCwWESS ((*
op cowacTe, O
9'EENOTE @'4*
i PATCi4 BCPonE D'8*^ La** ptATE.
eg. sioo. set. ab
~
A l
,. Q.
9 t
,8
)
p.
o p. ~ o.e ei.uc e _ ne.,em c
i r
.t -
ms*am
\\ --
~-
comen svaraca j
o l
l p-5
" top LAYERS 08 etc FCutC:NG i
1.;
1..
m.,-
=
' g.3 T.,...x,
.A
.=
iw
... - i USw A.iS+ wars.
leOLE 9tA. o F. 0.LT DI A. + f
[,,,, Top op wuT tJ GB S*3 * *8 DE *.M 5
- 6 a t 4S e,
. m u.r...
ScTML S EQTlOM i
== * :
PLAN o ATE m wmu.y.=rca co~c=eTo.ir wee usa.tu e e eccx.vo = nsTu pa.
o PL A 1s 70 CcUTTW4 To Lnc#ra f,:sp-t%Aae one Toe LAYuas.Laes=TE g,,,,o,,,,onem,gxpo g gea g3vs, wwg.g.
,g,c,,,,,,,
eaAmsT
'T
/
o*t NT AT' 0" (t) Aoo s' To L" To ocTemawn moo LewTH.wac up s' ion an: notTou.
j 5 (U Arvea =, Tau.we ops. > u. co es.atu zwecco su sao.:T
.s
. c-i i[ wiwiwou ATTAc iuewT
=
u^Nur^cwr4D 8T ta^83FS '"LtM'J
- 35 '*8 decc* a*d itw AuuencTup.cits w.s:cuuauoATews. oo wot TicuTr* WT
- .'T'*
F
~
1 $
Mar (lug snE)
AP Pt.Y I
Te,oiow To aops uwTiL AwTen T pass ca sucmc sccar.
- .aT6.y tu O
R
-NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED
"^'c" **"'*
t. J o,
C'm muT Timaa
~s
-.o ce T 2..T O
.lTEMS, ARE SHO,WN ON,, THIS, D: TAWING
(*)^"Jo'*,.{[7u"y"*
W msTAu. ATTAcwt-wr AT E om AAmis,*h=,cy,.ge u. ' )
STANDARD FORCORE-DRILLED BOLTED PLATES
( f.). AP.E OWT 25 FOR AN CMOR BOLT t ocht'.Ott A'=F.m M at: Attcs 7.>.*.2 A*LC.L PLATE SoLT sh o t.T t.
I 27 E c.u t V. EMER,a p., a.1 FsA 15 UPE,ST a 50 t = i. l P"Y 22* 3 2-6 18* 2 3 i Y, 4'y SG* 18 19' g, gu en,,.r2.4 1 8 s. AsTu 22*w LS' Ig ags Dvsseo. mt v. owc. pso. ~ nt y, owG.seo. ' mtv. owa.s.o. hat y. vun-. a s urvenn N o. Con.4uo*MC AL.Ts4 E.T.a>J C 'N8ANY EL'PPORT CHIC A Go I.*.N } & O _ s.urarostTs GewerA DRAWING RELE A*.F RECORO CLAS3 _ g 4g 7' COMPowr.NT , its) p rt i nso st oit w 'ato.ivsceco. Davs l onaan cweato sus n arf S,,,,E', ,/($$E Y~-f.cfp.2.oV ucrTwe, suo oe se s fffjW.V 4=o 2 vo v .^ )) 1'.50 0 II ru j{l/u as., 4DA.r L4 ..% }hM.'". W $5&'"N -5.q,s~:*. Y coo.;rozio attino@ ...e..J,._ n, d c a,a no s -7t,t; piowtTo#> 0
- e. w E3 y 7.,
'. M L l D g 2.sdV7'30.m a+
- g. 6ihn-- F
/ CK ca o -2955
- 0, e,.s,h, 3-l'
- 6 **
l m. , e se.s M-)} Q Og'3, D RtvisaOpe OtRCRaritom J puv. p asa rog ee4S3 % rnG;tCT pro. --- - c -- 436..oo I w 5 EET13>Cr a .. i F .e P i e FIGURE 2.7-1 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR SLAB PANEL O .i ? i }Y SARGENTh LUNDY i.For R F - P.> A R CUT I4 -A Caf e. N o. 916 / e g;.t, w _ g
- , gg _ gog,
,,,. c, o,,, ym i 2 E NGINan RS Y Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page [4 of C ' C ^ C'O Client C 6 C. C) Prepared by Op o --- Date 4 l3 l82 Project lac,A[.L6 C.CUl4 f/ - 1 Reviewed by jf
- . I _
Date Y[2- [,4,'. Prof. No., 4 2Gr, -00 Equip. No. Approved by Date 4-3-h ...., _. _ ~.. _,.. _,... _... 7__ _. _, _ }. - r_ 9,- I O S...j, G L A;e, Trsi c. A se s s,, .=,i gl,' J (CN E WA / ".~:,,l_/..G).. i g d.. . ) .MS T i WPS sit ! Dis;'.'< T #cd. i 8 l I i i t l .i . Wh$,...l6-2cG f, 9 - f(/, i FAN ( .f. . f. I.f... 2 4 b.2 @ m*. c ur 'U ~ i j ili d{3 3,o j ! 4 [CHS.$02' R' I4 sE C 4. ET UlP I~cu N D A T'8 Cd ~[ l j ' h9 [ [ j g 3 I '.t i t C CE. as. H Cl. P-O i 1 .... F _. [ f.- -.. 1;,G. gg j 24 I 1-r l i 9 4 4 ,,7 i g t Q' l.26-188 : . g.,_. . [... i F. i 5 I. -.-.k,.Ts ' .g. _ j.. l _. l Eil!.E./%. ' aig. # f i ..,.. )-q,r.. ./ gv
- p
-i --,.. , gi !* hAfy i i . /(#v )l l e. l psic l 4 o I .O.' i . p,M) y l i . i.. IS9 g p u, i i I j.# l i ,7 ,i. i I h) ORTH 4 .". p;
- 4...
. p s. s'. . P. l f g ,.i..... E.r. 4.'.,y, l l. ..i s i t+ 6 7 .. p.r,', . g. l o s.
- l. -
> p. g L..._..._-- . ;.. W.._ :. _... ---} 2 ...j._ I. 3 ' l-R6-il 8 ; 1 D i -- - I I s. 5 g [...i.... f j l 3 t s z,..
- 4... L.....L...
s ! _) (D. w.et. 5~3. o.c.... A. 2 o 7 ).. Pe e riA L PLAM i 1 (bw4. R H!,. 20(- 4 '2. 0 D t l (DWG.'Clis Bol '4 3 87 h.. W 8 h6 4,LR .A S. Calc. N o. D I6'd ! ales. Ftr d' u T ~J M " SARGENThlVNDY ~ EL.M/k. )-es-los ne,. o Date 4l318 2 sana,naana. / Safety-Refated Non-Safety-Related Page 14. et. of C*"C^" Client C G C.O Prepared by //> &- Date 4( \\ 3) B ?. ~ Project L,Autte co r_ wor -f_ ne<iewed by W. @s -- Daie u./3/;. Prol. No. d$ 2 C(,,. c o Equip. No. Approved by Date ##-3-d% ( J_b1 E .'lo h.] d a: d. _. I _l- _ } _.-...........,... . - 1_1 t i e .i -. -l,. _ g - g i 4 g-i 9,.. t , G, il,! g 'SE c C AN( T. Co. fgjact} H o h 3 0 ] y D A Tg D ' 3lS O y.,6.M. o.r-citoM d- [ l-'11 p-44. iz[ t $de 4 M;olzfisoa den sr. co. FcpnWd.60w,uneo e fro - 2 l [.".,g.-5G4,i,sss: rAor;rusa r.r.;co. -Reisw Np. soet, PAren %rit.o o Poe,Le,1ve. Repogrs, Teeac is, so e e r. . c o n. - ...:. I 1. u. d's da..; M e.d..M.ic.6:I:i. / A . -I i~-1 l' i i j -1 -- J .r + J C5s. -$ol: Mast Sud:} I I ~ i i ~f02f.'h.h,.h.. 4 d~ O L G l!' VAd FOuN 6AT1 ox1 fssg T)% M-l%0 SnT.S Ho. m. .. 1 _.....S*le> X i-2 c oRED H' LGS (.l44 REED CN DW 63..C H S. 5 0 1'12 ) - l 2 3,124,12 $, 3 2(-. i c > g... .2_ l c 2,13 3 Id. 13 4 j ~7, L o e* T s c N > ) ' 4-4 4
- 1.....
DUG fo. shpboys 'concD HDLC '." O N LY TD P R G* 6 Al25 AtB DW% G D * !~ Oh.lBl.E~doTEL-I$'G 5 12C DA' rddrE.D e ~[ g l G6-902 lGST GHb' l 3 r%ll C' 5.C.S. h2G A l'ooLift 4, FA0( VOU YDATl0$ (sBC D% H-\\GQO.3Hl.$ tw TePX'l'-Z joEGD 'H81.65 hercT.)' oh Istu i. CHS 3o2 ; $- 11(,117 Illt, ll S,l'l 7, 2/. ), ln c ~ +.~ q G.L Yion d." !*l ] i n i j 'J'o A go y' Cope LES. 4) L'y fo P I2E G AE.5 /Ef. DAt/ TAC,G D,,,{ r. be v h "" hSsgBLE~ kl k-SA CL9 f 2)1rW GD G /- f p............ i....._....._._.. j. i. BOTH E MDS *--- d ..To R 12s e ryF e cFr0 E 97.dd @ d /(,5E E DN6s S '24(a). _l _(dAt7 A weef) l i i f. .j . T iu hrg i. j g q c 4 g e, 73 a c y. eygg,. NG hT.lV6.hidU A.\\..h40.*EUT NUC.[Q Nbhb = -$S'8Yk ( . gg q.... ' i 7 g ACTUAL..hfp1MMj" 2MED OM. BiloW/tKr LORD ComBIA/ADCAl '(Colngixt.Ss2 l.- NAD 00.i E~tf UIA l0seb $ lMA'62E&' bdAs.2) Govrituy -b ' ' $~ ~ l* 0 P'/- l d 0.s[f. l.0 Oluk4. -f /. 0 Sh'Y,4 pq j-f.0 /h - (p"om c,qt c 13coK 9/4 (- N E 82 6 D s IE A D L'crA}h E gg s $q,g seige.gg e N O*2 gguc C, CpuC4,L),. ?P4, i q.suery PGuer:v4t.ve I.ous Ps Prescuer oua 7o 1 I i . Aoy outNCHER., ea r e e>e sAi<. .. b.E TY Nf A R'4 U. FA crog loo.o2 - 2'oz 3 W:lTHouY qE.PsA CUT IM. S j - [g g 2 p.c s' v Cs!ca.For fr9. F2:,A E' C U 7 'I'Al SLAS Cafe. No. 9164 SARGENThl. UNDY g L. m '_c. ) res.;os, Re,. o oat, 4 3 8 2. is NGINEERS ,j ' ' "C ^ C" O V Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Pagef4lo. of ^ Client L. t=5ECc? Prepared by 4o M Date 4_3 22. Projact I A>3 4 LLIE." Gu tJ T '/ - f. Reviewed by ), 'h h Date UE'//2 Proj. No. 4 2CG -e o Equip. No. Approved by [h._/A t Date 8-3 "d ' .Q - ., _ _ _7 7.7A.... DDE T6 61 Alb A 61urf.% RgD>s7sals5Urd J.$c sj s w y -- [ fES.lO3 d o rJ "I
- t
~ j ~' DA)oA4 rD l2s.6A# MAfBE Ass,uraes p yo er ti,4tpogg[y ._ h-~ A'5.T ! CE ND C.U PPORT * .DIMRIBUTED Acres s St.A6. AL50; 6LA 6.WILL Ac r A s A ut41T_ g l.[ $g 20'.6 WlDTG op 1475, T~ rd t. Q,' Rg.gj>^ 4.. 4 2. N os. ;., o i j i i j j - [. - l
- p m 3c.9.n.
