ML20041F034

Forwards Response to 820112 Request for Addl Info & Revised FSAR Sections 2.4,2.5,3.2,3.7 (B) & App 2G.Detailed Summary of Representative Field Control Tests for Engineered Backfill Provided

ML20041F034
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/12/1982
From:	Devincentis J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
SBN-228, NUDOCS 8203160113
Download: ML20041F034 (150)

Text

C g

su a swim lPUBLIC SEAVICE Enyneedng Office:

Companyof New Hampshre 1671 Worcester Road Framinoham, Massachusetts 01701 (617) - 872-8100 March 12, 1982

%i FP -

SBN-228

(/,

T.F. B 7.1.2

(

e

+,

C-w 15 I932:.. ' ',

Z "y"?h~

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission J

Wa shington, D. C.

20555 1

.?

y

~

Attention:

Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief e,

Licensing Branch #3

~

Division of Licerising Re f e re nc es :

(a)

Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 (b) USNRC Letter, dated January 12, 1982, " Request for Additional Information - Seabrook Station," F. J. Miraglia to W. C. Tallman l

Su bj ec t :

Responses to 241 Series RAIs; (llydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch)

Dear Sir:

We have enclosed responses to the subject RAIs, which you forwarded in Re f e re nc e (b).

Also enclosed are the following revised FSAR sections which supplement the subject re spons e :

2. 4, 2. 5, 3. 2, 3. 7(B), Appendix 2G l

Ve ry t ruly you rs,

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY Z /b>

John DeVincentis Project Manager JDV : ALL: dad D

s Enclosure I{

8203160113 820312 PDR ADOCK 05000443 A

PDR

241.1 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, provide, in Section (2.5.4.2) 2.5.4.2 of the FSAR, a detailed and quantitative discussion of the criteria used in determining that rock samples taken and tested from the boring locations identified sufficiently define the appropriate properties used in the design of Seismic Category I foundations at the site.

Include discussions of the considerations given to field RQD values and the results of field seismic surveys and laboratory sonic tests in your projection of rock properties throughout the site.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.2 identifies the rock properties used in the design of Seismic Category I foundations. It also discusses the adequacy of the field and laboratory studies for determination of rock properties at the site.

1

241.2 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, provide, in Section (2.5.4.2) 2.5.4.2 of the FSAR, a summary of the results of field compaction testing to include results of field density and moisture content tests performed in conjunction with Quality Control of backfill placement under and adjacent to safety-related structures.

Present the results in a format that will allow ready verification of compliance with compaction specifications for each type of fill and backfill material used.

Present separate data for each type of backfill material including separate breakouts of data for materials placed in conjunction with Seismic Category I structures, electrical duct banks, manholes, pipelines and for safety-related flood protection structures.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.2 including Figures 2.5-44, 44a, 44b, 44c, 44d, 44c and 45 provides a detailed summary of representative field control tests for engineered backfill. Separate data is provided for each type of backfill material.

241.3 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, provide, in Section (2.5.4.2) 2.5.4.2 of the FSAR, a summary of RQD results obtained in the core drilling operations at the site.

Provide an evaluation of the significance of the results related to your assessment of the quality of the bedrock at the site af ter completion of excavation.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.2 se maarizes the RQD data from the plant site borings and compareu the RQD's to the condition of rock encountered in the site excavations. The RQD's correlated well with rock conditions observed during construction.

l l

241.4 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, present, in Section (2.5.4.5) 2.5.4.5 of the FSAR, on plot plans and on geologic sections and profiles, the location and limits of excavations, fills and backfills associated with the pre-action valve buildings, the enclosure for the condensate storage tank, tank farm (tunnels),

including dikes and foundations for refueling water storage tanks (RWST) and reactor makeup water storage tank, and the protective structures addressed in Section 2.4.5.5 of the FSAR.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.5 including Figures 2.5-41a, 42a, 42b, 42c, 42d, 54, 55 and 56 provides detailed profiles of excavations and engineered backfills.

i x

241.5 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, provide, in Section (2.5.4.5) 2.5.4.5 of the FSAR, figures showing plans and cross sections of typical as-constructed sections of Seismic Category I pipelines and electrical duct bank runs.

Indicate limits of excavation and include a soil profile indicating depth of each type of fill and backfill material used. Limits of special embedment materials, such as sand cement mixtures, should also be identified.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.5 including Figures 2.5-41a, 42a, 42b, 42c and 42d provides detailed profiles of excavations and engineered backfills.

l m.

241.6 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, present, in Section (2.5.4.5.b) 2.5.4.5, full details of the monitoring measures used in making the observations identified in Section 2.5.4.5.b.

Present a summary of the data collected to date and describe the criteria used in your decision to terminate the observations.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.5 indicates that measurements of heave or rebound of the rock in the excavations were not taken.

However, no instances of rock behavior or excavation and foundation movements attributable to heave were observed. This is consistent with expected behavior, since the calculated maximum rock heave in Seismic Category I excavations was 0.25 inch in the center of the bottom of the reactor excavations. Heave of this magnitude would have no significant effect on the properties of the rock below the excavations or on the performance of the structures placed in the excavations.

i

. ~.

241.7 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, identify, in Section (2.5.4.7) 2.5.4.7 of the FSAR, the design values of the dynamic propetties of the soils and rock for each soil profile used in your analysis of the response of soils to dynamic.(seismic and wave) loading -

conditions. Discuss and justify the process used in selecting each design value and the appropriateness of the selected design value in relation to its compatibility to the analytic model used in the analysis.

Include information for typical soil profiles associated with each foundation for Seismic Category I stiuctures as identified in Table 3.2-1 of the FSAR and the foundations of the four safety-related protective structures as identified in Section 2.4.5.5 of the FSAR.

^ <

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.7 describes the dynamic properties and subsurf ace profiles of soil and rock used in the seismic analyses of Seismic Category I structures. The determination of the dynamic properties from the field and laboratory test data is also d escribed.

l Revised FSAR Section 2.5.5 describes the dynamic properties and subsurface profiles used for seismic analysis of the revetments, I

which are not Category I structures.

l 1-t i

e

\\

L L

I i

l l

/

e

/

1. - +

~

l o

5 e

i j

e l

241.8 '

In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, expand, in Section (2.5.4 0) 2.5.4.8 of the FSAR, the discussion of liquefaction potential of l

lV foundation materials and structural backfill under and adjacent to i

Seismic Category I and safety-related structures to provide support and justification for the position taken that the backfill materials used 'at the site are not now, nor in the future will

'b'come, susceptible to liquefaction., Discuss how compacting the

.e

.ptructural fill.and backfill to 95% maximum dry density determined

'by ASn1 Test Method designation 1557-70 will preclude liquefaction and/or; excessive settlement of the fill and backfill under SSE loading by 'teiereacing studies or analyses by others which were used to support your determinations.

i

RESPONSE

Pevised FSAR Section 2.5.4.8 provides discussion and references

, demonstrating that there is no potential for liquefaction or I-significant cyclic deformations under the SSE loading conditions

/

for any of the engineered backfill materials.

/

ar' s

4 p

9 3

.)

/

r 4e M

4 1

/

/

k 4

4 e

I

, i f

i Y

+

1 -

g

,e

241.9 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 170, identify, in Section (2.5.4.10) 2.5.4.10 of the FSAR, the design values of the static properties of the rock and all backfill materials used in conjunction with Seismic Category I and protective facility design analyses.

Discuss and justify the process used in selecting the design values. Describe, in detail, the methods employed in the analysis of bearing capacity and settlement and justify the applicability of the method to the site conditions. Present information in this subsection to describe the type of foundation for each Seismic Category I and safety-related structure, the size of each sat and the static bearing pressure exerted by the mat on the foundation mat erial.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.10 provides a discussion of bearing capacity and actual bearing pressures for Seismic Category I structures. The calculated settlement for the most heavily loaded structure is provided.

The maximum settlement resulting from the SSE seismic loading is also provided for Seismic Category I electrical manholes, duct banks, and service water pipes supported on off-site borrow or tunnel cuttings.

I t

r

~. _

241.10 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, describe, ist Section (2.5.4.10) 2.5.4.10 of the FSAR, the methods used to estimate the dynamic lateral earth pressures on subsurface walls of the plant

, facilities. Provide the maximum pressures calculated and the vertical distribution of those pressures on subsurface walls of Seismic Category I structures. Substantiate the soil strength design parameters used, based upon as-built data presented in Section 2.5.4.2 of the FSAR.

RESPO!!SE:

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.4.10 including Figures 2.5-52 and 53 provides lateral pressure diagrams and parameters for both static and dynamic loading. The basis for the lateral pressure diagrams is described. Maximum lateral pressures are also described.

t w

l 241.11 In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.70, present, in Section (2.5.5) 2.5.5 of the FSAR, information concerning the static and dynamic (earthquake and wave) stability of slopes associated with the protective structure identified in Section 2.4.5.5 of the FSAR.

Include effect of SSE loading in the dynamic stability analysis and provide an estimate of slope displacements anticipated during an SSE. Present this information under Sections 2.5.5.1 and 2.5 5.4, as appropriate.

RESPONSE

Revised FSAR Section 2.5.5 provides an analysis of the static stability and dynamic deformations of the revetments. Although 4

the reveteents are not Category I structures, the SSE was used to calculate the deformations during an earthquake.

l l

l 1

SB 1 & 2 FSAR i.ocal occurrences of coarser grained glacial and/or recent deposits are evident both to the northwest and under the tidal marshes east of the site (Figure 2.4-26).

The1e deposits, however, contain either brackish or salty water, or would be

]

subject to salt water intrusion under pumping conditions because

}

g of their proximity to salt water bodies.

e o

1. Ad _*

On the site property, bedrock occurs at or near the surface, I

becoming deeper under the tidal marshes to the south and north where it is as much as 70 feet or more below sea level. On the pi site, the bedrock forms a partially buried ridge trending in an r;8 approximately easterly direction.

It is overlain by a sandy E

T textured, but well compacted, till up to 62 feet thick. A 9

sequence of marine and recent marsh deposits normally rests on a

Y the till along or just north of the Browns River near the hv $

northern site boundary and also in adjoining areas to the south ti f (Figure 2.4-25).

I( $

o

-A West of the site, thin outwash deposits overlie either till or kCd marine silts and clays. To the east, toward llampton Beach, gg, medium to fine sands, 50 feet or more in thickness, occur just q

"4 below ground Icvel on recent marsh deposits (Figure 2.4-26).

The o

7 sands, which appear permeable, are essentially saturated with 3

h.{' 4 salt water. 'Ihey are outwash or older shore deposits with 6$

beach sands overlying them in the llampton Beach area.

a o y.

9 4'N-In the site area, the water table is found at depths no greater

{,1 M than 17 feet, and generally less than 10 feet. West of the site

$ {tr>d area in the sandy outwash material it is usually within 5 feet of v."'

the ground surface.

g

• - o LI (1 predominant groundwater movement is toward the tidal areas;

$ll however, local flew lines are modified by variations in Eg {g permeability of water bearing materials and by topographg{.