- @.o riz.3,.
7 ,4 e s, a l .+.r-- ' -- 8 -i - l l.i g 3 5 Mos, ' ' - F-- i t v i p k8, E's 6,Ae A3. o. 7p -rn - - -- p '- p- - 1 i,,1
- j
} l,,. I .d df 4 I8 l.6 = 14=> + : si _ _.'.._.. ;.....q.. . _ 3
- 7....
i ,, g.. 9., i;.. .i --..ErluvE. cdD.. % op (egbF?Es = ; $rflxc>.73 =. 0.sss xn :) - i I g 4 2) 1 _...'..D_O E.f.o R.' o,,.6_A e.. d.oI.' i.. i ._. I .. Fo R.' l. M t>TH O F S I-A 6 ; l kDUb.Y[o (?s. GAR coy. -
- 3...p, spa, g'd~~2rmythx.bj "f &P5C.'f & x$, s. xFt
- b..xFd
'~}~ l_ _..DuE .t.. 3. g., _. _ _ ___ j_...: 1.. ' ., g Ag,ge.g g, .Q
- r. _l i
i.:..a l .b',127 .F,Gpkp (E t 4 W 4'
- .i I
i.!il t. 7 - 3. fro.gsex; co, /a., _2xo.ly A x I-i-l i 4 o.6 s e, x G o y %e l c,,. i i
- = 94 84p /g q
i I l- -.SAFsT)' MARGIN FAcro$, i.94 84 e i.3 y',, o I j i L :...... Mfd ;2s-r5 Ag coy -' i p 2') j _... t.. L... 7 i.. S o.. j e ad.,4 b s q U A f g,- 5 l
- 4t.g r
a e i .I
- 3...;...,
7 4 i a t 3 .. 3 7... WE ST lD4 b : Guppor2 f: d o g g g g gg74,I EFAS T. E N D dufPOET i j ,. '. l.....q._..
- l. i..
[.!AMs f a'.rd cur ( Sud Awr.) v h .4 . j fl% dbE90 ATE. ~ IC 3 b .,t ..l y .l ... 3. .i.. l l i 8 l l i i 9
- . j..
l ' t j j,,j* .oe- A 9 F a I O e FIGURE 2.7-2 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR WALL PANEL SERIAL NO. 38 l 4v. t I ? .e.ror if;G L & net (ta h. i3,4et I cese. uo. 16 SARGENThlUNDY g., Q.g. ,,, g g,,, g g
- awaiNasme.
y a C '-* *C ^ " g Safety _Related Non-Saf y-Related Page[T[o of Client (ph Prepared by h. M*Q6r Date.3 - 3/ - J'2. Project bak bW[ } Reviewed by [,M Date 4 2. 6 'Z. Proj. No. J.f.[.,(, oo Equip. No. Approved by h Date '/- f-d a .M%. Nall. NAbL ! f N#. # u,u l A at_. _ . Abo .hll ! qI G de... F_i.E 4 & s W *a'ce.'f Wl I. .. _ __.._._. s 1 i s. 'HA RW @ pnf.5, " ? M, MTH m Mx,.. _.t.ht. l NR'- 5 G!.[@ I40soo5 r1 at o fd ua& m4% 9mfL&m .eQ, az..a.. n.y ~ fd j n*{~. _ t 6 4 _.:.....4j 41.; v ... m i.4 6 S.2.._ ekA) '. i.. "#i.P g f,, .. g-.._ _ I _. l. f h O. e t I t i l } I ..l.... 4. j i t.. ..a....4_._. i a 4 .;. J._....ll.. _...!._]..;..._. ( ) . ji 11 1.p4 i . p_.. i. i . 2. l g ..g__ . a _ e. . r - ~~ '-- ' - ~ i l l i ' '..~.~t~~ i n4, w 4 s' i r 1. ..a._._- ._4 j .i -r 1--_. 4 \\ L1600 N). h 1.1. OUb ~ N . NS i.-- ..._..i_ ..... L ' cb 9. t. 37 behu. ccL @. i D .... i.._. } a l I j s ..4...,.. .J 4 i l l. . }.j. I, _l . L.,i . }.. I i i z_. .p 4 .q.._ 4.... I i in i._ -.... 2. __..i i ._4 .,i i 8 l l 1 .i........- i 4 1 i ij ,I ..j._.1_ 4...'_. __. j.. - !._..... 2. i ..l 4_. o. .1._. . 4 3 l i _.. J._ _ _.;..... 8 ..;..._..._.I_-.....-... g ? I i i e , _., _.__.5._.._..,__._. .i....'.. l 3.. _ 3_.. a l. _.. _ _...f _...j _'..,..._,! _..l. _ l l I i I l i. 1 .g...._.........._- I l l .. J.. p. _..,i. .. i i . y :. .i.... j.-.. j ._ ;. q_
- a..{
i i 5 __.g __. . r.._ & _ I i .._.......__.,_..i.. _t___ _ _j.. J.__.. .j-- t . _. _._.._.p_,._.-.4. ..1 .] I 8 j. i. ... g - -- i -[ i..- g.. ..{ g 4 0**~ l.. .]. I i 1 I i 3 E..>. l J -....S .. *.
- _ ~ =.
~- a l. .s i _~ ~ .fcgor 6 - 624 0all a6v c.m bm M .c.ic. No. 16 SARGENT'*- LUNDY i u El. H8 ~194, Auv. 8toq Rev. O Date d - l-02 1a NoiNe sse s. C *-"C ^ C' Safety-Refsted Non-Safety-Related Page l9'7 of Client C6CD Prepared by N. M M [y Date N -/ 8& Project lf(No._ b;{- I Reviewed by Dated. !.j/l. Prof. No. 41( -p4 Equip. No. Approved by Date 4 1. V 'k 7._ __ I .' _. j..I.... Mo,f. o'.'. 4' Pdor h5 3 '.j S: 9 i i i e-e 1-i ' 26' 2 -l J l 7.........' ,s i . l... y C t -. ;.. a IL.. L. ....;..l. i .i n. 194 i 8 .. i,_.. ..,s . __ {_. - .}...nnisi.&_.
- % *)W ).
..y 4 p.. se - ,g. ., ___. p-m o. 4_. 7. i .. ",,,;1
- ,,w w..o7}
- as t..
2q.
- oe.a 4.....
- 2..
m..no g p... i n l i !-I sts,.tw - i x .i.. ;... ,ve n.s n l %,.w n,.ws c%I.s47 1 i F.I. 7 63' I 6 i + I _4 .i 4 i ..j EA.ST
- NALL, L_
._......_...._...j.._....,. cRaidAL CLi2ATION } i n 1 -t -8 .{ l l ..I . f02..' $ESEL AuYS od fff NSST da?[ sIEf ^4 ff~~ uf ?* (j$ l g Ref. Dn %.. .s-624 g W E 4 .. q .e 4_. _ _ ; ...4 J. l = _..h...,.., f I e' I
- i.. L I
5. t -3 g L..__....... g g 9 I 4..-I .g j / [ 2, I'[ O- 7 <,.24 R,.li,% h td e c.ie. No. \\b
- ci. ror 5
,y SARGENThl. UNDY M d b u.'N M d M, R ev. C Date )/4 .. ~., ~..... y C *C ^ " C' Safety-Reisted Non-Safety-Related Page /4 @. of l en.ni as r,ep.rea by H. %c7 o te 4 - 4. s 2 L project Ldalla-Uhrt l Reviewed by M ". h) Dated, a..Q Pro). No. d i(pl-(.yp Equip. No. Approved by 8 Date /- f-Yu 7y!Sh'_oC.hld hi ..l l l N9Tiih.k h6 "/ Aid-, ME. j. 'd i . l. t _ _. J AT! W/bi siPE, l.d,
- I jgh PMd ' edda !hfd j.. ;
._ j..crh.al. i l.l j i ca,ld I I I i i ! - ..i. . f. l. ;fdd.k;4 s/: s:N ti _. #5.l. He ....j __ _. j. [.. .j
- . f...%TiT'5iOE-4iU15)'h6--2--.
g__. ....f _h '.. w.i.;...o$.-g_..Ad,__ .,.,!.i....,i L -l
- . i.. 4 ALT.I. All....
l i. wsts!. t i i i,.3...i...; i { 1,. R. %sama.j ldrip.hal d:bak ci& yadig. I i .l _..h !._.-I.'.l. !..L d /Wel.v'etSd:.rue:.c.afo Aq j f@d.. b ...@ N I G 1Actei i seE f'. th@7 ? FoR THE.YW.Ar.T LotATl'N "P TW:'. PatMNitr<ir H
- . J 4..
J ag. %ll 2M' i i h.t MJ., A .I Ft.. ' ic/o. Of1i i-2 2 * - AT,.- t.7 O C . W p. ... 0% - 24.?..__ j T Ho l i hq. Wf H:c,vy N: 1. g S l.( l, w t H,21. v e 's, Hr.l. v se wo j Hp s,o .y. gy
- o.. gLg.
...g a _..g.. g .p. nr 9 9 _4 - % E-< Q"cG-f 4 ds~f b"y ,;g .f
- ' $ 'fl,- 0-4
.i. 4.'
- 1,..
4. _. ig%" :. gg jp h g ,a g..... I et 6f i *1' i i ~ I i i l l 1 l M. a I I t i l l l l ..:] i4tT' _ Q({b-IN,...Dij,.- 237 fi-M. .y D4, 6 i He I e .i r i. i. i aLi . a., i ,o.e-q m-gg o ck hT ' ~:I "
- El
'~ ' Y T " ~~ J._ y. p'v. y._. .1/.-$_:.. y p o. ..g.g_.4.. p.. g
- g. e.._l_..
i._ j 'g s._. . 4" day p _.p o i two u v i __. ; __. f'Mst.'..MN.I3h. ~@._i _ q...l.... !......'.'... L c
- r, i
i 3 FHS I l'. i j i .}4tT1y - 2.;6f._.. __.P6r j _ty. 4ti.227,. .:.Dete.- Q M, - f., s i. l.. ...... [ _.. !-l l 1 No i t I i i 1 l l f. g_p 4.. - h -O - W A. -I - A0 8 4 8t 8 1 i i M o...) _ . Amt :zI. . pose. 'a i 13.i Hoir.. I! E ysa.1 wA: r. ; vsa 'l WIL,o vg .z, 4wraso.re.. A4T.%DE.wE kwF# Mis ME 't.En ;mM. 45T ME - _j...;..! j. i%..dds).44 rekv.M b,o veet 4.Jihe uitr*.s I i
- !iiiIi
. p.. c. /..a :, n 2- 6-624 ()311 sleI (h >J Cale. N o. l6 Catti For SARGENT t LUNDY Dat M/46 . E L 1 r,r s u a Auv FtrA. R ev. - i R N GIN E Este. s C'"C^G Safety-Related Non-Saf ety-R elated Page / of Clier:t [,5 C,6 Prepared by N. fAh Date /.,l./. f c. froject bot $ct h - Ogg 7 l' Reviewed by / ^ f, / Date. *. k.. froj. No. 47lo6-oD Eguip. No. Approved by h f'*8,w.% Date #/ 1 - t 5-f.36tA k & YQ$1. % M-fbo.%4 hLo '2.o %+3 %ok es. Oo tit.c. OGll ( 48 cIfb8 Hl 5 -f 24.) ctsD:} v. I' SD n ""l1%~ n g,, , '. *%g ';f/6',b.1/// 4 of Wall. Fa ho<;ytrs\\ f<a fh 1., co sss's. 89.s o ' y J.n w ft= 1.a y %:u, 15.5's S.W L VMtk d 'ib:. ;9.p ital hu, oill c<. crt., Itoriy.nl, rc.y. ( cciu[4. 19.'s ', b
- 41", ( 3.s'),
fa= 15' (. cens er at w.,lg esu,.w o.43 tka w d tA, o v bduuv cef. ii.ur @ 1, h u.u L v c$cted bg d.L b e.21 3beu pfa ) V'od bhciW Ofen P L. he.Z 516 ~li ._...isso uo... p.I ......... --. -- = 2, 2 s ih u,g,4-g,_g4x,,asso.s.bnto 144x o. Bio.B x h5 ur L z.sS i s,5itt.4s k. e.'oi33 ~ ~ ~ 1
- 4. b. h
~ '. d Ag = = I i,. g.b.i. 5.+ fry t.4 ((oo;ooo -l} ,I ,l l .f y z y_. ,j l Ho r- ' '. :. s.: . n.s., &. U n u.. .'eq. {.._.... l.0 .l a 3' /1 g e y g i.;; n y -r a 3 vs 5 i t." ( c L s".-
- 41. d o
l-2 l.. [. .tl 4 7 4 /.:..:. ( %,... 7z *//~.r 5 .1 . f /:.. M ide.s ? /~ f ..i l i t s - l L-.... ?U A .I -fR- ~ Cales. For 6 - 634 bll Gl.-e f) };, f M Cate. No. \\h SARGENT' WNDY g m,. %'s g g, g ,,, 3 g,,,g, g,, 9 Page # of C ***C ^
- Safety-Relates Non-Saf ety-Related Client 4"6Co Prepared by N
I M idf Date.7 -l-f). Project bg()g ht - Org.'C l Reviewed by ,.j.,' / Date. koi.No. 2 h6( o o Equip. N o. Approved by Date 4-2-/L 3- 0 24, f.H 5 -624, $o -/sti 4 H L5 -6sf d *-476 .M. 'd/Jdy % ses 7.
- fa*rload.ceMbM D?. 4 p.s '
- 5. 4'-o
- 3
- ,.o.4Tr4 M F. aj a v+, m v.) 1.i?B, t. W{ } #5 5
n;ia7 7
- Foi loca% of.idna\\ cak, n Q (g Q ~ Q... @ <;
caa, p a,y 8 u a a 7. my pt ; c a su.n.n S atk Et. tw'.c-Cfig c.alo t",.4r 4 j._ jf A'15 k 19'l1 owT z a 7
- f.'s{ infeT, tunfa-pard c3( e..k!!
u <.,4-l Vol. I44. f. gg M 6urne,LP4 f>A V5yloAL. 41Hf. .JtevATiM . we c,,-1 h-& 0'h h-& h&.A) U$U LI@ ...r, ,h, t r.6- ) (. W. r, *) W J77 f,g.*.g /c.,g,
- V,1 14 4 Ve*l.
(4d. V.A (+a FMtf y F.- Na ..q. I 'W Y n 4 f cs..u. :'n f 2 *s
- f. M P 74 Fle.'Jow-5e10 2,
At s.. .sqr.1, 751..'7- - l Pane i 'ict n, > % ) n9y 9 suf,1/es4,g514y*15.I
- My* b..O
... hat %.,, . I H. C t.cruc W 4.4 5... Aq4c..i.. .GkqL p p .. %.7 9 >.. ..... l ~ c P,ye. s,wp l
- r. w/.y,vpy w, wu-... -{
w r i . hg.n hg
- o. s. j
- s,17 2.,-
3 . o. g '.
- o. L b...
Ma i 8 I 7 lost fU lot ? D 3. . 8 3+.'l VN i a g, p o a t lT1'et ,, g, y ,, pi ig a j s u ? Ma S a*fr N . alb2 A es. : e.W e t Ju u t., w ' r.ui.ii..,. r' f- @ -@ o p mi-fa' 5 %97.g. 4s.17.e. 45 3y 26.27 pf-Y h43' s,uq o.2sv s.sy
- o. a.
R N 1. r4 us.p.!' cc.p "' os.g o.9 "; s NK.E E& Cafes. For 6-VM (d '1ll Eled [M b b} Calc. N o. fh SARGENTi LUNDY g3,, >g A p._,g, ,,,,s g
- m N oiNe esse
"'"C^" g Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page I.. / of Clieat C F(A Prepared by 4 f. FAf45 osieJ-f A boject b.G flf. l_lc t l Reviewed by [ /$ Date J 1 '[ ~ c rol. No. 42M.eo Equip. No. Approved by b-f-Date 4-A -il-4 f RU R4L*"
- o. 21
=>l'sime. ;w .s'. 6J.
- tr>
0.6a, o,gsg, +*MMn, % y.vp ~ 94I*4 (Lo >W) y., trA, g ht-1 I CO"/
- l. (*D'
- l,2 l.iPM[ Co.Wncel ME cc it, sec, p.2af. A '*j .,$15*. I.19 I. $ 8 ! 4?' / l.(srbj ( bh! %# " d-tt N d'y I.'M W ll @ (c
- ll g (,'
86@l4 2, 7.N O f#' Q,y
- c G lL 4
~ 1 i.,w .n. e.- <'y;;;gt z.,.S ,~ %,,q. D2118Yb Y.., dgF-
- f.*
CY-olG' .. O.? i y Aci 'c.,14, 1 b"T6. ';Plil'.* MI' loa 0 1.tr '*to MVATl4, % vaATtcAW 'sEstf f.__j.__ AT l>> 'l 7. (%'e c.al 143 f.,. p '2os). !%.' 9186.,. W. 4M.9.t... CMculat6 die. shst call ferf, ' reptemiat' ;f f.Edl. clu.. 166.~ 194'. ..a be "i;.s w. v.-a A i, "'i, ~ r"4 N o, v o. ww m 'r &#j. b5 6]bb l56
- asto sic o
g. h,,, .c n' l v. % + ( * * * * *. ss, b, t., ,, s j (g, 4,,,i ,k,w,,ii L,,g e cyNt 4g'" b b 8 Ma
- c. %
k'. fi,-C fb f((.,b Ng, '*) FSMNasl e. I L4r523 b,i G 'l S 'l IA548lJ . 1,1 7.64 e,Oa)af. MoeJ" e.01 4eal4L M-E tasit Let. i G-@ 4' 61 I 8 q r i 0 9Fd.INat A 1 f.e 'V V.T f. f, MMW ff-h%R.f 5' I doso*h 649& 4 '!M w.8.r.: m r. yan .w 54M --So4'I-
- *
- l u 'r t, M
'C"T i ~ n t 4 q) i i i-i l.. i ' St>puA4Ct' o P \\ /s*A fic,51.- kEiMi',(El- " Ired a~l4M,3 k <."l % N ) 4$ "" ^* Hev !E. Jr f" # g4 S.EUA W &f%IHy Ew f-,. Be&& gy Tetw w
- 8. Fat
+'; i
- b I.26
%.l1 " s,41agg i (4o50o5 13d ' A. c3.. s.ui+ o.o. % s M} I.Q
- Lmy fig..
. T FM.'riin16'f4. ' t. c. c. o015 _r-2 hcm. lov
- ~ '
)3 if C....... _ -- _J2_ of n 125 - .1 p sc-.. Cefts. For i)3 :. -o..=. e{ {in M Cafe. No. I?> SARGENTtLUNDY .. Q Aw. .:.,y,. ,,,. o o,,, g n
- sNo Nasseo CC ^ *
- Safety-Refsted Non-Safety-Refsted Page fdb of Client
- r. a o Pree red by W
FANdir l Date 4 -/-3.1. Project, Ls !..y.. -. U.t I Reviewedby / fib' Dated. 2.-b'2. Prof. No. i./.
- s, ', - o p Eaufp.No.