• Plofs m

o eo M of available water table levels in the plant area 4* shown on Figure 2.4-27AA Rate of groundwater movement is expected to range from a few feet to several tens of feet per year.

Based on available information, the average permeability of both the liill and bedrock is less than 10 gpd per ft2 (gallons per day per square foot). Permeability of the marine deposits is less than 1 gpd per ft2, c.

Utilization of Croundwater by the Plant Groundwater will be used during operation of Seabrook Station for potable, sanitary and nonsafety related purposes. The total estimated demand is 110 x 106 gallons per year or about 200 gallons per minute.

2.4-43 J

Figure 2.4-27a

1) Add new Figure 2.4-27a ( attached) directly behind existing Pigure 2.4-27.

+

r i

l

(

'/

N-

-+-

i

~-

y j

4 r.

e l

%n TIDAL MARSH y

t s

M"E

(,,

14*

+

to j-j se l

n-

//

s O

J'

~

,/

s

.g

_t

~

+1*

3. h ~ u,-r..,

s

\\

I t

APPROXIMATE GROUi1DWATER ELEVATIO 3 CO!1 TOURS liotes:

1) Elevation in feet above MSL.

2) Contours shown are based on water level readings in borings at the time the borings were performed.

3) Groundwater contours shown are superimposed on a copy of Fig. 2.5-12 from Seabrook FSAR.

Approximate Groundwater Elevation Contours r

original Surface Topography W

^ S' s/Q.-J

' =::-

D N

r, 3

59 f" ?

J.

k(I,e n

/

/

\\

I

^'

l 4

o' -

6 4

r F

(

v

~

-4

/

l

/ --- f G

( '

n s.

TIDAL MARSH X

e

/

N o

3 k

.l d

DATUM = MEAN SEA LEVEL 9,

O' 10 0*

200- 300' 400*

500'

\\

~

lyg5=]

L-e L

f)

_ Ire.E 4

17* 34'

-s N

~

/

i

-GROUNDWATER CONTOURS IN PLANT PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 SITE AREA PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION' FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l

FIGE_'4 - 27a

i SB 1 & 2 FSAR N.

site is founded on hard, competent crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks of i

Mesozoic and older geologic ages which have not been subjected to dynamic tectonic stresses for more than 100 million years. ne only withdrawal of 1

subsurface fluids occurring at or adjacent to the site is of minor consequence, pumping groundwater for construction purposes and domestic water supply, and does not cause ground settlement at the site.

Based on investigation results discussed in Appendix 211 and observations in deep bedrock excavations during

{

construction of the project, the bedrock at the site is not subject to anomalous unrelieved residual stress.

The previous loading history of the bedrock foundation materials at the site involved several episodes of compressional orogenic stress during Paleozoic time, and one or more periods of extensional crustal stress during Mesozoic time, all prior to 100 million years ago.

The bedrock at the site does not display evidence of tectonic loading more recently than Mesozoic time. During episodes of Pleistocene continental glaciation, occurring intermittently during the past 2 million years up until about 25,000 to 15,000 years ago, the site was successively loaded by glacial ice which may have amounted to a mile or more in thickness. There is no evidence of bedrock deformation at the site caused either by the ice loading or by the subsequent post glacial crustal rebound.

AlthoughPaleozoicandEa[tsly Mesozoic deformational events have locally created faults, folds, j n

, and slickenside surfaces at the site, there m

g is no evidence that these localized features adversely affect the struc-tural integrity of the crystalline bedrock on which the site is founded.

~

-AHwneensoMdated-sehmeteria!> havc bccr :: cved for the purpose-+&

founding :!te f ci!!!!ce er eerd bed:::h, cercrete 529 fill er " ell-ec=pected ::!! f!!!.

2.5.4.2 Properties of Subsurface Materials g

stegory I structures are founded on bedrock, on concret L

extending to aou ock, or on controlled backfill exte o sound

-+ g j

bedrock. Ocatrolled back laced around smic Category I structures.

'j '..

Engineering properties of the bedroc site measured in both the field and the laboratory are prese n Subsection

.a below. The properties

,,3,$

of the fill coner

- controlled backfill materials ar ibed in 2g Subsect'

.5, Excavations and Backfill.

Properties of the overburden soils at the site are not required for evaluation of safety-related structures since all Category I structuresh!!! Se surrounded by h.ne!!d backfill. Deavailabledataontheoverburdenksoilsissummarized briefly and referenced in Subsection 2.5.4.2.b.

ore. fcueded on sound b<drock. or cacy ne ered a.

Bedrock Properties bo ck_Ril edendm3 b 5Ned b ed r ock, a + d o.c c.

The bedrock at the plant site consists primarily of quartz diorite

..D (Newburyport formation) with -en occasional diabase dikefor inclusion [(

W of quartzite (Kitteryformation)pThe following index and engiceering properties were measured for the rock at the plant site and along lenced *1 ob 1 2.5-103

Insert 1 of 2 on page 2.5-103 All seismic Category I structures are founded on sound bedrock or on engineered backfill extending to sound bedrock. Engineered backfill was also placed around all seismic Category I structures.

Engineering properties of the bedrock at the site measured both in the field and in the laboratory are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.2.a below.

The engineered backfill which is described in Subsection 2.5.4 5 consists of Fill concrete, Backfill concrete, Of fsite borrow, Tunnel cuttings, or Sand-cement.

As showr. in Table 2.5-19, fill concrete was used as the engineered backfill beneath the foundations of all seismic Category I structures except for (1) safety-related electrical duct banks, (2) five electrical manholes, and (3) the service water pipes. The latter three items were founded on offsite borrow or tunnel cuttings. Properties of the engi-neered backfill materials are discussed in Subsection 2 5 4.5.

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-103 and very minor inclusions of quartzitic schist. The bedrock conditions in the vicinity of the seismic category I structures were investigated by 42 borings extending to depths up to 169 ft below ground surface, or up to about 90 f t below the bottom of the reactor excavations.

Representative samples of the diorite and quartzitic schist were selected for laboratory testing from various depths in three of the borings:

E1-1 at the center of the Unit 1 reactor, E2-1 at the center of the Unit 2 reactor, and B-7, near the waste processing building.

Crosshole and uphole geophysical measurements were made in seven borings near Unit 1.

These tests are sufficient to define the bedrock proper-ties in the plant area for static evaluation of foundation bearing capacity, excavation heave, and foundation settlement.

Rock properties were not required for seismic analyses since bedrock was treated as a rigid boundary, as described in Subsection 3.7(B).2.3.

Additional data on the properties of rock in the vicinity of the site were obtained during the field and laboratory studies for design of the circulating water tunnels. The results of laboratory tests on spe-cimens from the tunnel borings were considered when evaluating rock pro-perties for design of seismic Category I foundations.

l

SB 1 & 2 FSAR and are suem oested m To bic. 2. 5 -l'2..

the circulating water tunnel alignments,f hese properties were obtained from seismic surveys, rock coring (including oriented V

cores), borehole testing, and laboratory testing:

Classification and Description of Rock o

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) o o

Permeability of Rock Mass Dip and Orientation of Joints, Slickensides and Foliation o

(Core Orientation) o Compression (P) and Shear (S) Wave Velocities o

Density of Rock Unconfined-Compressive Strength o

o Static Modulus o

Poisson's Ratio o

Dynamic Shear Modulus o

In-Situ Rock Stress o

Rock Hardness

<r -

The various field exploration programs are described in Subsection 2.5.4.3.

1.

Classification and Description of Rock Rock cores from all borings were classified and described in the field office based on visual examination by a qualified geologist.

Rock classifications and descriptions are presented on the boring logs. See Subsection 2.5.4.3 and Appendix 2D for the locations of boring logs for each boring program.

Bedrock exposed in excavations at the site and in the tunnels was also classified by visual examination.

Photographs of typical excavations are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.5, and results of excavation logs are summarized in Subsection 2.5.1.2.

2.

Rock Quali v Designation (RQD)

L Replace udh Ihtrringmc t for the initial site cing C the Rock Quality Desi measured for each cor M ned as the rati ngth-of anagd_

2.5 -104

Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-104 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is defined as the ratio of the length of sound pieces of -ore, 4 inches or longer, recovered in the core barrel to the diste e that the core barrel was advanced, expressed as a tured in ten of the borings made at the locations percent. RQD was mt of site foundation excavations and in all of the borings along the course of the intake and discharge tunnels. An NX size (2-1/8-in.-

diameter) double tube core barrel was used for all rock cores for which RQD was evaluated. The RQD data are shown both numerically and graphi-cally on the loring loss which are presented in Appendix 2F (borings E2-11 through E2-18) and in Reference 118 (Intake and Discharge Tunnel Borings).

The ten site foundation borings for which RQD was measured are summarized below:

Boring No.

Structure Inclination Elevation Range Avg RQD Avg RQD (degrees from (MSL) (in rock)

(%)

(%) (be-low El vertical)

-40*)

E2-11 Reector 1 40

+11 to -102 87 89 E2-12 Reactor 1 41

+21 to -104 78 70 E2-13 Reactor 1 41

+30 to - 98 76 73 E2-14 Reactor 1 41.5

+27 to - 93 68 85 E2-15 Reactor 2 41.5

+ 4 to -110 66 73 E2-16 Reactor 2 41

+ 7 to -108 61 66 E2-1)

Reactor 2 41

- 2 to -111 54 61 E2-18 Reactor 2 39

+ 3 to -112 49 53 AIT-1 Pumphouse Vertical

- 6 to -304 73 72 Intake Shaft ADT-1 Punphouse Vertical

+ 3 to -288 77 78 Discharge Shaft

• El -40 is the approximate excavation grade for Reactors 1 and 2 and the intake and discharge structures.

l l

l

L w t lofI an page 2 5-fo4 (c.ovthmud)

Dorings E2-11 through E2-14 and E2-15 through E2-18 are inclined borings which were made around the perimeter of Reactors 1 and 2, respectively. These borings were performed to provide data for design of the side slopes for the reactor excavatiors.

Borings AIT-1 and ADT-1 were made at the sites of the vertical intake and discharge shafts entering the east side of the Pumphouse. The boring locations are shown in Fig. 2.5-14.

RQD's obtained from the reactor site angle borings correlated well with conditions encountered in site excavations. The borings indicated generally very poor to fair quality rock within 10 to 20 ft of the bedrock surface.

Poor quality rock encountered in shallow excavations commonly required removal so that final excavation surfaces consisted of sound rock, as described in Subsection 2.5.4.14.

RQD values below the of bedrock varied across the site depending upon rock type, top 20 ft joint spacing and orientation relative to boring orientation, incipient jointing, and the incidence of dikes and faults.

In general, the lowest RQD values were obtained in rock where joints were closely spaced and joint surfaces were highly polished, coated with chlorite or severely weathered. These conditions were observed more commonly in the borings penetrating diorite and quartzite beneath Reactor 2.

A reasonable indication of areas where poor quality rock would have to be removed in the deep excavations was provided by RQD values. A few areas of poor quality rock not readily identified by the borings were encountered in the deep excavations and required excavation beyond the design lines.