Approved by b; Date 2/- el-d'k ~.....-...g 'sa.mo fv, * {. hor. >nts\\ retG.. re.y wmsnt. vtwo-
- v.. la. s i.
g, Av g 4,f..,,. As,uf,,g
- g. gAe.s p
y,, lt,o G,0dJa Ue u
- . 7c6 a 11 G (. ' -Twr pas,5 e
A.. e at -a e co,r., f,.aw. s, m gu ., s._e 4' 4 s, e.864 2r -wic-4 .' " 'f e.n. Ao WT f -- s i. /ched. onll P.wl hebaw o,f. kg @ 4 cDe rebujpg'j. b de dete k or p.ig,ije f. repan, there's.' oi{3. cpe.3 rel;s e k t' Tvi C W stb 3 pse. p ic ! A> prov.= 3.12.9,. M. reg'4, L3o-" mas . _..l Q:,'A big rQrprial Irr,by. kr thh Wall P J o e k, '. g.,... g . a 7. : 4 ? l. 7.:._.. _ ;... .j. i..l i.. /,f.hecy. uafl JMU bcW. ed. )$ o & k $ ' t#UIV YOM' 03W.- rew A. *% Car r, iis ). 4.repr;c,.'wf. cho.' condudd,..theu w,tt.bv.d... ; nis3. a rebor cut 3 vetu.all).ibax..8 hbav can. }u,<.ptah. Cdcul.$ re.nin.o reinj. to re s. b t'.M.. pw'M r.d 3.. L... a _...... j. Nicick, be.tn lMv. @.4 @ I.. !.ld 1$'..l ..h11@.0.b5.CD ..hM.l so it rehm 14.} h.; f.%c.f.. dall cat %h. Id.rrJ4 met 6._ ntomed, 9uoi 8c.f. ku leg nv.w w aa.e4 + b;u f r$.estv.w w si g w,p..{- A waii l,W CK n' t..fnr L, }- b.. o+ <. a.s._{.ditics). . S's. wal\\. f.k'el. o I .I.. _ _ - 8 g .... ht'ontat.by. drea '.'la.fr. Hefest=.2U *ll GG".2r d-.xca. o ... 1.ii ....M. Mal @. M' _,. 8 = 78 P'!. kft " ' k. ban We, assusel b be uer'er( W IsuV.Jc N.a k+"* YNU W"
- f N t/t.sbre NoJ. att assumeA ti ste'ex t42 ved, rab.y3..
- Yl j. _.. L,._
.e.,.' n.t c4tnel.>rne. tor,reeme,* L Dall .t. -.i. .... :.. J. _ I I ok.
- iE2 proj<!ct: c_.r.tevin., chec.K reinf, reg'd. -[w 124
%iE 4 cro6. ca.w _ .;.... A)h Calcul6. Tactb(A. p.L,. Qo. '.. - -. I es. case. _4...l..J __ _;...,,,s., s.s': 'o.us..hL l. .c-- Aue p se.uil.rre.3, conMD, c.be 2 f (f {~., fr-cat i. e. r. 41 .s e J u ,., 3 g o,S.5T %. Ile15 9-CA14 .. fL. 7 PE 'b l a 55- c, 'or 9-6-4. b.)all En rJ tJ caie. No. lb a SARGENThl0NDY 'g, g,, 0f,g gi,c>,, ~ ,,,. o g,,, y, g 2, s N CBINE m pt e. n C "'C ^ G Safety-Refsted Non-Safety-Reisted Page 2 4 '.11 of Client (BCdp Prepared by N. f~'A4/Q Date 4 -/-/-2, Project [g$ahe,-() nth Reviewed by d (( - Dated. 2,.)[J Prof. No. 4 f.6 /,-OC Equip. No. Approved by Date 9-A-/t ......T*~' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ * ' * * * ~ ~ O l M pa (..!(e5,'75(,he,f,leij.fwched.ing loca.tl ) pp,Il: ts ! q af. En:9e ca a, o6. k..oes a p). L d j..j f '2. @f0 N.h.I IAe t i e,
- f. E0T A 7 D,
. Jh.*. * .(D - l M~s 44, = i j CBl ;. g g j Ny j h lY W" * $$ bbb 005 ' f ? $. Yh fn %Y. 5 .. 3.. o. i .. k I [. b,!.,ip. g'ev,, 9(5 M. p. -. e s e = is. 3 s.* y i .... e Lcoas.] 3 1 3 la% ikutaol.rbrqf. rea'e A S.bo: _i1 q ......... i .I_...,l..:, Ma $.. $o,S '14 k, '- n'r1cdA i ,. ;. l !.. r' Muj is,SSO.N r. Hy W-oF-M* l } .dj 4 2." - i" id9, d 4o. gs ' jw I' stef 2. .~ \\t n +o.:As_.,,. 4 . P. & _ i 1 IW l.ii t
- 1. i gg, b 8o
.l &g:. 1.85'l a. IS.340. of Nt* l.6 d * '!'*70 i ,i g,,.,*.I";_kL,o.n6_gs i_ pco.as p. - 1 G- / l x i .fg hi% M bl .htasa.hp.e O I ,'f j e m e d. ' .-c,o.s_a.n..di-j_o.dh.,,F" - ). / i. g ...i..... j i i % p ni 29a cp A,we" bf.c-et: E . ;_ [_...... i 9edy, bd Mm ' b,3. N.347 t' Salen. ._ :..!i...,. (. 47. e{u A S. G.G J i k wua LL = ...................3...o.oS6cq(\\r'yl-c.ssst - ',* - ) ? *'5 # ' ' *,* i i 170 4., 4 y. bb=. a.so yso x tu 90.ns . _j ...: cu k w1.n.g= o.o m,Ll;.it-0.w u m _)=l.,s-7'ucr* i.o,. !....l. _. ; . ].. 9; l .s A - =.9 - s.]sitso.41.(t <.t ss.=. o. as "' et i i'" % + 2. ..L.. M R E F ' ~ l6 Cates For D.624 i< hll 9(,vi.fo}. b'M N 'Cate. No. r .AlbL b,0Gr~ R ev. C Date 4 /t/A.1,~ V i SARGENTE LUNDY a h 3 S N GIN S E nt. "E.t -%d -M4 ' Non-Safety _Related L age 2e2,c,,f P f C *C ^ " Safety-Related E' Date f[l/g.r., M Of, M, M,[(',7' * ~ Prepared by Date,'/ [ ( Ero Reviewed by Ctht 3 . Date t/.L- @ Project 3 M r, - d h i t f hyv,. Pr j.Ng. 86$ oO Equip. No. . Approved by mL iw cded aTk.eG re;d. T.e ._. _...1k f Ca binaf7c n N lean dau19 i ft/ hat. 16..
- p. P1 )
i l l Fw me. we. c.w. .As ra) n ( As3 E' AH:u.pbne )* N C Ap l + A. 4 Ai 4.:e A p.t. Asaf.... 1 d ome. .J ..i l i 7 ..; ;..;...._ i.j.. 4,.. al _ l _..__._..i.. ... _.... j._. 7_... L. _ p. q __. l _.j t i / Pm wo. O&s. can..._ g ,. _.... q. L. _._ J.__. p.J. - ;. _. 2.... i - ' l i L*. OJ +fI A>t.Aju ' 13 A4,,, if 3 kl dh_hasti... i bMS* AE. ' l.4 N.:T2 .ln. cal. s,14, t u.i {Srga of f, eel. tab ) 3 I
- m. m w ee 1.2bA.pW f b. AptA 145 k
+ l.2.5 bje.
- l.o Ag os
- q. 0).
. e... ;. (1.15 Aso 4 $$ iz e AB=VE.... J. _.. .;__a.. _ _. .) iEf.. kcT= ..L F.W GCeNdGN9lPCP..afC...k?calud L !._.L_._[.a ..i....... 2weAcup_j k 9.t 1.$. A p. %.v.f. 3rzs ce{d. hlseini,.ss1._hdaL{reet..sk: $ > ft,' "". I. 3r/ to.p b 2o 4 )._ l k1s ii
- L._
l _ __. 2 s.ts.k.;c.ve.kkL l }.. Av.aa. %f. area. : wt Aa[. p hf..Weaj refb pt_Jbn3eJ_ Mpldgload.u I I fk..f.. area.. rec'2. A.dhj.151'Mipre. h..... 3 A h I.. Ap. . bj. xia. ra al.A A Hoo.p h f. 3fes. ! n d... onc! h.. luah.oid c$-yboa. low c_. _J g l rz 3. Aue t; accMedok : ymwe hA.c. .l .i g l Ap.:.. Reif. :;rasfe e,. scea req % he is. p,yg.,%.lf-Ocic/t yhu bl b'e ak.. I oad. 0. .N ....i. : l g __1_j j__ _ A gl.__. : ..!__f f ' d pl _ -_, b j. 3re d it 'A h e f3 l ._. t. _.,.-. i _ L,. ' _. ;. ';.. fat wp\\\\. y t ye, con uh.d p Ay d it ?h. ...!... I __..._.l...h..nso$.LW. i ..i..bik. ob e O pd.b.:_..l__ ._. __L. 1...i Y I 16' y.4ei Bdad35 06E j %E. ),ccu(W a.cc 7_7 d . }- I __t_.4_..oy. pad.ig ;, pLH.d2p.>jj... ...-.-__..__i-c i i,..:.., i, -... I __1__! ,,_..L _ ;...,.. _ _ p.,_.. t 4 - /. M : ['.8 i I i f 8 i l l .,s_..... .8 .g. .] .8 I <d A ) %...-4.. caici. ror 3. ro24. U311 il. ya c.,l. Lo ti caic. No. I6 6 SARGENT E l. UNDY a,.3 g A g g o,,,333,3 ..~o,~..... c.4.c Ao o Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page '2r>./.f. of l ctient c.s:co Prepared by W. FA.W Gr Date d -l-/> t Project Ln56 llc - Liw t j' Reviewed by Date 4 L. h Proi. No. 4 2.(,(,- co Equip. No. A'pproved by v,,,76 J Date 4-1-rk. .4 l.'. fd cer4. +.se cae - 4 "b " o(An + AH. 6 A A r )s ..' rbo, ) + ( A, + A,,4 A s. r.4 p4 f 3 ( h + o.olMf + b o t
- o. i70 + a. oSi t #.45 t *S2) 4 s.,
,s l.uSb R <
- 1. & 1,*..:.
fM.*d.s k teref. see.
- f. -ol a
0 s I 985' M.F.= i.c,o C) fu 0d. G5 4 fecalculaft.. brie <tiA. l oc(4,[Netc: N# e M - 6034. fao 9v uo (.00 A s in cb6Cnw).. -2\\\\oder.s Q unt) pipa, c.ord.d%. c%. a,is x e.s ,,32sPt a.o 3o[.I $,. .,,, 9A I'"' #6E MC. x:. cal 16, p. 41 f * 'd o,5J 5.
- x.5,s d (, =.l.is 8. M j
i ' U ;t?c ol M or m itt h3 rewti4. 1,15S x '28[= fl.af.\\,, Mshut*, ~ y. F '
- b t. IM4
- 1. see u.L R. S4 c~.
i l t. P/r 4 4 d. h j - o.o% G T I\\- ll3*.HsG-?lrc.)~).b.SL4to? i Au p a = *.1 n ""..... one %. F.gtb.NEh fW 066 Cl u.a, c.hc d q.CA)(*1((c) k i i E q.(.a;. Ay.y (l.4 Aro.+ i.4 A ;,,.4 )* + ( y Ap + Ap 4 I,4 A u.u.,,ru )* +- . a. 4 (!A Q- +. o ) * + ( +,,2.e 3 + = )' -
- M i *" < z.62 "
i M. p,. %, = S.1d ~ k.e Aq.. (s.ts Ago.4 l,is A r..p.J"t ( 1,n Ap + Ap 4 l,= Ac.,w -/.23% 4 i,o Auf i [ Q i.2sxI'd,, o )*.., c, +,.gs3., i.zseosr.ti.o.80] o o + A l.'l 60 l.58.] g * (, z ' * % ~ CGM...- . k.. C. Ae.. ilt:uoav'a... .. u. v. -,i,s,-- =) PAL' h o!*N-l "I A O.4.s.;(<4V) r.t7f,1F caici ro, 0 - 624 L3all44 a,f L 9 16 caie. uo. ISARGENTtLUNDY 5.'.. *1b9 ** *7 4i1 ky bl,l'A1 Rev. S Date*~'M 8 ia NGINE E fes. Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page L t/ p f C **'C ^ " Client c.F Co Prepared by H. PMci Date 4 l."1 Project bhb. LL.t i Reviewed by p ,7 F Date,/ V't Proj. No. 416(c-oo Equip. No. Approved by Date T I-O ..g....
- C*
- .t* iip.L Ad u/a c#,
As 5.11 " .o AS ev,'.L = l.~1(, o " -. os5. ca s1 tty k
- d*,. $ 5: 2)
! M.f. '. * ' V.- @ *
- 1 1b - ** H /o cuf's IO.3ll f.)> ci s
H.F.
- 2.( 2/s.#
- 1.4 61...
w/ c4 b Ncig: H or.n onta.1 Id u T critic 4 4 Ifa' 4 p fcid a # 4,- / d m M otiet bet. ed. Lu dD 4 m taiek, <ebsr hu pqt.4 1914 19, oc, can Cenchde 4h.3r th <e'U 1.a - fr-, th e. etch on 6 cMrs cut at jteaf ka.t> n b retaw c&.st k.n p L u < 5.v . 4 cd at bfr. Arco I. ef t s Wd
- d-**, 4 4 '8 612, % sh-
- rca sc ^, e m 3 ** 4 OJ c c*. ars we. c.d
' worr. En 4 ves., % tm -rc+)< 2 3r 3 6
- h = 2. 2osh',,
p, 4 " I T 's H- % c i e H 5 m1,be. w S.ylh. l L Wom,W k. f. Arca M: k$t-d, *6e 12",. "' ag 5-(<24 7pg 13 re'a, D - b.
- 79 A l A. g...'. 8
~l % .h "... ..d u t a firy sse cee - Qg A%.p )% C 4 + Ap 4 A u.j, - A r+:k/ Arp gAn + .m g _,. c, p. % (. o. +
- o. g o. a o.. +
4 r.4 a. 3 0 * * ' '*# ~ ,. c o i ~.! 2,2o,. u..; ...v. l.1%4 . p' -a-. f ' i, @ ru ese. cw - u:M.~uJ .m ip r _ Qw - (;','j -+. a f.,.1 o. < e,1ss + o)'- = o.sgl <1.ws l l guj_ .Mf, .qp. *.14 i } L zs o r zL,.)> # (c,., o,29 e f.cf ".e t 4 f.e".w)a - u. n g s < s p s---; \\-- %.s I i V b I.1 gf., z.:.r,,,5,4 g.ps7s .,,... ' s. <, q c e..t rn..- r 1.~ ,y ; : :.te 1 2c /
- 0 N '" '
'~ - _- to'~l,d. bhll nLim J L M ci nr caic. No. I6 SARGENTt LUNDY 3, 4 9y o = a n oin a a nn e. ~ n,, O D,1, # - f.g2-m s ' ' ' 'C ^ G C Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 7.o f) of Client [ 6. C O Prepared by N. fA.f4Sr Datel/-/ 62 Project bk(fg -- l]hif l Reviewed by d_. J: Da t e.d
- 2.. /'2.,
Pro). No. 426(,.op Equip. No. Approved by Date '/~ 1 -D- .. _ %._7 ..-. hs [r) M,f i Ya. b* (0,79 i Oh4 )O
- IO F 8
i ~, t A n y* 1.u7s s s j i /pid.'d l ,Oall poci 1,# m Kf-k+sw
- 1. p l 2, - - -.
v/ c4 j 1(gg. 2,uyIwt i d.La. G A (b t.czq.- - . W cut' l t 1 I i d rw sse c, _. 6, w trJ i .i k ey J (o.7;<..,. of + ( o + g 4, l e o T =. <.37S 4 c a] * .l ,o ,. 6,.7 i M. E - ,,qe,=.I.6.17.- l 4 rcydd2 : .o rw ces u- - i t, 4vJ Ac; = (T,"i.P 4 of, ( . o. o y
- s. P. *k '76 ~ 1 e e 7
- o. 3 n,. - i.Sie g6 4,1 Q 1.ri ~
- d> + ( a +
c
- o);
.ny < o.e s]_ na ve.7sc i os \\. o.c.y h D OC 4.' **n'C'o~ .he v baf ^l 'fe ed}]$ "
- Y'
/ g i J g occpd q w/. c~t A3, o. m i -..w 2 ,0 tg .a~ i A+l = "78 ^ u i i vi%Y ei@ga 6
- u. n 1.y.....
~/- c.4 san ~ l 8.r.= '"*7/,,I.sa..... y' ca, - ]! g pGf p cf.n.- 1 j >I I ~ N i FIGURE 2.7-3 i STRUCTURAL CALC'X.ATIONS FOR CONCRETE BEAM s I i i k a k i i ? ~ 4 R-adw PAD 4 i8Ib-sil caic. No. 94A cates. ror SARGENT.hlUNDY g, 9; ' @q g %g_. p n,,. t) o,,,3/4/h .. ~., ~.... g e -.c oo 3,,,,,. n,,,,e d Non-Safety-Refsted Page,34 3 of ci;ent CD Prepared by 6, duM Date,,,, eg,,gy,,, 2 b ' 'ig h i( ) Reviewed by ,M Da'te Y-f -[ 4 Project Pipj. No. 42(f,..00 Equip. No. Approved by Date Y"2-A / .l..)._d._.i.!...fON W STEO. M EA b,.' [ l !l
- i...; -
l l I I i i! l ? I , gfA. teAy-3 ~ MA%taL PALToA. .. y,.,1 MOFMh /M seul rd.2u.I, e . _ _tpj...o..f__.I..,____..._._...._. 'm LEQ,. .'g! _ f?N4G;5p
- doNag, j f. Mbe4$
c.s.;p p g.T Micoce, (Lud ICE P./Mb helns l Sf ~74-Y !9b-5ll
- /. r7 l 9.fol sl /ExfRai.
.. _ l_ O' l: i ._j .l bwx,I.s I.ct ... __I_. l.._._ _ .._.._.L_ .g, a.. _o. 7.. __._.p.._q.g.. s,m v i __q. . +. L. _.; _7_ r I i ..4. 4._ e i .. 4 I f i f I ..). I i i l' i I f(Sh s.~800 O i LUt.% J ) ....s. ,r.y. l-ysper.py1_ _. _yp 1 t~ _._ 3_. _ 6!2_A p.7 y <_-._4_. I I i l l l f 4_ ..,t __ .. i i j i i i IL i ~ i l I i i l I i I i 6 ._u "f l t l I I i l l }- l
- 1.,
t. i i i i t t l l i E l i I f) i i i o l r l E t t l l l l l i i l l l l l ,. m t i i ... 4 _ i 1 i I t I .._..__ _ M' l 7 44 .._j._4_. t_j J _._1. _i_ _J _ _ + l l l i l ? _9l . _.4 j __ L.. g i _._.u. i l i i i 1 t_. t I _4' .. :. _ J.. __,'_2 l _.._._....i[ .._T__.._.. g e t _ _L_ql. _ ._. L _ 1. I ..l l t 1 _..;.l. .j... ..j....; _._..' .. j _ _, _._.t _ i . 4.._. l t .. _.;. 2 ..q .4 _. j.. .. _p._ ;. t 1 j J-l l 1 -t l l l i i l I I ]<=p. / 9 7 s f For 6 - 2iG I M., bil Caf e. N o. h//S SARGENT'*-I. UNDY o E l.. Mf).GP R ev. O Date M.,7 5 b >ssaineene. C ~ 'C ^ Saf ety_R elated Non-Safety-Related Page *.3[,h of .,.) Client Cgg Prepared by N. FAN 6r Date t.$ - 2 22 Prolect L f, ((c - %,'t-l Reviewed by 6.f%6\\Qg.ly;6 '~ r. Dare.i I.'-E.'.f. Pro). No. di (,[,. o o Equip. No. Approved by Aw-Date Y h. v.+ [... Shii, } !. 'M - Il5 l R.&!1ts', k.5,- ts,. ,1 .___.I. j..Loc.46a.. g.3__hFitUv.' A;LL.hT3 w3.o MtQ M p/bem f ._. { j.. . &b;;ad hn. pMl l w.dr3 ' ..] j.; i i e i j F1 'wk - $\\ *b~jb l F.\\fMc F.I.bl} .gl z9 l 1 , to.;. I [ j j. . _g,..l. 9
- 4. g
[ 4. ; fp, o glt oooj [4RW d emf l.- [, j...gq_.4..
- p., 4
, g.. g
- 4. l e g
. g..l i I i t .I. ! @ i. # %g Q.4 N M lcuC.. l.l i 'j t ..- i..... i i i 1 i i ._ J.. l... i i i ...l i 14 t .. l. red, <d'4. - apfeig [k <4 .l o g j. .t ,_ q-t. v.
- .s_
s l __4___{_.j i . u _. _.i _. ;. _...-_4.. !.. t... 3 gl. a.3 _p*. _{ .L.. ! @ Ita-%urt? ', the Abb. 3Ssanu: '2 'e ..1
- W
_ l. l. N-rc cEl*. .' r.cusw d iA' W 'b N I 8 t .2. ! .l -l O 4 113{2 h.,j h fl1Ng' 4 - g 4 g,s u, o. I., I. @..'..M,., } 4.- y. l Al-bl'J i .. d, l l l .,t.. . +*. 6 I t l I j 5 J ...g.--.._.... -g .l __1. hl IRb -5fl ra-uf. r- -- i I l
- j ls.
5]' IH] 8
- f idu
.....'....I....._........;.. .i i n t g e i .....1... i.hN 4 {lfk. ....f p ___'..f_.4_y._.. -... I 2 p,... L_4.. l .L_j. 14 T.S. _../. 7._..., j .. j-i I l 7 .. p....
- ....j.,i 24
.... !- -j. i e i _.. j.... L.-... p. L... j;. l I ,e..e.. 7 7_... l ...k... \\ t... .J .I
- 1..