Treatment of areas requiring overexcavation is described in Subsection 2.5.4.14.

In the diorite rock at the tunnel shaft locations, Boring AIT-1 indicated somewhat lower RQD above El -130 than ADT-1.

However, during excavation, conditions at the two shafts were quite similar, indicating that the poorer RQD values in AIT-1 can be attributed to the predomi-nance of low angle joints in this boring. These shallow dipping joints were of minor significance during excavation.

Several other borings of significant depth were made at the site (Figure 2.5-114) out no RQD's were measured for this core.

These included borings of the B, D, and E series made from 1968 through 1974, logs for which are included in Appendix 2D.

Rock quality as represented by fracture spacing on these logs is consistent with the rock quality as in excavations and the borings with measured RQD on the site.

seen l

RQD values were used primarily to provide general indications of rock quality across the site.

RQD values, however, were also used to estimate Young's modulus of the in situ rock mass by using empirical relationships correlating RQD with Young's modulus as determined from laboratory tests on intact samples or from seismic velocities as deter-mined in the field. This use of RQD is discussed in Section 2.5.4.5.b.

l N-i

SB 1 & 2 FSAR

\\

. f core, 4 in. or longer, recovered in the cor rel p

to the dista hat the core barrel was adv

, expressed as a percent.

The RQD data are oth numerica

' graphically on the bori See Subsection 2.5.4.3 and

'x 2D locations of boring logs for each boring progt 3.

Permeability of Rock Mass W ter pressure tests were performed in the bedrock in many of the boreholes drilled for the circulating water tunnels.

Each test was performed on a 20 ft length of borehole, and an equivalent permeability of the rock mass was calculated based on the assumption that the water uptake was uniformly distributed throughout the zone tested. Measured permeabilities for the 20-ft zones ranged from 0 to 7 x 10-3 cm/sec, as shown on Table 2.5-12.

Permeabilities were computed using the procedure described in pages 544-546 of the Earth Manual (Reference 121). The test procedures and test pressures, water takes, and computed permeabilities are presented in Reference 117 and Reference 118.

A pumping test was performed in Borehole F5 which is about 8,000 ft east of the plant site on Hampton Beach. The pumping test procedures are summarized in Subsection 2.5.4.3 and described in detail in Reference 117.

A. depth of approximately 200 f t of bedrock was tested. The equivalent coefficient of permeability for the 200 ft depth was computed to be 1 x 10-3 cm/sec.

4.

Dip and Orientation of Joints, Slickensides and Foliation The dip of joints, slickensides and foliation observed in l

the rock cores were measured and are reported on the boring l

logs.

Orientation of joints, slickensides and foliation was measured in portions of about 53 borings using the Christensen Core Orientation System described in Subsection 2.5.4.3.e.2.

l The oriented core data is contained in Reference 117 l

and Appendix 2F.

The dip and orientation of joints, slickensides and foliation in exposed be" Brock outcrops at the site and in the excavations are gescribed in Subsection 2.5.1.2 and shown on Figures 2.5-13, 2.5-17 and 2.5-18.

2.5-105

SB 1 6 2 FSAR r

5.

Compression and Shear Wave Velocities Comp nn (P) wave velocities for the bedrock at an Re,plo.cc wdh the vicinity e site were measured by seismi W veys, Intert I c81 uphole and crosshole g

, ical tests d ratory sonic tests.

The data indicate tha ajor rock types (diorite and quartzitic schis ve essentially me P wave velocity.

Die range o e velocities for each type of meas nt p n in Table 2.5-12.

[ rn 9 uj

,o a

y AThear (S) wave velocities of the diorite were measured in og

.o the crosshole and uphole tests. The range of test results o.o ff is summarized in Table 2.5-12.

os c-+

u..M, N '

The seismic surveys and uphole and crosshole tests are described in Subsection 2.5.4.3.

The laboratory sonic wave velocity p

8 d

tests were performed onkintact core specimens using procedures g

generally in accordance with ASTM D2845.

Detailed results f

$I.

of the sonic tests are contained in Appendix 2G and in Reference j

dJ7, Co f e *M 7 6 L 6. Rock Density dQ'c2 cJ ds v 't C Values of density were determined for selected rock specimens f

• T-j used in the laboratory testing programs.

Results of these ofM8g measurements are summarized in Table 2.5-12. Detailed test 6 m3o results are contained in Appendix 2G and Reference ll7.y o 4 pp } O.c 5 ,, a. m 7. Unconfined-Compressive Strength 8 C d. Unconfined-compressive strength was measured on 31 air-dry rock core specimens using procedures described in ASTM D2938. The test results are summarized in Table 2.5-12. The data indicate a wide variation in strengths for each type of rock. The diorite has an average compressive strength of 18,300 psi and the quartzite an average compressive strength of 12,100 psi Thc. one fest on guoritdir_ schist in the. plant aceo. indica 4es cc-pressive. 54cenef h 5.md ar b the d'ioc'd e.. Detailed test data are presented in Appendix 2G and Reference 117. 8. Young's Modulus Values of initial tangent Young's modulus (E ) for static i l loading were determined f rom 25 of the unconfined-compression tests on rock core specimens. On 12 of the specimens, the l secant modulus at 50% of the ultimate compressive strength (Es50) was calculated, while on the other 13 specimens, the tangent modulus at 50% of ultimate compressive strength (Et 50) wa s compu ted. The range of values for each of these [' moduli is shown in iaole 2.5-12. l 2.5-106

Insert 1 of 2 on page 2.5-106 In situ compression (P) wave velocities for the bedrock types at and in the vicinity of the site were measured by seismic surveys and uphole and crosshole geophysical tests. Compression wave veloci-ties were also measured by laboratory sonic tests. The data indi-cate that both major rock types (diorite and quartzite) have essentially the same P wave velocity. Both the in situ and laboratory data indicate uniform P wave velocities across the site area, indicating a general uniformity of bedrock properties for engineering design. The range of wave velocities for each type of measurement is shown on Table 2.5-12. The sonic test results shown in Appendix 2G indicate that an increase in confining pressure from 0 to 3000 pai causes less than a 3% increase in P wave velocity. An increase in axial load from 0 to 1000 psi causes less than 4% increase in P wave velocity.

SB 1 & 2 FSAR 'M 5edatasnaic.=u Re.pkue wdh T Tnge t lofl g M u r_nicaulus aalues-w Luth major types of rock (dicrits and quartzite). Detailed test results are contained in Appendix 2G and Reference 117. 9. Poisson's Ratio Poisson's ratio for static loading was determined for 10 of the unconfined compression tests on rock core specimens. Values were calculated at the start of loading and at a load of 50% of ultimate compressive strength. The range of values is shown in Table 2.5-12. Poisson's ratios for the diorite samples covered the entire range shown, while values for the quartzite (2 tests) were at the low end of the range. Individual test results are tabu-lated in Appendix 2G. Poisson's ratios for dynamic loading vere determined from the uphole and crosshole geophysical tests. These tests were performed in the diorite only, and summarized in Table 2.5-12. 10. Dynamic Shear Modulus j Values of dynamic shear modulus for the quartz diorite were determined from the uphole and crosshole tests. The range of values is shown in Table 2.5-12. 11. In-Situ Rock Stresses In-situ rock stresses were measured in Boring OCIA, near the center of Reactor No. 1. This location was selected because the seismic and geophysical testing indicated higher than average compressional wave velocities in this area. The rock stresses were measured at five points between depths of 33 and 42 f t. The values of horizontal compressive stress are summarized below: Range Average Stress Largest 150 to 2,150 psi 1,240 psi stress Smallest 50 to 1,570 psi 860 psi stress 2.5-107

Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-107 The data indicate similar modulus values for both major types of The one test on quart-rock (diorite and quartzite) at the plant site. zitic schist in the plant area indicated modulus similar to the diorite and the quartzite. Young's modulus was used in calculating foundation heave and settle-Adjustment ment due to excavation and structural loads, respectively. to account for of the Young's modulus measured on intact specimens, the average RQD in the field, is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.5.b. Young's modulus was not used in dynamic analyses as the rock was assumed to be a rigid boundary below foundation grades as described in Subsection 3.7(b).2.3.

SB 1 & 2 FSAR j The thickness of each stratum and standard penetration test blow-i counts in the overburden are shown on the boring logs in References i 117 an( 118. i Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples from the plant l site and tunnel borings to determine the general properties of the overburden. Table 2.5-13 contains an index of the tests per-formed, the test methods used, and the reference in which the test data may be located. 2.5.4.3 Exploration i l An index of the exploration programs is contained in Table 2.5-14 indicating the location of the boring logs and/or detailed report prepared for each program. l Subsurface explorations were performed to determine soil and rock conditions at the site and along the circulating water tunnel alignments, and to investi - gate geologic features in the vicinity of the site. The explorations were performed in several dif ferent programs during the period 1968 through 1979, and consisted of over 340 borings in soi! and rock, ten shallow trenches, ) 200 seismic refraction and seismic reflection lines, uphole and cross-hole velocity measurements, water pressure permeability tests, one pumping test, and in-situ rock stress measurements in a boring near the center of the containment l for Unit 1. Soil and/or rock samples were obtained from each of the borings, and rock core was oriented in many of the bo' rings to determine the strike i and dip of joints, fractures, foliation, and contacts between different 3;,ggp rock types. 16f l Following, in chronological order, is a brief description of each of the subsurface investigation programs. a. Initial Borings (A, B, C and P Series) Between October 1968 and July 1969, 157 borings (A, B, C and P Series) were drilled on the plant site and in the vicinity of the site to obtain data on the bedrock and overburden soils. Forty-eight (48) borings-(B-Series) were drilled in the site area to depths of 20 to 176 ft. The thickness of overburden was 0 to 94.5 ft. Split-spoon samples and Standard Penetration Test N-values were obtained in the overburden in all but five of' the borings. Rock cores were obtained in each boring from the bedrock surface to the bottom of the boring. 4 Fourteen (14) observation wells were installed in 12 of the borings using oneeof two methods. Where bedrock occurred near the surface (less than 8 f t), the 4-in. steel drill casing was seated on the rock and left in place, formina an open-hole observation well in the bedrock. Where the tedrock was deeper than about 8 f t, f plastic observation well with gravel pack was installed. In 2.5-109

i i Insert 1 of 1'on page 2.5-109 The subsurf ace explorations were performed under the direct field The rock supervision of a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. core from all borings was logged in the field office by a qualified 4 i geologist. i t I i i i f 1 i i + f I i 1 L i i i i 4 4 ~

i l i 1 SB 1 & 2 FSAR 1 m q -[1 1. Plant site 1 0 0 2. Tidal marsh east of site c1 $ 0 < 0 d W U 3. Hampton Harbor f 4 c 0 f f 51 4. State Park - State Beach (barrier beach) ) 4 $0 y T 5. Of fshore from the barrier beach l "lI 4dh l The objective of these surveys was to determine the depth to bedrock h and to locate major seismic boundaries in the overburden. fau Fathometer surveys were performed in Hampton Harbor and offshore e e, of the barrier beach in March and April 1973 to determine bottom jS contours. I*g O

a. a-g D The results of the seismic and fathometer surveys are discussed y

e in Subsection 2.5.4.4. Plans of the survey lines and profiles g and contour maps of the eurvey data are contained in Appendix 2K. E* The--G-end FSc ric; b oring; uc rc ::cd - to c on f!- th ::: lte cf l @ ceir-io-end-fothometer%,eveye.V The loca tions of these borings relative to the seismic lines are shown on the plans in Appendix 2K. fD Depths to the bottom of the boring and to bedrock or refusal are b shown on the seismic profiles. d. In-Situ Wave Velocity Messurements Compression (P) and shear (S) wave velocity measurements were made in the boreholes at the' proposed reactor locations 'eing up-hole ~and cross-hole techniques. Up-hole data were obtained in Boring B-38 and cross-hole measurements were made in Borings B-22, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. The locations of these borings are shown on Figure 2.5-14. The results of the in-ritu velocity measurements are summarized in Table 2.5-12. Details of the test procedure are given in Subsection 2.5.4.4. e. Subsurface Investigations For Circulating Water Tunnels (AAIT, AIT, ADT and F Series) 1. Boring Program During the period April 1973 to May 1974, geotechnical investigation #s were performed to provide engineering and geolpgic data pertinent to the design and construction of the circulating water tunnels and the vertical shafts at the plant and ocean ends of the tunnels. These geotechnical O investigations also provided additional geologic data needed %) for interpreting the regional and site geology. ) 2.5-111 \\ i

SB &2 F >A = Rock cores were taken using NX (2-1/8-in.) or NQ wireline (1-7/8-in.) core barrels. Core recovery, RQD, and distribution of high angle joints (dip greater than 500) were measured for each section of rack core. Water pressure tests were performed in all but or c boring to determine permeability of the rock. Schmid t Hammer hardness was measured on selected core sections from each boring. The data from these tests and measurements are shown on the boring 1(.g s in 4ference 118. Profiles of soil and bedrock surface, rock type, core recovery, RQD, rock weathering, permeability and high angle joint f requency are also shown in Reference 118. Subsurface conditions along the tunnels are summarized in the paper by Desai et al.(Reference 116). 1. Exploratory Trenches at Reactor 2 Four test trenches about 200-ft-long and 20-ft-wide were excavated in an "X" pattern at the location of the Unit 2 containment to examine the stratigraphy of the overburden and the soil-rock contact. Previous borings in this area had indicated the presence of several faults in the bedrock, and the trenches were excavated to determine whether any fault-related displacement had occurred in the overburden. l have. l' No evidence of such displacement was observed. The overburden {~[and] bedrock in this area h subsequentlyfbeen mapped in greater detail during the actual construction excavation as described in Subsection 2.5.1.2.b.7. . r.. The location of the trenches and the report on the trench program are contained in Appendix 2L. t W e'.:;i: W rri.; cf Cer.5:ru::ie. Ex-ava:ic s Geologic mapping of the rock and overburden soils encountered in the construction excavation is discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.2.b.6. 2.5.4.4 Ceophysical Surveys Seismic profiles. including compressional wave velocity values and a bed-rock contour maps of the of fshore areas, based on the seismic and test boring data, are presented in Appendix 2K. Table 2.5-12 summarizes the in-situ compressional "P" and shear "S" wave velocity measurements, along with the corresponding elastic moduli values. "P" and "S" wave velocity meayurements were made in the boreholes at reactor locations using upbole and cross-hole techniques. Uphole data were obtained in Boring Be38 by shooting in the drill hole and recording at the surface. Cross-hole data were obtained by lowering four three-component seismometers into four dif ferent drill holes to a common depth and shooting p3 a small explosive charge in a fif th drill hole at the same depth. This procedure was repeated using dif ferent shot hole and recording hole combina-2.5-117

SB 1 & 2 FSAR b tions. Borings used in the cross-hole measurements included Borings B-22, B-35. B-37. B-38. B-39, B-40 and B-41. Density values for the bedrock used in the computation of the elastic moduli were obtained from core samples in Borings B-8 and B-9. 2.5.4.5 Excavations and Backfill a. Extent of Excavationy 2411 9, and Backfills The extent of e44 excavations for seismic Category I structures .i yr, r:11 cre shown on Figure)( 2.5-41. 2nd 2 5 ' 2. Photographs of typical excavations are shown on Figures 2.5-47 through 2.5-49. / Al Category I structures are founded either on sou 7g bedrock or on i ete extended to sound be M pt 4 for electrical duct banks, saf ated electrical manholes, and service water piping, w re on engineered safety-related backfill ing to sound bedrock. Are n e afety-relato t is are identified on Figures 2.5-41 and 2.5-b. Dewatering and Excavation Methods The bedrock in the main plant area was exposed by removing the overburden using conventional techniques. The design elevations I for the various building foundations were reached by controlled s blasting of bedrock, observing all applicable codes and standards. Vibrations were monitored during blasting to verify adherence to specified vibration criteria to preclude any damage to bedrock at or below the foundation level or to adjacent structures or in place concrete. The NRC representatives periodically inspected the excavation progress. Af ter completion of excavation, all bedrock surfaces were thoroughly cleaned, using a variety of methods, to remove all loose fragments, dirt and debris. Following cleaning, all bedrock surfaces supporting seismic Category I structures were inspected and mapped in detail by a geologist familiar with the rock foundation requirements and the geologic and engineer!.1g properties of the rock mass. The inspection included an examination and evaluation of the physical characteristics of the rock mass such as pattern and distribution of jointing and the amount and degree of weathering. Bedrock excavation included removal of very small amounts of severely weathered rock which were present at final grade in a few isolated areas. The pertinent information is included in Subsection 2.5.1.2.b.6. p/aecme,it c>f' CWader&[bkfid Dewatering methods used during c& crete p!:ciq, are desertbed in Subsection 2.4.13.5. During the comparatively short period of exposure prior to placing of 'ane e y no special protection of the base rock was required. Cn3ncese<( backGil, 1 2.5-118

Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-118 All seismic Category I structures are founded on sound bedrock or on engineered backfill extending to sound bedrock. Engineered backfill was The engineered also placed around all seismic Category I structures. backfill consists of either fill concrete, backfill concrete, offsite borrow, tunnel cuttings, or sand-cement, as described in Subsection 2.5. 4.5.c below. As shown in Table 2.5-19, fill concrete was used as the engineered backfill beneath the foundations of all seismic Category five I structures except for safety-related electrical duct banks, electrical manholes and service water pipes which were founded on of f-site borrow or tunnel cuttingse The extent of engineered backfill beneath and around the seismic Category I structures and safety-related electrical doctbanks, electri-2.5-42, 42a, cal manholes and service water pipes is shown on Figures The locations of these sections are shown on Figs. 42b, 42c, and 42d. 2.5-41 and 2.5-41a. Random fill, was used for general site grading in areas not requiring engineered backfill. 9 9

SB 1 & 2 FSAR J This rock is a sound diorite and quartzite with diabase dikes, as described in Subsection 2.5.1.2.b.6, and has very low porosity, tight joints and very low ;termeability. M s made during and after excavation indic * - .M" / rebound or f-4.h fresh, hard igne metamorphic rock lu/M comprising the excavations w ntficant. Such behavior is Infert typical for thes ypes,especialI7t ively shallow exca such as those made at the site. /[3

• gered g,*dack fi l 1 c.

4 engineered backfill consisted of offsite borrow, an engineered san - ent mix, and tunnel cuttings produced by the tunnel b ng machine. roximately 1,000,000 cu. yds. of engineered ckfill were require which about 250,000 cu. yds, were ssified as safety-related. concrete, with a 28-day d 'gn compressive kg, strength of 3,000 psi, duced and tested accordance with g requirements shillar to tho .or Cate y I concrete described in Subsec tion 3.8.4.6, was used r seismic category I structures

1. y extending to sound bedrock.

ckfil crete, with a minimum O 28-day compressive stre of 2,000 ps g placed between the sides of structure id the bedrock sur face. Thi concrete was produced and t ed in accordance with procedures at ' ar to those employed Category I concrete. materia 1s used tor enginggred_hackfil1 art _ described _below 3, OFnHe, B.rcew way land a6.ve l i k Offsite borrowy duct banks, man oles, service water pipes, a/ safety-related placed under and adjacent to j nd adjacent to seismic Category I structures above the bedrock surface: Tn., sert 3 cD The offsite borrow was obtained principally from the following locations: Pyburn pit, Kensington, N.11. about three miles f rom the site, Brentwood pit, Brentwood, N.11. about seventeen miles from the site, Beard pit, Dover, N. H. about twenty-five miles from the site, and Lee pit, Le e, N. 11. a b o u t twenty-three miles from the site. The deposits in these pits consist of stratified sand with some gravel and cobbles and/or outwash consisting of coarse sand with some fine gravel. Laboratory engineering properties of the material were investigated and are summarized it. Table 2.5-15. A test fill was completed and is described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.d. Principal specification requirements for the offsite borrow were: (a) Se !! e t e-i:1 free-the-Of f si t e bo r row me t the following gradation requirements: d 2.5-119

I Insert 1 of 3 on page 2.5-119 Measurements of heave or rebound of the rock in the excavations were not taken. However, no instances of rock behavior or excavation and foundation movements attributable to heave were observed. This is con-sistent with expected behavior, since the predicted maximum rock heave in seismic Category I excavations was 0.25 in. in the center of the bot-tom of the reactor excavations. Heave'of this magnitude would have no significant ef fect on the properties of the rock below the excavations or on the performance of the structures placed in the excavations. The heave was ~ estimated using a Boussinesq elastic pressure distri-bution for the unloading of 80 f t of soil and rock overburden for a 200-ft-diameter-area. The equation used to compute the heave was 6 = 2 gr (1 - V)2 field where 6 = heave, in. q = magnitude of unloading, psi r = radius of unloaded area, in. V = Poisson's ratio Efield = In situ Young's modulus The elastic modulus used for the heave analysis was Efield = 1.0 x 106 psi. This value of Efield was determined by correcting the average laboratory modulus for intact rock at the reactor locations, Elab = 10 x 106 psi (Appendix 2G, Table 2G-1), to account for the average RQD of the rock below the excavation using empirical data presented in % Renhon a n):Zienkevicil( 1968). For the average RQD = 60% at the Unit 2 reactor site, which is lower than the average at the Unit 1 reactor site, the correction factor is E field /E ab = 0.1. l

Inscrt 2 cf 3 on paga 2.5-119 All backfill used under and around all Category I structures is engineered backfill consisting of either fill concrete, backfill concrete, of fsite borrow, tunnel cuttings, or sand-cement. Approximately 500,000 cu yds of engineered backfill were required in safety-related areas. In addition, approximately 500,000 cu yds of nonsa fety-related engineered backfill and random fill were required. The five types of engineering backfill are described below: 1. Fill Concrete Fill concrete was used under all Category I structures except electrical ductbanks, five electrical manholes, and service water piping, from the top of sound bedrock to the bottom of the structure. The fill concrete had a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3000 psi, and was produced and tested in accordance with the same procedures used for Category I Structural Concrete described in Subsection 3.8.3.6.a.2. The extent of fill concrete is shown on typical sections in Figures 2.5-42 through 2.5-42d. Results for unconfined compression tests on fill concrete are shown in Figure 2.5-45a. These results cover a six-month period from May 24 to Nov. 11, 1978 and represent all test data for fill concrete placed under the containment mat for Unit 2. These results are representative of fill concrete placed beneath all seismic Category I structures. 2. Backfill Concrete Backfill concrete was used to backfill between the structure wall and the rock excavation wall for all Category I structures that were founded below the bedrock surface. Backfill concrete had a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 2000 psi and was produced and tested in accordance with the same procedures used for Category I Structural Concrete described in Subsection 3.8.3.6.a.2. The extent of backfill concrete is shown on typi-cal sections in Figures 2.5-42 through 2.5-42d. Representative results for unconfined compression tests on backfill concrete are shown in Figure 2.5-45b. These results are for backfill concrete placed in various safety-related - areas of the site during the period May 30, 1978 to Oct. 30, 1980.