-_.L_ '_1 I ? ~ l l j. _.: i ,.t__,...__.. J. _L .i m i l JVSE 2 MF l L Cates. For E l/ A LU P Te s d of f f f.* A l* c ts7" Calc. No. $lbs0 SARGENTtLUNDY ,. g ,a _s,/ 6,6)@ S-2is R,. O o,ie 94942-1E NGINE E fte. I Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page S W of C "'C ^ C" Client f E f t. Prepared by f. dLeV9 h oste.3 2f #,. 2 Projecti l.AJA(te ar/ Re,;ewed by S.t t......w. dr. cate A Prol. N..d.s f( - c (, Equip. No. Approved by Date 3.o.p l- $ G - Bll ( 3C X4-B) TT[#. 7. ,,..g A.- L ce m x 5 (,t.6 ) p..' ' l' . A e) ? (:4.57 .. ( 1 -.' '3 ( +,, .V-
- t 1 T.
i a,.7 12-I-r.e _sc1 i sc'.f 4 e i 83 4 * 'l i =.* *.') / ps 1 ,. t t 75 6 '-$ l'1 t T / h t q 5( t-t e-2 .) t.a s ' e f<.. ;,,'. r _*4 l s n. .r n !
- f-321 Cf 4 " r~
fl' C c u -l- --1 5'- i t 1 ( V -c b/en 1 '.- . 6 4. - .f o,- le f ,l( l! i is,= s ' I, d' 7 r' t'4', 7 n I '1,-1. I, Io '-6 t c .l ,g p y 4 ........-...-o, .. H i G clo c ri p b, > W A [- f I 'p g M 4 p dets 6 ~ ' = Hanyloa% wu. % j t + druthig HLs-3oj g t c, l o i k O ei 2 w. q l 1 4 y q. s a e N j ) g ..i l l I t i j g. j a j. ,,-.3. e -- i , 13 ( f-a _[ 's, Jkt3 ot'7: i ( g< - -t e ,z I Sg c 7t sd 47 MWit <. F S/ M f . For a vA l.lsA T*od c>t* AEs
- Ch T*
-_ ate. No. 9/SA C SARGENTkLUNDY op sger
- -xs - git @ @ @,.r -s i.c n,,. O o,,, q,2 p t
'e N GIN e s.45 cmcaoo Safety-Refsted Non-Safety 9efated Page N of Client (6C Prepared by J. ON9 Date f-e.7-/2. Project /Egd6
- /
Reviewed by 6;. Ihh.3 ll edhh e c. Date 3 i f,c Proj. No. g.2 g/ o 3 Equip. No. Approved by b%* Date 3-3d )t ,7g...............-. .7. .? ...;..}....,'(./ Ab -l 4?l.. ' (s A T lP _... s._ 4...?. l,. i ....J.. S. i ,.i.l1 t i I ._j. .d
- sitce.
Au y twc sesu <ur or. 1 . q., ...) 1 .. ;. : p~ rren pp. se m Axe t' arco l i r_.i 1.._...
- f. Mot.f Ab+v cap
- 6 0.' *F 6e4M..
An v~/e ed?Y.. _._1 j l1:7.y,4lpd owr wrou
- ule:r! mr
... s !. i.c l Tthsh cub /E $
- .4No
- r arre"
. ). twisJ. Axe A. .k g-Nov f. ;.... Z .f ...f.. .J. I }~~4f y V y' , d>E [.hf,7j
- .7:
2
- 7. 6 JN/.
..j 4 I j ..I..,.j.l.l#f'c'/*. : ht3,\\.ks.h (a x l.ob (a h .l } l i 3 i ... 1.; O .l i . bY NT N vn N 9. C.o HpA CSf!*4 6 A A: of. j i i ). 3 i . Tor- [. fosiTive w:eeHT cAPAccry 4
- .j...cAfs<ir.y. g.' s. v er.;
.e
- nioite, I
6, j i Mt f h.F (A..- %):; Ma 8 < =.1x)!xi. 45!+4 Q3#2, ) v l i .. g: y. i. t i i usi o" 3.pl. A,
- .i
.fo x n i i -...L l.. '.a = o=
- I'N '# a! 30',
=W. . e,sg.{a ' b-b .sI l s. (oo.h!.I,.h
- GP"'
} . _$ e 4.m ! 4II42.k* ..I a gi i =-t,,, u.,.a 4w e l .o s.. a i ..i b=.Y,". g i. ,!. _. NECTAtVE MC4AENT CAf'ACtf 7 ..g 4 g @) ol '.... ;......Ch( ACb..T.'(... of. be m, .MeST GNP. ( W* cu7.) o ._.j..d. __ _.; g.h 1..!..;.
- ....J....
l ![ 2 t -..i: 3 ? g or yy (1 3 ,_r,. . %u 0 S. it \\ ~ --,. s,.a.. f...r g i =07x/'2 X89. 15 s .v, l 4 2 . x.,. 4 z p-g,
- h to x 12 o /Ex f x %,, - = 5,/./r, i 4=
I l. l '\\ . 1.
- 1..
.. {...,.. .q gs l .G..".' =~227/.2. / I ~ .iP/6E 4/ AF 7: i s.For EVAlsrArren)
- r a s.
2-caer core.no. 9/4A SARGENTkl. UNDY or sun /n s'I @ (E A s dis n e,. p D.,e M M 25 NGINSE RS. M Safety-Related Non-Safety-Relate? Page 3 $ "? of C " 'C " Client C6 Co _ Prepared by 8. MUM 4 Date 3-27-tz Project (_464646 "l Reviewed by S. P.b ila chm.F. Date 3-30 9is Pro). No. 4.g gg - # o Equip. No. Approved by [ kg Date 3-7o.6 ... y 7 ...g g.,... ; N I y ' N. . j d.8 s. i; ! 4E6ATlW MoMEttT CASCtTY : l _.. t - !q,p'ifr.; e.6 ;sep e, vsr eo. u. eu r.) I 1. .j i.i ;.,.p.g i, ji. ~ j i ....i.. . ~..._ ad }\\{a e ay7 wo ; = 9 fxJ sjo 4,5,75 - d,. Fn
- -- r--r.
c l 4g ~~- - " + I 1 l it..'(. ... _.q.. d. - 1. : % 4 i l,. g, gn a* ,i . 1,. ,i. p . a..=,, yg, m g, .3. n..,, ..g, ..l i i ._.i__. l' .i l 8 ..I ? _ _.._. r. l }. ! ,i... l.. l . =a-/5 76A../ n L., l.. i, .i.., ..;. I-i 8 i ....:.. s i Ac7l.' eL HoHW7J.. u g.. 005 Le* lt4 o t. int.vis ui-mweex; (P x !. 4 ) /.95 = 2.f3F
- % dem. %cc.4. in s.d y.
14(-gppL # Rey bc.l.V.io.!"'qg.,shuj.9r ue9 ce w alw. 1, f>e.is$ & >ci. 7s = 7 a M yia;; << oa ?. i i..~. w.... i.,.gm = u.g.r.% .* w. o.01x '.sr - c. o nc ,st'Y. t 47 j. . n. r cs a. e. e, m.t. <w d sem (an,x.is. x. /.rs ) q,, 3 si i ,)
- ..... '?
- fA.l.cA9> >.l.c. of t.o tw.+ 1.p.Eg 1.csR.Q 4W g4
.M6 Ll : fe. M '.' g j- '. -. Ih 8twe.:.Q coney. I,1 yvalt h I.92h \\ /*, i oego,l n.) stitm frp .**/. W = o,aj7. g ..- 1,113.$.,, s *SL46.(t.5X./.S..F..a.9')^l.fD= J,)2.3.4'. o w/? as,+ -_...-{- i..-.. . (.w.s lr.'.f4b;, Jet. A n b). E /3'xs'x.if'] x /. fin 5 </c ' % sene
- 5. _ :......
.To f 44. JSE?, [ (4, = lo. Va Yf o p k a L %.. 1,. y. .. l R*"M"'. f fI 9ls, 1,1tJ(f} l ..h - f<.dacecA.bvc.looA. ~ !s%.=.saey?oad ecf uk An;aica.<. c- %.e W ne n.ms. I Ei =..Se' ns d .t .C1 -! Cindelaw' dsalMon toJ. i i i;. l .y...!... .;.. j.. l, g g [ o,c 7 1 1 J M.o 6 mMn c~. t-es.For Ethe l.tt A7s* ^] W t*to T Cafe. No. $6/l L. E E,..' SARGENTkI. UNDY m ,a g,,, g) g 4 s zir ,,,_,y o,,, py,. g 7
- enannanna C *-* 'C ^
X Safety-Refsted Non-Safety-R elated Page D & h of Client ( E lo Prepsted by J. /V *! Date.3 ~27-8 2. Project t AfM(e - / Reviewed by C.. Eho Rochov'c. Date 3 '.%-& Proi. No. 4 2. d' [- o o Equip. No. Approved by b-- f--M Date 3 b p P ',_.. 3 ..,....g.. Q . -e!..,!-.' (jffz's...!.
- 5...//... (cU. r/p)3
... p. ; j.: i A<.T u)(.' , a.'u s o7s. .C c y, e.rp M1,). n t .i i l p = , (p. m y))
- N
.I e- ...e-g p i,.,'. O.. 's, p {.13) 73 ..,'... j. p 'f ' OE j .j. p I i i eQM
- v. '55 '
y/ -i e .,_g..,. l. h/ 5 Y I..r._D. Ih I /. h / I i uwm4..,' 1 .e' ~ g j 3 P_IAq@A.M,.k...,!/._.{ T. .'..j j ., '../. r. .l i 7 y/ 7, i i .i. . t,
- i. J1).h,.,.y
.j _.!.!.
- s... g3o.,.
r .s. i s .;. r. 2 5.,7. 3'. .. v f. IPi C 7?' [7 J: li '.. M ' 2.43' I i 4 3 2.,3 il, g . l. %. 7 g, 3,91 24.92 . (.,41%.
- 1 14 2, bbk-y 1
4 i l l i l l l l/88.lk l I
- phg l
i 5.44,ev,45 3 1.. i i .g. /.6 i I I a.21 17 i g g A ft.- 4 l i PMN...... -. L i .2 -..I - it.d 3 ';g g e t j. 19.Si. 4 .. 3 .. q.,! _ _... ......,j i s o, M.M, g i 8 s.
- p..
.... sos,n o. ..t l I g .... q.. ;... _......, _,... !... 7 l .l 7 j
- 2.. -. h.....
..h '.. . --.. l p.
- j..
} -.El&up BW2."T.. K1~ l Ho.t. '. .I i E -..l. Ai...i -.... I ; }. l.: ik'u'l1/)
- u.zt(*E'7f 4 a N."E^ H),..