Insert 3 of 3 on page 2.5-119 f The maximan thickness of offsite borrow beneath safety-related electrical ductbanks was 25 ft. Typical profiles of offsite borrow ~ beneath safety-ralated 'e}ectrical ductbanks are shown in Sections KK, LL, and MM on Figure 2,.5-42c. / The maximum thickness of of f site borrow placed beneath safety-related electrical manholes was 18 ft. Typical profiles of offsite borrow ben'eath safety-related electrical manholes are shown in Figure 2.5-42c, Section MM and Figure 2.5-42d, Sections NN and PP. t, The thickness of offsite borrow beneath safety-related service water pipes ranged from approximately 1 to 37 ft. Typical profiles in which the depth of of fsite borrow beneath safety-related' service water pipes ranges from 1 to 5 f t are shown in Figure 2.5-42c, Sections JJ, KK, LL, and MM. Typical profiles in which the depth of offsite borrow beneath safety-related service water pipes ranges from appro'ximately 24 to 37 f t are shown in Figure 2.5-42b, Sections II and HM. The maximan thickness of offsite borrow placed adjacent to safety-related structures is approximately 63 ft along the west walls of the Intake / Discharge Transition Structures. i 6 A l e 0 1 O / n ym a f f a F u O

SB 1 & 2 FSAR Sieve Size Percent Passing 1-1/2" 100 3/4" 100-95

1. 4 95-50
2. 10 86-30
3. 20 70-15
4. 40 50-7
5. 60 32-3
6. 200 (washed) 10-0.2 The allowable variation for each limit (fine and coarse side of the gradation band) for sieve size other than 1-1/2" and #200 did not exceed an aggregate total of ten' percent, with individual maximum variation of five percent for the fine side and ten percent for the coarse side as long as the coefficient of uniformity C of the y

s,ri4g[as maintained greater than or equal to three (3). f5c bor-rws] Stratified deposits were blended at the borrow pits, omitting any fine grained soils, and frequent gradation checks _ assured conformance to required standards. loMiic. l>>...w l (b) The f+H/was placed in uniform layers of eight (8) inches less and compacted at or near optimum moisture content or to obtain not less than 95% of the maximum density shown on the dry weight curve as determined by the Modi died Proctor Compaction Test ASTM D 1557-70. During the compaction process, moisture control was maintained at or near optimum levels by continuous wetting during the compaction effort as required. (c) Compaction verifications were accomplished by performing in place density tests in accordance with ASTM D 1556 or ASTM D 2922 and D 3017. (d) Testing criteria: (1) At least one (1) gradation test per day or every 2,000 cubic yards of metee444 deliv_ered. YMn.1 [erem l (2) One (1) compaction check per lift of ccmpacted ee+4 for every 200 linear feet maximum where hand-operated compaction equipment was utilized. (3) One (1) compaction check per lif t c f c omp : ted-set 4-for every 20,000 SF of plan view area (largest plan view dimension not to exceed 200 ft.) where heavy self propelled compaction equipment was utilized. 2.5-120

SB 1 & 2 FSAR GU (4) One point modified Proctor compaction test for each in place density test, used to estimate maximum dry density.for each density test by interpolation f rom a family of compaction curves. See Figure g 2.5-M yfor a summary plot of compaction curves. The f requency of these tests was increased when considered necessary by the inspectors or engineers in charge. Figure 2.5-43 shows actual gradation band of of fsite borrow as delivered, developed from sieve analyses from representative samples of material used, superimposed over the specified gradation band. g gg g h er.s Every layer of backfillfwas compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557. Any layer which did not attain the required 95% compaction was recompacted and retested until the specified minimum degree of compaction was met.

• y Figure z.a-44

.v ; enc--anthregra nr abtr-it,ucion of degree e9 of Compact. ten oc;devea versus in place JTdemrrtv-measured._

4 /. Enginccred-Sand-Cement M e ( ") The processed sand used for sand-cement mix, was obtained from Ossipee and Dover, N. H. The cement was Type II. N EN-The mix, based on trial batch design, consisted of the following: Batch Quantity l Sand, lbs 2735 l Cement, Ibs 169 (6.2% of total sand) l Water, gallons 56.5 l Laboratory engineering properties of the acceptable mix described l above are summarized in Table 2.5-16. I The specified 28-day compressive strength was 100 psi. The l ingredients (sand, cement, and water) were subject to specifications, l quality, and testing requirements similar to those for materials l used for Category I concrete, as described in Subsection l 3.8.4.6. Table 2.5-17 shows all the results of the field tests including pertinent laboratory test results. i t j Figure 2.5-45 shows plots of strength gain recorded from (~ the tests performed on cylinders at specified periods, i.e., 7, 28, and 90 days of curing. l l l 2.5-121

Insert 1 of 2 on pags 2.5-121 Typical field density re'sults for offsite borrow are shown in Figures 2.5-44, 44a, 44b, and 44c. Representative test results for of f-site borrow placed during typical winter, spring, and summer periods are shown in Figures 2.5-44, 44a and 44b, respectively. As seen ira these three figures, all offsite borrow was compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557-70 compaction. Representative field density test results for off-site borrow placed in the vicinity of Revetment A are shown in Figure M D. 5 - % c. l O I O

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-121 Sand-cement was used in only ona safety-related area to backfill adjacent to and above the service water piping placed in a trench exca-vated in rock, from N9774, E6250 to N9774, E6430. Figure 2.5-42c, Section JJ, shows the service water pipe installed in this trench, as well as the various engineered backfill materials placed beneath and around the pipe. Note that engineered backfill from the top of bedrock to the invert of the pipes was of f site borrow. Sand-cement was used to backfill from the invert to a level about 6 ft above the top of the pipes. i

SB 1 & 2 FSAR O Quality control procedures similar to those for producing and placement of Category I' concrete were implemented, including testing requirements to verify the strength of meceie-1, S*X Tunnel Cuttingsg -//d Sad-demcirl. Tunnel cuttings were produced by the tunnel boring machines during excavation of the circulat!ng water tunnels. The tunnel cuttings were predominantly quartzite and quartz diorite Ilr5Er r e #/ with occasional small amcunts of quartzitic schist and diabase dikes. All rock types were hard and sound, with similar properties as indicated in Subsection 2.5.4.2. The gradation band for the tunnel cuttings is shown in Figure 2.5-46. Engineering properties determined from laboratory and field tests on the quartzite tunnel cuttings are summarized in Table 2.5-18. Three test fills of the quartzite tunnel cuttings were constructed, and plate load tests were conducted on each fill as described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.d. The specification requirements were as follows: (a) 'Ihe gradation of the material was as follows: Sieve Size U. S. Standard Sieve 3" 100 1-1/2" 100-50 3/4" 100-25 3/8" 100-12

1. 4 75-8
2. 10 50-5
3. 40 25-2
4. 200 (washed) 12-0 g

j g; The coe fficient of uniformity C o f t he -ma44r4al-was u greater than or equal to five (5). A Maximum size of stones was three (3) inches. Elongated stones larger than 3 inches and up to a maximum of 6 inches but passing through 3-inch sieve were accepted. Elongated stones larger than six (6) inches, as visually noticeable, were removed during placement as structural fill. (b) In safety-related areas,the tunnel cuttings were placed in uniform layers of eight (8) inches or less and compacted to achieve not less than 95% of the maximum density as determined by the Revised Modified Proctor Compaction 2.5-122

i l ) Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-122 ) Tunnel cuttings were placed in two safety-related areas of the site in the vicinity of the turbine building for Unit 2. The coor-dinates of these two areas are approximately N10160 to 10220, E5290 to 5360; and N10140 to 10210, E5420 to 5550. The greatest thickness of tunnel cuttings in safety-related areas of the site is about 18 ft beneath manhole W19/20 in the second area noted above. A profile of the tunnel cuttings beneath and adjacent to manhole W19/20 is shown in I Figure 2.5-42d, f,ection 0-0. Tunnel cuttings were not placed against nor within a 10 ft hori-zontal distance of the walls of any seismi: Category I building. l I 1

SB 1 & 2 FSAR ,m I (' Test AST!! D 1557-70. Materials passing the 1 inch sieve, rather than passing the 3/4 inch sieve, were used as the reaximum size. During the compaction process, g material meistere conditions were maintained to + 1% g of optimt.m. where pract icable, to-ful ly-recognize _the cc c c c f a c': i c, i ng d e c i : ? d cg smi-< ompac t-i on, d W# "#" -] (c) Compaction verificationsph accomplished by performing 6 t n place density tests in accordance with ASTM D 2922 o hc and D 3017, with appropriate corrections to account 4-for material retained on the Ib inch sieve and a moisture o 3d0 bia s correction, if any. U o ua a (d) Testing criteria: _. U edf x (1) At least one (1) gradation test per day or every + E 2,000 cu. yd. of meteric1. fuienc./ c.vf f/A3 5 g y (2) One (1) compaction check per lift cf ccmpceted ].9 -set 4-for every 200 linear feet maximum where hand-n O-operated compaction equipment was utilized. o hYof (3) One (1) compaction check per lif t of ecmpceted 7[, i g eet4-for every 20,000 sq. ft. of plan view area fYs (largest plan view dimension not to exceed 200 ft.), d o where heavy self propelled compaction equipment p -t; g was utilized. O c C6 C (4) One point modified Proctor compaction test for k7 each in place density test, used to estimate maximum dry density for each density test by interpolation from a family of compaction curves. See Figure l Sol 2.5-44yfor a summary plot of compaction curves. d. Test Fills ~ f- ~~ ~ ~ d%joc,ecq Four test fills were constructed of thefecmpceted backfill materials, one using the of fsite borrow and three using the wt-a44e-tunnel cuttings. Plate load tests were performed on each test fill. 'lh e test fills were constructed to: 1. Measure the in-situ modulus of the compacted of fsite borrow. 2. Measure the in-situ modulus of the ccmpacted tunnel cuttings and demonstrate that the tunnel cuttings would have modulus values equal or superior to the offsite borrow. 3. Develop procedures for placement, compaction and testing of the tunnel cuttings. D 2.5-123

SB 1 6 2 FSAR S .TA/SCni~ / oft n k. D Engineering properties for the offsite borrow and tunnel cuttings, g determined from the test fills and from laboratory tests, are summarized in Tables 2.5-15 and 2.5-18. Detailed procedures and b[ results of the test fill study are contained in Appendix 2N. 9 b

• {

2.5.4.6 Croundwater Conditions 4 j O 3 As stated in Subsection 2.4.13.2, the groundwater table in the site area is mostly in till or bedrock at depths no greater than 17 feet and usually less than 10 feet below the original ground surface.A By assuming groundwater gY C ' l st elevation +20.0 feet MSL (the finished plant grade), the most severe case for hydrostatic loading is considered for design of structures. b) l baiknll ) f g }y Q In additio, all seismic (Category I structures are founded on rocky err-frH - w..c re tc or n engineeredl M over rock, and'no differential settlements %g due to chang..ig groundwater conditions are expected. J,. gpT b 4 tt i The plant does not employ a permanent dewatering system. Therefore, all SD d g )D subsurface portions of safety-related structures, systems, and components have been designed for hydrostatic pressure and uplift due to the assumed groundwater level at elevation +20.0 feet MSL. [ l Information on dewatering during construction can be found in Subsection 2.4.13.5. l6uildlag l During construction, groundwater inflow was minimal. Total inflow into l various excavations on site was estimated to range from 0 to 15 gallons l per minute during surveys in 1977 and 1978. These inflows are within the range of what to expect from the type of bedrock in the vicinity of the site. A summary of permeability for the glacial and bedrock materials in the Seabrook area is listed in Table 2.4-22. For information on groundwater fluctuations, direction of groundwater flow, gradients and velocities refer to Subsection 2.4.13.2. l Refer to Subsection 2.4.13.4 for a discussion of the groundwater monitoring program. Savad.t>enl roc k Sinceallsafety-relatedstructuresarefoundedonjrce c--fill concrets l or on engineered fil! cvcr rock, there is no potential for subsidence. lbknll extendas +o sc.ad be<Irdl l 2.5.4.7 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic Loading en interek son l All seismic Category I structures are founded on e rock or on cencr"^ ( bod < fill extending to sound bedrock g vcer* ~ *a a c t h ntr e pipe h w c!cctrica! - % cic; whict arc f 'cd e.. ar ' c a.b c a d e d i n c c.nereHe d s,; I bach'i'! c=c r/ ing to ;cand bcdrock. The seismic design of seismic Category I structures is discussed in Sections 3 7.2 and 3.7.3. wes e use 2.w. 2.5-124

Insert 1 of I on page 2.5-124 e. Random Fill Random fill was ured for nonsafety-related general site backfill and grading in areas not requiring engineered backfill. Random fill consisted of offsite borrow, tunnel cuttings, and soil from onsite excavations with less stringent placement regirements than the engineered backfill. Random fill was placed in 8-to 12-in. lif ts and compacted to at least 90s of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557-70. In the plant area the maximum vertical thickness of random fill is about 40 f t at a location between the Circulating Water / Service Water Pumphouse and the Intake / Discharge Transition Structure, as shown on Section A-A in Figure 2.5-42. At this location engineered backfill with a minimum horizonta'. extent of 10 ft was placed against the walls of the structures Random fill was placed between the areas of engineered backfill. Typical field density test results for random fill are chown on es resu hs are from 3e random W placed l A.5 '/2/d h in the area between the revetment and the cooling tower iden-gu g tified in Figurch D.5 - yti d. Beyond the plant site, areas where random fill was used to raise the general site grade may be determined by comparing Figures 2.4-1 (plan of the final plant grade) and 2.5-12 (plan of origi-nal site contours).

SB 1 & 2 FSAR Replace wdh Iraes+ lofI Static amic properties of the bedrock are described in Sub 2.5.4.2. Properties f-soil backfill materials cribed in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c. Evaluation of .uc action potential (including cyc ic b* ) of thcA. i I materials is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.8. Li uefaction Potential (Including Cyclic Mobility) 2.5.4.8 3 a. Definitions There are two different phenomeus associated with the behavior of saturated sands under cyclic loading, namely, liquefaction and cyclic mobility. Where the stability of soils under seismic loading is in question, these two phenomena should be considered separately. Their definitions are as follows: 1. Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein a saturated sand loses large percentage of its shear strength (due to increased a pore pressure and reduced ef fective stess induced by monotonic or cyclic loading) and flows in a manner resembling a liquid until the shear stresses in the mass are less than the reduced shear strength. y 2. Cyclic Mobility is the progressive softening (reduction in modulus) of a saturated sand when subjected to undrained G..'{ l cyclic loading. Cyclic mobility does not necessarily lead vi to a reduction in subsequent undrained shear strengthy, M 2 l Mo$ lead +o excr_ssive. deforwahore. h M of b. Analysis ^ s The foundation materials adjacent to or under all seismic Category I structures are of the following types: 8 $ =1 1. Bedrock rf 4 5w 0 2. Fill concrete extending to bedrock Sb EnkCril ce,,creAn

9. /.

-Gempaeted-s t ructure4-+ackf+11-( g r e v el ly-s a nd ) Of6te berrev/ j l} +Y N [. Gompneted-moleentt4ngs-backfH 1 7h,,a( Cv+t /ry )[ GV G.[. Sand-cement back fill The bedrock at the plant site is primarily sound quartz diorite with occasional mica schist inclusions and diabase dikes. Properties of the bedrock are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.2a. The fill concrete has aminimumcompressivestrengthof3,000psikasdiscussed in Subsection 2.5.4.5. There is no potential for liquefaction or cyclic mobility of es the bedrock -ec fill concretcy y oc v.edil\\ cercrene.. 2.5-125

Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-125 For all seismic analyses the rock was treated as a fixed boundary, as described in Subsection 3.7(B).2.3. Therefore, no dynamic rock pro-perties were required for the seismic analyses. Four seismic Category I electrical manholes are founded on of fsite borrow, with a maximum thickness of 18 ft below the base of manhole W33/34. Seismic amplification in the maximum thickness offsite borrow was analyzed using the lumped-mass and spring approach described in Subsection 3.7(B).2.4. During design, estimated values of shear wave velocity c = 650 ft/sec and shear modulus, G = 13,890 psi 3 were used. These values were assumed to be constant for the 18-ft-thick layer of offsite borrow. The amplified accelerations were used for th'e structural analyses of walls of manholes on offsite borrow. Subsequent to design, the shear modulus for offsite borrow beneath the manholes was backfigured from the results of the plate load test described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.d. The Young's modulus for the cyclic portion of the plate loading, E = 24,800 psi, and the Poisson's ratio f rom drained triaxial tests, v = 0.3, were used to calculate a value of G = 9,550 psi. The average degree of compaction for the of fsite borrow test fill was the same as for the off site borrow placed during construc-tion. From tne plate deflection during the unload-reload cycles, the average shear strain in a 24-in.-thick zone below the plate was calcu-lated to be Y = 5 x 10-3 in./in. The value of shear modulus at low strain (10-6 in./in.), Gmax, was then determined using the relationship between shear modulus and shear strain for sand presented in Seed and Idriss (1970). The average octahedral stress, 6, = 4,000 psf, in the zone beneath the plate was calculated using the elastic solutions for a rigid plate with an average load of 6 tsf. Values of Gmax for other effective stress levels were then computed using the relation i ( m2 G2 max " G1 max ml where G 1 max and 6m1 were values from the plate load test. max vs o for the of fsite borrow, based on the plate load A plot of G m l test data, is shown in Fig. 2.5-58. As noted in Subsection 3.7(B).2.4, j the seismic design of the manholes was checked using the shear modulus values backfigured from the plate load test, and was found to be satisfactory. The seismic Category I electrical ductbanks which are founded on of fsite borrow were analyzed using the procedures described in Sub-section 3.7(B).2.4. The dynamic properties backfigured from tne plate l load test as described above were used for these analyses. Electrical manhole W19/20 is founded on 10 ft of tunnel cuttings with a few layers of of f site borrow. Analysis of the amplification for this manhole was performed as described in Subsection 3.2(B).2.4 with an average shear modulus determined from the plate load test on tunnel l cuttings using die procedure described above. I

Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-125 _(continued) The seismic Category I service water pipes are supported on offsite borrow generally 2 ft thick, but in certain areas up to a maximum of 37 ft thick, as described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c.3. All seismic Category I pipe is surrounded by offsite borrow except for a 180 ft length of trench near the service water pumphouse where the pipe is surrounded by sand-cement as described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c.4. The thickness of cover over the pipes is from 12 to 24 ft except for the pipes between the service water pumphouse and the intake / discharge structures where the-cover is up to 60 f t. The seismic stresses in these pipes were ana-lyzed using the procedures of Iqbal and Goodling, as described in Subsection 3.7(B).3.12. For the pipe surrounded by offsite borrow, the following design parameters were used in the analyses: Unit weight (buoyant) Y3 = 60 pcf Void ratio e = 0.4 Poisson's ratio V = 0.4 Coefficient of Lateral Pressure K = 0.5 o Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction ko = 300 lb/in.2/in. Coefficient of Friction (steel pipe to soil) y = 0.3 Maximum soil particle velocity for OBE V = 6 in./sec m for SSE Vm= 12 in./see Shear wave velocity C = 770 ft/sec s Seismic soll strain for OBE Cm = 0.000325 in./in. for SSE Cm = 0.000650 in./in. The values of unit weight, Poisson's ratio, void ratio, and coef-ficient of lateral earth pressure are conservative values, based on the results of field density measurements shown in Figs.~2:;6-4%through f6.I-Wl 2, 5 - 4 4 c 22L 424 and triaxial tests shown b1 Table 2.5-15. The coefficient of subgrade reaction is a lower-bound value from Figure 5 in Appendix 2N, which is based on the results of triaxial compression te s ts. Since the lower-bound value of k is not necessarily conservative, a check analy-o sis is being performed with higher values of k. The coefficient of o f riction between soll and pipe is conservative, based on the measured f riction angles from triaxial tests and the reduction factors recom-mended in Iqbal and D odling. The maximum soil particle velocity, shear wave velocity, and seismic soil strain were determined using the proce-dures described in Iqbal and Goodling. The section of service water pipe surrounded by sand-cement was analyzed using an average shear modulus, G = 10,100 psi backfigured from the initial Young's modulus measured in the consolidated drained , triaxial compression tests described in Appendix 2M. The average in situ octahedral ef fective stress in the 8-f t-thick sand cement layer (see Section J-J on Fig. 2.5-42c) is 5,= 7.1 psi, therefore the modulus

Insert 1 of 1 on page 2.5-125 (continued) values are based on the three triaxial tests with D = 7.1 psi. e Poisson's ratio, V = 0.2, measured during the tests was used to convert Young's modulus to shear modulus. The stress-strain curves indicate essentially constant initial modulus for loading up to about 20% of the compressive strength. This is consistent with data in Dupas and Pecker (1979) which indicates that the shear modulus of sand cement is signifi-cantly less af fected by strain level than is an uncemented sand. Since the seismic stressee in the sand cement are less than about 4% of the unconfined strength (see Subsection 2.5.4.8), the shear modulus for sand cement was not varied with strain level. i i I l I

SB 1 & 2 FSAR O Wsi+$ l>arron On) fu n el Cv+ HK35 The properties of the[cc.,:::cd : r_c tmal backfill and ca yacted clecuttings teckfill are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.5. "caca:h and erc..J seis.ic Ce cgcrj ! ; r c turc s, thcsc.atcrial ucrc p!:ced et der-! ti-egen! te er gre ter ther 95T ef th: ::,dmeer D" j density fc. ;;.et scil Lued c.. ASTM 01%7. The field control of}backfillplacement, including results of measurements of in-place density and percent compaction, is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.5. Bas Ob ast experience and in accordance with NRC RegtIIa' tory ~ f Guide 1.00 Draft) entitled " Procedures and Cri Wdk Assessing Seismic Sta of Soils at Nucle er Plant Sites," or ygt the structural backfill, classt Unified Soil Classification jgg Symbol for widely graded as not co red susceptible to seismically

• ground failure (liquefactt e clic mobili sed on its gradation and in place density,

- c tcd a.ciccuttings-backfill is composed of angular crus v.. quartzite w bout 20% sand-size particles and about

Ines, compacted to at le a 5% of maximum density as red by ASTM D1557.