.Y P 'Nl l !!-- ,..,i.".79...h... ;. , /2,'.f. 2/ ! p,g7 O 8 !2-/ ' 'I! __..g 7 ..}_..j...q..;. .. [., 1. 1 f 4.64 r (,,W 5 1%2s .. g 4.. u.....- p._ a-_ i.... t.... 4..Q..,. 0 $ .v.. ......'t W i I i i = w ..,i l
- a..l. :
l j l ..]a....... ;.... ;..._. ; _... /7w W'. J., u (5 ). + u.ufy ')h7) + 4.U(n.ay(t.7r) + u.a6Mh...) i ' a / .=- e. I /a. ! 2/ e. 9/, c/, ...l.... c v _ q._!...;...j _.:....;..i. 3 4Q.,, y < i m p ,p ,y,,. gy,. i g/ x 4.u's.v' "-j .e ..i.,. i 1 .....t. 2.r 4
- f. YS S 0? l I
du e Cafe _s. For E val.Uf To sd of it' 6 A At Cr /T ch Cate. No. $lfA SARGENT 3. LUNDY , %,,, g g._ g g.2 e t-n ev. O oaie '1.Pf.5 z 'E NGINE EMS - / Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page % 9 of C "'C ^ Ca o Chent ( & Co Prepared by J. lUWir ~ Date.3 f2 Project O l A f 4 C C ( F/ Reylewed by
- 5. Shc.dachr f Date "c.3 0.
Proj. No.).g 2 8/ o i Equip. No. Approved by Date 3. ),, n V D { / g n -. vi c.JT's). M A-x. H o M F n'y /21 As on ri g. ( '/.s. O -iso $. pg -- 172 l.c-S g t.b Marv=. = a r i.~ nz.dco.sa)- un%d) + *" '"U 2 a r. n ~ 'M+( ). tit) = -sot.n M <,iwn y w/, w7. ; __ _.i jf; c.;. ).yc.y pm. =,,. 7 e-Ma. s &..=.is u.4 .. ga i l se reu o
- n. n 1 r..;.
i' M.! t. '. * \\. ........ ~. A n m Hirow A'. E suera.tt' L i l il 4 2,6 0 L..-
- .</ c ee r*. :
is n. r ' _.. p.+'i .n n. /' ....) ~ M' fo o F.o.5 U ~ i l ..1 ...474776*..
- p o&
4, 6 ? N h.? = 3. l Y
- WI, 94 I.
=. i i. i .. a -- u - - 1 a s a -. l
- /57f &
227/.1 Ic7W' k' ? ye, c,,7 +f7. *6 " dor. 6 "' - 4'/47/.&, l l
- 2. Sf.S
= 4.4 0 .,>( b
- 9. If-
= = C E t hts a h la;$.ask31 te3 fir."'.Al
- Irso%., Whf/-) (JIlo 1.109 (Sec (. 5'4. %t 914M l
} = t.if,1 s t.loi s 1.t"fo j i ). _. 3.-... 3 nx reed,<2 & i l. .'ch:4..shest : i Nf! 8 142.3f t h. .. -...-.1 l $= o.es, b= n, As 4s.7s': W .8.1 A I000....--. -. g agp f p.' 142., I Lr. 9% 0,bmh
- As 7'.
8 -..t ALa>Ir gc~ Act coct. - 2 6 2.Itec'- - 12 4 #. > iote t ..I ... o, F-I / - [ [,7.*; E 7 - D,t ../ -fE- >,.4.i.~.*.'."
- % (.:.-Y. N
.I Y*..' 'k ",.' *2t .t. 4.,.Q. %.nl.:.?.:&. *-;qA.... %..p:.::r.;. T... L.,:
- t. y...J...'
J. ;. ~
- s;-
~. Y I.h S. D ~ ..g: ;,Vg. jr.
- ,.j 4'
4 y. =,. .. f..;.. <:h.;6.qu&.p.;M..,t.:.' g ;> A f.*y,. h... l% ;r^ y;.t; p - q 'D 'EY ;?' f. f' ./.f .t 6 d .M.w., s 3 m.) . W -r: :% -.c".. R. '.*n. M.'I : ,- - 'I - .s T, . 1 1'- u . * - '.4<, . b.
- 7.. V *s.. 4 -
w, g. ,A, r.. 9.y.. H !.a.?; .p .,. f*. w&,..fyM.++n.. w..i,.. ~... - e .'K.'w.. WM.r.:...%. -TABLE 2.6-1 c
- v..
...W:'. ...(... , '.i.'l@. 052.j6r.f:f:*: '5i:$ '-Me.;?.y.i.9MC.BEFORE AND AFTER MARCH 29 SUMM J ,..., y. s... ~. .h,..Q u.... i f.G .1982 FOR LASALLE COUNTY. UNIT 1 AND .. 61.x y :. v-M v:.:,.%' c.W.:, W) 9 T....-;... ~ ,0. ;,.'. _ UNIT 2 REQUIRED FOR UNIT 1 OPERATION.
- . ;.,... ;r...;.; t. V em.
..;W..g ex r e *j..::; .... m.. ; :.... s.,... ..s... A. u .s,.,.......;., ....,.a :; r.,. ..s..<>. Wd.;. ;,t". ;
- g..,;. ye.t,.. W.. %.,. U.,gi;;f9pr...
. e;; a.,; v. ..;..c
- .e ;
.r. ;. Number of Dama9e Number of Reports Received by.S&L . e.r f$ s. %..;!. Cont. sc a.,.ws :_,..rac to.r.W,.. i. F. y.; Reports Sent to Total Number of Cut Bars I P.,
- S&L as Reported Received Received J
Prior to After ' Total Missing Associated with Reports 3..g te : y:... r. .< g.. ..,.4
- ...
- j..
by. Con, tractors 3-29-82 . 3-29-82
- Received R. eports Received After 3-29-82 i
- ~
....s. 1
- f#.
1 ;w . m..::.>i..<
- .: '. q -
I ..lsh C,onstruction (._M y.,C. '.. /. - i.79 : Unit 2 11 0" 79 . O. 0 y . c.- Unit 1' 68 . r. k'a n ~ ,7 . c. s
- 3. ;..
Total 79 s ' !.'p Reactor Contro1I 'h[#
- M.? 88 87 7
T. D. 88 0 1 i'... .c . 1;.......'- \\ 7 ~,;. Unit 1 43 O- + g. l c '.c Commonwealth Electric' Company l 55_ Unit 2 12 0 55 0 0 .r. :. ~ i. ". ',,r Total 55. l Uf Mid-City Company ./ - .i 6 6 0 6 0 0 H..P. Foiey '2,584 2,442 142 .2,584 0 298 1 M. C. C.' Powers-9 .-None 9. 9 0 36 Morrison Company 687 681 6 687 0 6 The Zack Company. .62 None 58 58 4 249* ~ n. TOTAL . ' '.. /' 7 - 3,570-3,350 '216' 3,566 4 590 r s., ..y ~ -1. *The number. includes assumed cuts for four missing reports' ^ ..,l ,.: - l:.'
- i:.
t i e.. g.:
- ..9. k e ;......1....
. r...... .. ;, :.,. o...l.., s a ..n.. s.... -.. L- ..s...- .., ; y. . ~. ~ Tastt 2.7 18 MatGIN$ IN $aMPtf AR(as WITM (0Nr.f5T(D at 9175 f0e ta5Att f C0'ATY,114171 s. Nu4er of Total Manfmum Marein Margin Margin with ., c,
- Wall Osmaged Nudtr hurtier wt thout wfth Holes Nsseer of Koles Holes Considering Slab / Wall Location Rebar of L, 7; r;. - * "-'.
h* Buligteg (Panel flavation Slab Locations Retars of Damaged based on based on Actual Sige) Panel due to Damaged Cored Bars Spegfied Spectfled Mate /fal .., S (,,@ N.eeer Ortl-1tng due to Hntes due to Mishim Min 1=ue ' t ren j th ,, g, ;,.,, ~. g Operations, Ort 11f ng Cored Material Material Determined . y,, Holes strength Strength by ACI Code'
- ,,j ' 9:.. j (A)
(8) (C) (D) (E) (F) (C) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) s' ~ -. ' Ofagonal .,"..c. Reactor Wall Above Wall at y (5-201) 19.67'a56' 673'-4* Colunn C 12 3 7 24 1.250 1.050 1.170 & 14 5 E $6' Slab Between - ',,.s, -# sf, f,,* Reactor Slab,m32, 2 74g. 0*- H. 11.2 8 Colunei J 5 39' 15 0 0 1.300 1.013 1.150 .-.c,*.s,,- (5-211) 12.5 12.8 Beam at. 4 :. Reactor Beam. Line 14 + 3 786' 6* Between '5 2-0 0 2.590- '1.960 2.170 (3-215) 3 a24.5 Colune 0 8 E .s. slab 719 0 1 1 4 1.710 1.430 1.460 e w.. 4 Reactet 10'a26' 820'-6
- IRS C'
(5-219) Each 720 3 3 0 0 1.620 1.370 1.410 1 e.:- Between 11 ...~c Reactor Wall. Above. & 13 and I 5 16 17 1 '4 2.130 1*130 1.160 (5219). 14.7'a33' 820*~6* Column J 8 .e e,,..-- !l. ;. ...i,,.. g.. Between Coluan Row Reecter Wall.m27 l 8 673'-0* 4 J Between 19 18 2 4 4.000 3.000 3.330 (3-223) 21.2 694'-6* 14 4 15 Be heen Reactor Wall.a28 s e.; ; y 673'-0* & Row 15 10 10 0 0 2.850 2.530 2.740 , j:] t.....,, -,,... (5237) 19.17. 694 ' 6
- 1 8
At Line,
- ;ar* '
Between 8.9 , J... '. .eac r Wall.m27 8 673'-4* & Between. 22 25 0 0 1.730 1.030 1.110 .y 9 c, s,., (5-27) 19.17 694 '-6
- Column J &
i .t. G s.... n 1.:..:.:,, _ ,.. r,;.. At L1ne ** {- V j,s.'. yj,3 .. ' {tpr..'). ' ,O ~ ~ Sh '.,. " f# .f25' 9 0* 8 10 - 15 'O' O 1.280 1.070 1.160 j l.!,. F h ;- 4-Column J & ..P. '.1
- .; ? ty,.
L: .., 9' g.- ~..'..*.';::,...,,..,. .m y >,. i. .3
- c. s,i,5...... - These areas were presented in Bethesda. Maryland on March 31. 1982.
- a.... '.;~t."/..!,ih,;,'...',The determination of actual material stren th utf1tring material test reports from LaSalle station is based on AC (318 77) provisions, as delineated in Sect on 4.3.1. . ; f.'.*y./. ' *. c. :t i, Z. 8 ~ M 1 'i'M.. fit'. jAll these bar's damages are in top of slab scattered in the entire bay. e fe .'. *; C. W.6 M,,:. i*
- ..e.