The moleentt-ings are also sidered not ptible to seismically induced ground failure (liquefac r cyclic mobility), based 3 oY CefacWM. on grada t ion and den:i ty,- ac c. (NOTE: An s of the sand-cement will be provided u completion y of oratory testing program.) l 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis l The evaluation of the maximum earthquake potential is presented in Subsection t i 2.5.2.4. Based on this analysis, the maximum earthquake potential consists of an Intensity VIII (MM) earthquake. For this earthquake, the following peak accelerations have been derived in Subsections 2.5.2.6 and 2.5.2.7. l Horizontal Peak Vertical Peak Design Earthquake Acceleration, g's Acceleration, g's OBE 0.125 0.088 SSE 0.25 0.175 '!he horizontal and vertical design spectra for the SSE are shown on Figures 2.5-38 and 2.5-39. The seismic response of seismic Category I service water pipelines, electrical ductbanks and electrical manholes founded onyLud Gli was analyzed using a peak horizontal acceleration of 0.25 g. T OWs o.+6 $orrow or l 2.5.4.10 Static Stability tonnel duY&y I l Sir.cc - ! ! ccismie--Categery-I-s t ructures-erc founded-on rock, cn fi+1-c oncrete cer: :::E :: cn engince c' - fill c f che!! x dep:P cycr rcch, no dif-ferent41rl IA/ SERT .2 o f "1 l 2 " 126 I l

Insert 1 of 2 on page 2.5-126 The offsite borrow, which is classified as SW (Unified Soil Classification System) and compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry den-sity determined by ASTM D1557, is not susceptible to liquefaction as defined above. This conclusion is based on the results of the triaxial tests presented in Appendix 2M, which indicate that both drained and undrained tests on specimens at 95% compaction are dilative during shear. Thus a pore pressure increase cannot be sustained during shear, and liquefaction is not possible. The resistance of the offsite borrow to cyclic deformations (cyclic mobility) was not measured during the laboratory or field testing programs, since the extensive body of published literature on cyclic testing indicates that specimens of widely graded sand or sand and gra-vel compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density develop less than +2.5% strain when subjected to 5 to 10 cycles of stress equivalent to an 0.25g earthquake. A testing program on soils with gradations similar to the of fsite borrow and with compaction at a relative density of 80%, which was equivalent to 95% compaction, is reported in the Soils Report of the Pilgrim Unit 2 PSAR (1977). On the basis of these data, it was concluded that the of fsite borrow was adequately resistant to cyclic deformation under the SSE loading. The tunnel cuttings described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c.5 are com - posed of a widely graded angular crushed quartzite compacted to 95% c f maximum dry density measured by ASTM D1557. Although not tested in the laboratory, the tunnel cuttings are considered to be more dilative an l hence more resistant to liquefaction than the offsite borrow, due to th-significantly coarser particle size and higher in place density of the tunnel cuttings. The dilative behavior of dense Oroville gravel, with gradation similar to the tunnel cuttings but with rounded to subrounded particles, has been demonstrated by large scale triaxial tests reported in Banerjee, Seed and Chan ( 1979). Cyclic testing on the Oroville gra-vel reported in Wong, Seed and Chan (1974) indicated that the cyclic resistance of compacted materials increases substantially with increasing particle size. Therefore, the tunnel cuttings are considered to be more resistant to cyclic deformation (cyclic mobility) than the of fsite borrow. In addition, the moduli measured in the repeated loading portions of the plate load tests described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.d were significantly higher for the tunnel cuttings than for the offsite borrow, from which one can infer higher resistance to cyclic loading. Thus, it was concluded that the tunnel cuttings are more resistant to both liquefaction and cyclic deformations than the offsite borrow.

Insert 1 of 2 on page 2.5-126 (continued) The sand-cement, described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c.4, was used as backfill adjacent to and above one 180-f t-long section of service, water pipe, trono4r. Since the strength

• of sand cement is derived primat-ily from cementation at grain contacts, and not from interparticle friction, loss of strength due to buildup of pore pressure, i.e.,

liquefaction, is not possible. The resistance of sand cement to cyclic deformations was not measured in the laboratory since the in situ cyclic shear stress ' induced by :the SSE in the sand cement is less than 4% of the. specified - minimum compressive strength of 100 psi at 28 days, and less than 2% of the minimum compressive strength measured on field test cylinders at 90 l days, as shown in Fig.,h Cyclic stresses of this magnitude would i not be sufficient to break the cementation bonds, hence no significant cyclic deformations could occur. There are no known subsurface con-ditions at the site which could lead to future loss of strength in the sand-cement. It is likely that the strength will increase with time since the strength increased with time in the laboratory. Thus, it was concluded that the sand cement is adequately resistant to both liquefac-tion and cyclic deformations. l l Y -m_m._ pa-

iw m p om i g f'p Insert 2 of 2 on_page 2 5-126 1 All seismic Category I structures are founded on sound bedrook'or on engineered backfill extending to sound bedrock. As shown in Table 2.5-19, fill concrete was used as the engineered backfill ben'enth all J. seismic Category I structures except for safety-related electrioal det - i ~ banks, five electrical manholes, and the service water pipes, which were ' founded on offsite borrow or tunnel cuttings. i i s. Bearing Capacity and Static _ Settlement i Havdocks DM-7 (1%3) was used to estimate the allowable bearing 3 pressure for structures founded on bedrock. In Table Ital of Navdocks. DM-7 (1%3) an allowable bearing pressure for hard crystalline rocks of 80 taf is recommended. (Note S e allovable bearing pressure is the pressure that can be applied in the field, na ultimate karing capa-city is 6 to 10 times higher-than the allowable value.) An altarnative technique for estimating allowable bearing passure on rock is to multiply ths' unconfined conpressive strength by O.2 to 0.3 to adjust for the presence of rock defects, as suggested by Bowles(1977,p.143). For'the rock at this site the lowest naasured unconfined conpressive strength i's the zone of interest was 5970 psi (Table 2G-1). Using the factor L.2, Bow 1es' approach gives a value of B6 taf for the allowable bearing pr' we. n is value is similar to that recomended in Navdocks Dg7, b- ,some structures are founded on fill concrete, which has a 90-day i unconfined compresolve strength of 5400 psi (Fig. 2.5-45a). Following i Bowles' (1977, p.143) suggestion to use no more than the unconfined compressive strength of the concrete as a working compressive strength of the rock, and using the factor of 0 2, the allowable bearing pressure on the rock is calculated to be 78 tsf. Thus, an allowable bearing pressure of 80 tsf is suitable for foundations on rock, with or without fill concrete between the two. To be ooneervative an allowable bearing 3 pressure of 60 taf was used. l' ne actual bearing pressures beneath the najor seismic Category' h ' I buildings are shown on Table 2.5-19. The foundation type and dimen-i sions are presented in Table 3 8-15. ne est highly loaded foundation is the ring ~ wall around the containment enclosure buildings whichpkhas l

r a maximum bearing pressure of 36 tsf.

- ~

The c.aximam esticated settlement for any noismic Category I '[ structure is 0.5 in. for the combined. loading of the containment struc-ture and containment enclosure structure. Of this s'ettlement, approxi-nately 0.25 in, represents recompression of the heave resulting from the excavation, as described in Subsection ~ 2.5.4.5.b. The differential novament between these two structures is estimated to be 0.15 in. fae acttlement was estimated using the relationship 6<. 2 gr (1 -h3) E T)=totalsettlementatcenteroffoundation,in. vhere E = average modulus of claaticity, psi q = foundation b3aring pressare, psi r = radius of loaded area, in. I V) Poisson's ratio ~~ .: !_j: ?2rr ::7f-j≪l-=l_;;;- ;- ; ; ' ..............s.............. .,..,... _.......~...... _ _... m.,,. m.m.,, m. m l i t 1

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-126 (continued) An average modulus E = 1x 106 psi, corrected for RQD as described - in Subsection 2.5.4.5.b, was used for die analysis. The weighted average loading for the combined containment structure and containment enclosure structure was q = 17.2 taf over a radius of 86.5 ft. The value of Poisson's ratio, V = 0.', used for this analysis was conservative, based on the compression test data in Table 2.5-12. The estimated settlement will occur as elastic compression during construction as the load is added. No significant post construction settlements or differential settlements for foundations on rock or fill concrete are anticipated. For the manholes supported on of fsite borrow or tunnel cuttings, an l allowable bearing pressure of 2.5 tsf was established. The minimum base size for the manholes is about la ft by 10.5 ft, with a minimum embed-ment of 9.5 ft. The ultimate bearing capacity was calculated using the Terzaghi bearing capacity formula qu = 1/2ByN + Y DgNq Using a submerged unit weight, yb = 72 pcf and bearing capacity fac-tors Ny = 50 and N = 40 for a minimum friction angle $ = 36* as deter-minedfromtriaxiaktests, the ultimate bearing capacity for the of f site borrow is qu = 30 ts f. For a submerged unit weight Yb " 97 P0f and bearing capacity factors Ny = 70 and N = 70 for an assumed & = q 40*, the ultimate bearing capacity of the tunnel cuttings is qu = 63 tsf. Thus, the allowable bearing pressure provides factors of safety of 12 and 25 against ultimate bearing capacity failure for the of f site borrow and tunnel cuttings, respectively. The dead load bearing pressure beneath the base of the largest manhole, W33/34, is about 0.7 tsf assuming the water table is below the bottom of the minhole. Using the clastic settlement formula described above, with E = 10,500 psi from the plate load test data and V = 0.3 i f rom the triaxial test data, the maximum settlement for manholes on the l offsite borrow is 6 = 0.25 in. For the tunnel cuttings, with E = 24,000 psi from the plate load test data and estimated V = 0.3, the maximum settlement of the one manhole on tunnel cuttings is 6 = 0. lin, The estimated settlement will occur during the construction of the manholes and as backfill is placed around the manholes. No significant post construction or dif ferential settlements of the manholes founded on offsite borrow or tunnel cuttings is expected, unless a seismic event occurs, which is covered in Section 2.5.4.10.b. l l l i f