.S.- . ! 4. :. e . d t '* s,.,.. 'e }- . '.c s s. y.a. e '..s -.dtr N'..',,; 7than one hole.'When the damage in Colwnn F exceeds the damage reported in Column G. It indicates that a reinforcing z i "% * ~...c This would occur in a concrete espanston anchor baseplate asse-ibly where one reffiferetnq bar would be l. -.\\ '; ) va. . coinc w..u.. id,ent with a row'o.f concrete espanston anchors. 5., e ,u,. o. m. v..... ; * .v. w. :.-.. s,.v...,.. m.. l.,.E, .. c .A. S0?h&,t'.i&h.SV.?,ll&kN,'j.I:hf h ~ S P 'N * . 'v W "O{$. th..kh&h.h:.;l.M..! h., 0h ? ': % A :,. - . ?..;. t. w. t.w. .p,.t a d v.:. g.e. c,W....c.- (t .,.g,..e.w:...: c.;
- n.. 7.
.'/,,..'a, i a w.y. \\, - 8 M. M Q U N. M M f$>']h [ N I:'S':O..hS.h . i.. ',L -70 :) -. . -5 w....s
- . c.
s M' ' ' y ~ t d.. - M J,. N ; n.1 - '. ~ P.1 y .g!.e ..;% w t: o, 2- .- mn- ,,..,....tr. g,.y.c.q e wc.u; %.,. .,i ,, e. .v... pQ.*. ,L. 3., y. ...... :c.S v s, u..! wY m., i O r. . Q:.~..W., p*. :.;;':. ?l t *% q' i.. s
- 7,, w.;,, t * *M
.v. .e. w ( v.,..,,.,.. .u. ':;. f.. c....
- f. Q'..,., ;.s
].% .;.v.; -,, n..,..: (.? '.?- ...r..*
- i.
c.
- e.N [.y#b
. % R., 9'L*.*.*.'.*:.9.. $' '..;' n.. '.W.L '. s .: ?,. ,e .. g
- . l.
- u I *.*-
,2 c. .j. ?. t *.' ' M -
- &*Ti z
..M. 6 . " :.' }.* /...*.. ' v*<' Se ' c ~ ~.' * *g' ' *.~ e.< .MT ',.
- h. '. -:
. f'. 'W W. >, .. h...e.y;9...t R f:"1..#,,7. *. > / W. * ' 5..o* ; 6 9
- 1..!.F:e.:......:.' m -'. E
'@ s 4
- 1 i
/' 3 t' <. s,- F Y....u, h.m...s, e..s.s%g_?,u.^'s.,f! ;,;.i.n,', b r.: sy 4 . u. t. o.=/=l ..'4..'g-.., ..s r. '.,,',.,$. m'.r1**f:.0 7. ;n.s.-s.s.- . p7, ** p .ra ri s r. 3 f y,..) f f4 *....*,'g l *... ;., *.n.., 1
- 1.. 3. *
- 1. g * '
4 L .s . <,.u f,.g,. ...., e. -.. + .s s. sMDLC . m w.- '...s... _., s {. v ~ . + ,.., x. ih3h ih: h.{SUMPfARY OF NUMBER OF CONCRETE ELEMENTS FOR MICH DETAILED CALCULATIO '. b.9.3.;. a. f *7.'. 'li.. 3...' * ~ ; f..'.' M.,-r.f. t- /... ~
- 4..; 'y } ::.-.:..... -i. *.
4.- ...n... a..... .,. s u.....y;..... : ,7.e,n..c. . w..,,.. .,.i.,, . v. ~..... . w.>.a.r..: '.(:it~' =.*. :. ~: 1. p.6, .' i..}'.h Mf. %,".9.' 'efi.
- .: Total Number of Concrete.'
Number of Concrete Number of Concrete '50M gk :W 'T.'@: GA. ; d!". Elements ' Elements Where Rebar :'. ./. Elements Reviewed In Percent of .qqcW.. >.G < e.m - ^ Damages Are Identified Detail Concrete 3.;.g.;
- Concrete,.-
~ Elements I['S:$. N,.b,Y").s},g, W ;1 p; Unit,2 Areas ~ Unit 2 Areas Unit 2 Areas for Which h I. > Uni { l Reas Unit l Ar'eds R for i Agn.( t Cal u t ns j p; t fe...' - + Operation, .J . Opera tion ' Operation Were Made .. x. ,[,,-),' Siabs),lI[ 894? ' h 81,(( ' .285 50.. ' 28 5.' .50 100 L I .,, /.,,y.. Wal l s,"c... ' 'Jd. 3 90 ' f.' 76' -.'" '?; o s a.. .q. . s :.,. 36 '. - I ~ 170 36 100 170 Beams g: f 308 ( . ' 22 ' ' '38 4 0 38' 0 100 l ..ll.. :. 7
- Col umns.,. -
214
- 20 ; t t,
4..-.
- l
'68 0 68 - 0 100 TOTAL' 5 f - 1,,806-1.,' '1';9:.
- 561' "i :86',
~561 : 86 100 '.,... w..%... ~.. .s ..7.... s.., - ..i. ' ' c... :4 w..:4 3.,. :. m... c. e. .. +..
- .. >. s.
- ,.
.a ^ . Q..,;;. *:..s;- i..r.. m.. - ~ p. . ~: .s -..a
- ....s.
- . - u.
,,, v
- v...
s ..~. -+ s . f- ..,: u. n. e. .s .~ .. a.. : r r p t r.. - ~ TABLE 2.7-3
SUMMARY
OF ALL REINFORCING STEEL DAPAGE FOR UNIT SAFETY RELATED AREAS AND THOSE UNIT 2 AREAS REQ a
FOR UNIT 1 OPERATION
... g...t..,w ;..
...?.
,. : c.u..,
c
+
c H..'c<& ::%..,.,,
~:.: :. : '. W.
h.'
Total
. :.'G.,:L..
Total Damaged Bars in
- lU'.':;;..,. '.
- i. '.
Damaged Bars in.
Unit 2 Safety
<i.
Unit 1 Related Areas
'"e>
Type of.
Safety Related Required for
- f. ' ; M. '".
y.
, Hol e,..;:.. -. ;. :-
Areas.
Unit 1 Operation u.r n....,
&.T J
Cored Holes,.
- f :
F' I. ~
.t Passing Thru
'... J 3632 Concrete' 584
~
u.,.
pl?.n.
Cored Holes' W './ wl hk M M *
.Y
?
~
. Partially Pene.trating~
.c;.... D.
.c..,. 512...
4 a
~~
a.
-'. oncret.e.
4...
~
.v.
~. n_
. Drilled Holes.,.. :.:....n....,.. s.:<.
.. 4 -.
.v
~
~
for ConcreteN.*;.# '-
'.. f'.'.. -
3498
~
5~;'
Expansion Anchors ~^
213
^
e 3
..n ;
i.-
' ' ', Total-j 7642 801
- c..y..../....
m.v '... :.,
p.
....u
.. m y : m -..
f.
,u.
T a,...- y, -
.~..
J. ;;.s. %. a.
. i
- ".& ;f
.~. C G 4. 5..,a
.. m
.i..w.~
. M.
s
- ., '.. 3.c*;w
- :.. - : : ?,.c. :. n..
.c.;:.ct
.~ms * ?.;... : ~.t.... ~. c '....: v - : i. -
c-
- 2. w : -w: '. -
w ;
--b-
. :..v :
~
...:a:.n.,. %. '
w
. w
.,.s-
~
..... *i s. c, ~..;...l s. o;...
. :..L n.. u v,.,.:
..%e eo %. s;.. :.
rn?
~.
t
. ; ; ;..y:. : m. v.... :. -..
.v -
.n.,7
..:.i..
.A...,c.,.
n
- .:v
.t 3e. ;,..n..q.
..,S...
-4
':~.
p
.s.
- .w.
. 3. w. j ;. :.,.. -
3.,'
av
- ;. ~
..,. c:.... ;;: ;; y.*. a
.s lq...
,i.s.p. 3 :. %. :. 9.v.,_
u -
\\.,.,.. *..,. >.
'.'L...'.
..,. ~.
..s' t
r...
. v.
,v
.V.-..
-~ -
... :.3. - : !* ;
.. z,.. '.
~ :. 3.:.
1 n.
~
, ~
f., i. :. :. ;o... s.. m.. f. *..
.. : ::,..& +, ;.....j,
. c.' -
- :.. - u.
. m.... ;.
v:.. ;;.- : a
.w :, m:hp,.i
,. m 7..,
- c. <
7.
. ;....:. +
. ~:
.,......s-.s.
4
~. - *.
p 3
n.;,:..a.,. ~ i,. - @....,. ;..v:..'.e..:..ci..;,.,W:... 9ll~,
i.
..a
..WM x.
i.,..N.,b..~
.....,.iM,.:.
..J... '. !,
. e.?.
~4 :
M.i.
c-Nr:..
s :.. g, o. s
- p. ;.......
.~. v z.
- ...,n..*:.:.. r. <.
. r,.:a
. c.
....,.6..,<..-
s a
...,.~,w...
' * ;;f;m i)f* 7.,.W... R...a.-. p.;a...a. a.
.(
w
.....,-.,....S,(,
.s
- a. e.
,..n,....,v...
s.
s..
..........;..,..s i- 0..
- ...y:.
.i.
.M n..
....,.. 9.1 1./.u;;.cl L.%. g3, :a.. :.. s. p..,,. L..,....-e.v..
. J:
..s.
.~
'.:u.9~
.y. :.
e
.... Q
.d r,,* %.. e, r
....N<....",
2.
r.
... t
.a, m
.s.
...,.m.;.
..,... s..
..yr.....
3
...a.?i.s,.. i
.L..
3
.. a w.. v.... v,.
.t,c,..,. V..
w..,;.....
.w.e.
.;. m:.
.a...,,..
\\
. u,..., j
.(
.a.... v.,...r.
- m.. tc. u. 3.,,g..,.
- ..,m..-
....s...
?
- y:,
.t.,.
y.r...; - <<
...,.,;..i.. '< -. -4. : '....r...,g c.;
.. > w.-. 3. t..
72.,
a'...
d.
~;
.w n.W... Q v,,... s. p,,... w.!...J. a..
.s r
c.,,..,.....,.j,
...z...
.t.'.
.~
. u. n a....r.~,,.
,A J.:. h W*g. q -b
.3r
-.U..* *:
e ar :.;.u,. : ;.u.a. '..... *. :... f* N.n,:
- u...s } * -
s
- \\...
m
..s.
V.',.;-@ N'. 4b'6.',M :.n; F " i.....c..
. " M.:...'. 4-*
Ji 3 ;
- n '. s.. ' ' *
- s..
s.
- k. ;. '.. s -, 5.e.
..i w -.
4, C '.i ,
....r...
g.
-