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-126 (continued) b. Settlement Due to Seismic Loading The settlement resulting from the SSE loading was also estimated for the seismic Category I structures founded on offsite borrow or tunnel cuttings, using the relationship between horizontal cyclic shear strain in the soil during the earthquake and accumulated vertical strain described in Silver and Seed (1971) and Seed and Silver (1972). The peak horizontal cyclic shear strains were determined for the thickest layers of of fsite borrow and tunnel cuttings below seismic Category I struc-tures (see Subsection 2.5.4.5.c) using the one-dimensional computer program SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972) with 3 to 7 soil layers below the structure. The SHAKE analyses were performed using the shear moduli from the plate load tests (see Subsection 2.5.4.7) and the shear modulus reduction curve and damping values from Seed and Idriss (1970). Using the Seed and Silver (1971) data for relative density, Dr = 80% and 10 cycles of loading, the maximum seismic settlement for seismic Category I structures is 0.2 in. for the service water pipes located in the area with 37 f t of off site borrow beneath the pipes (Section I-I, Figure 2.5-42b). Seismic settlements of this magnitude will not affect the performance of the seismic Category I manholes, ductbanks or service water pipes during or af ter the SSE event. c. Static and Dynamic Lateral Pressures Lateral earth pressures for Category I structures surrounded by off-site borrow were computed for both static and seismic conditions using the pressure diagrams shown in Figures 2.5-52 and 2.5-53. The static coefficients of at-rest earth pressure, Ko, and active earth pressure, j Ka, are conservative values, based on the minimum friction angle of 36' measured in triaxial tests. Static water pressures were computed using the maximum groundwater elevation at the ground surface, El +20. For j the rigid wall, a static lateral compaction pressure was included for the full height of the wall. l The dynamic lateral pressure coefficient, Kh, for non-rigid walls l was calculated using the procedures described in Seed and Whitman l (1970). As discussed in Seed and Whitman, the effect of vertical acce-1eration on the dynamic lateral pressure for non-rigid walls is negli-gible for die case where vertical acceleration is one half the horizontal acceleration. The dynamic lateral pressure at the base of a rigid wall is computed as the static weight of the soil column above the base elevation times the coefficient of dynamic earth pressure, KD. The increase in soil weight due to the vertical earthquake acceleration is included in KD as follows: KD= (1 + ky)(k ) h where k, = vertical acceleration k = horizontal acceleration n

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-126 (continued) The dynamic lateral pressure is conservatively assumed to remain constant with decreasing depth, except near the very top of the wall where the horizontal earthquake pressure is limited to the passive resistance of the soil. The rigid walls of all seismic Category I buildings except five manholes were founded on sound bedrock or fill concrete extending to sound bedrock. For these walls, the bedrock acce-lerations were used to compute dynamic lateral pressures. For the five manholes founded on of f site borrow or tunnel cuttings, the amplified soil accelerations at the base of the manholes described in Subsection

2. 5.4.7 were used for design.

The maximum lateral pressures for any seismic Category I structure occur at the east wall of the service water pumphouse, where the thickness of the offsite borrow is 63 ft. This is a rigid wall with the following lateral pressures at the base: Static At-rest Soil Pressure 1,970 psf Hydrostatic Pressure 3,930 psf Permanent Surcharge O Live Load Surcharge 250 psf Compaction Pressure 300 psf Dynamic Soil Pressure (SSE) 1,180 psf Tunnel cuttings were not placed against nor within 10 ft horizontal distance of any seismic Category I building wall. Therefore, analyses of lateral loads due to tunnel cuttings were not required. I

SB 1 & 2 FSAR p ) t settlements or s uburrfece-d e f a rma t i on s are experted. Jor-more -information on engineered fill e a a--Subscu ii vu 4 2.4.5. 2.5.4.11 Design Criteria E>azi' fill Since all seismic Category I st'~ucEUrfs are founded on rocky on fill concrete- -aver-toele or on engineered -fi-H of shallow depth over rock, there is no needforstab/ilitystudiesofsubsurfacematerials. V 2.5.4.12 Techniques to improva Subsurface Conditions The bedrock at the site consists of Newburyport quartz diorite, Kittery metasediments, and a number of diabase dikes. (Re ference Sec tion 2.5.1). All of this rock is hard and strong, with compressive strengths between 10,000 and 35,000 psi. The site engineering geologist made documented inspections of all bearing surfaces. Based on these inspections, all severely weathere,d and very closely jointed r- ,as removed from all areas, including those where it might affect strt < e stability, foundation bearing capacity or wall loadings. This resulted in overexcavation in some areas; see Subsections 2.5.4.14 and 2.5.1.2.b.6. Only sound, fresh rock was utilized for the support of foundations of safety-related structures. Thus, no improvements of subsurface conditions were c3 required. t 2.5.4.13 Subsurface Instrumentation No subsurface instrumentation was required for foundations of seismic Cate-gory I structures. 2.5.4.14 Construction Notes No construction problems which would adversely af fect the safety of the plant were encountered. Some procedures and design details, however, were adopted as a result of conditions which developed during construction; these are discussed below. a. Dewatering The amount of water which had to be pumped was relatively small, approximately 15 gpm maximum per building excavation. This water in the excavation resulted f rom runo f f and groundwater seepage along fractures in bedrock of the excavation. Direct pumping from open sumps strategically placed handled all dewatering of the excavation, and no other techniques, such as well points or slurry walls, were required. b. Excavation Techniques D The overburden was removed by conventional means, and the bedrock surface exposed. Rock excavation was done using controlled blasting 2.5-127

SB 1 & 2 FSAR t techniques such as pre-splitting. Blast monitoring was continuously maintained to assure that no damage was induced to adjacent structures; blast monitoring was also usefu'l in minimizing damage to adjacent rock. Evaluation of the stability of all excavated slopes during construction was accomplished by the following procedures: 1. Close supervision of the results of controlled blasting, blast monitoring, and the blasting scheme. 2. Thorough scaling and cleaning of the walls and continuing surveillance of their stability during construction. 3. Removing of weathered, fractured and jointed zones of rock which have questionable stability. No material was lef t above the level of the foundation mat which could induce a seismic or static load on a wall, unless the wall had been designed for that load. No material remained below the level of the foundation mat which could af fect the stability or bearing capacity of the foundation. In addition, to provide increased safety for the workmen in the excavations, the following procedures were employed: l 1. Placing, as required, of 8 to 16 foot long rock bolts which were fully encapsulated with resin. 2. Placing, in conjunction with the rock bolts, of chain link l fence and steel straps to prevent smaller pieces of rock from falling into the excavations. These measures were for construction safety purposes only and werecompletelysupplantedbyfillgandbackfillconcreteplaced I against these surfaces. (Cec r elc. Overbreak and Overexcavation c. Overbreak and overexcavation resulted from l 1. Occasional overblasting. l 2. Adversely oriented or locally very closely spaced rock jointing, which imparted a blocky fabric characteristic to the rock. F*\\\\ l Zones of overexcavation or overbreak were filled wi;i concret,e l to the underside of the structures, assuring that all loads were carried to sou nder-ock U$cd fv EYl 20 TBS O YretE.Sa&%bllGarcrCf6 WO,5 c'Ver-break on 4bc Sh5 O( eVA# 5n$ Ih &b S 2.5-128

SB 1 & 2 FSAR ./ d. Fill and Backfill Concrete conc reit- #6 F/// go'ncrete +rH and backfill 4e used under and around structures to provide for the transfer of loads to the bedrock, either because bedrock is at a lower than anticipated elevation or because excavation was continued to a lower elevation in order to obtain stable bedrock. 6/ecteical t1M(e 2.S-/4. q;\\\\ cond forfatteeteces indicated injSub:gien 3.8.4, all sa fetv- '"eho186[ Except dx+eed-6/deNes related structures are founded on sound rock or on,(ccacic;c f:::

• o N dut%x5 on' g
• Mehfwas subjected to QA inspection during placement. A minimum SU'[ N compressive strength of 3,000 pai at 28 days was attained for I'#

the fill concrete; for backfill concrete this figure is 2,000 psi. Vill courese l Seil Ledf;H an+ Use of Tunnel Cuttings e. l t of the large volume of engineered fill requirW geg ua. wgj.J readily avai a - roduced tunnel cutti thoroughly J 5er f-evaluated, tested and accepte as engineered fill in jgg conjunction with s an of f-site borro his testing pro r s result are discussed in Subsection 2.5... 2.5.5 Stability of Slopes There are ral or man-made slopes (cut or fill), the failure of which could adverselv affect the safety of the plant. s l The onta ensde, tor _ requtr%g wah se is hel dle slid, ~ 3 A*1 tone cevetment for the protection of eefety relcted fcc41-t+4esiduring peak PMH surge activity hVdescribed in Subsection 2.4.5.5, Protective Structures.M T/6 done, r6veIm* erd i:r, po1~ $ $ aley ar[ I 2 ef 2. 2.5.6 Embankments and Dams gg s Hs ** f't There are< dbAembankments or dams i the: there ic r.: pcter.ticl--for cover:e sefet, effects-fic thi; typc ci failur: 21 " "-' '--h 1 gje -jQ;/urnt. of wlEcl. coulof ONVM Y e f' c 2.5.7 References j 'g g gggg7/74fg g g gkap( -$ i+ e.

1. Aggarwal, Y. P., 1977, " Study of Earthquake Hazards in New York and Adjacent States," New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Annual Technical Report, Phase IV, p. 39.

2. Aleinikoff, J. N. and R. E. Zartman, 1978, "U-Th-Pb Geochronology of the Massabesic Cneiss and the Granite Near Milford, New Hampshire,"

Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 10, No. i 7, pp. 357-358.

3. Alvord, D.

C., M. H. Pease, Jr., and R. J. Fahey, 1976, "The Pre-Silurian Eugeosynclinal Sequence Bounded by the Bloody Bluff and Clinton-Newbury Faults, Concord, Billerica, and Westford Quadrangles, Massachusetts," N.E.I.G.C. Guidebook for Field Trips, 68th Annual Meeting. 2.5-129

Insert 1 of 2 on page 2.5-129 Tunnel cuttings were used as engineered backfill beneath electrical manhole W19/20. The tunnel cuttings were evaluated, tested, and accepted for use as engineered backfill as described in Subsections 2.5.4.5.c and 2.5.4.5.d. f. Use of Sand-Cement Sand-cement was used as engineered backfill in only one safety-related area, as backfill adjacent to and above the service water pipes in a trench excavated in rock, from N9774, E6250 to N9774, E6430. In this location, the engineered backfill from the top of sound bedrock to the pipe invert was of fsite borrow. The sand-cement extended from the invert to a level about 6 ft above the top of the pipes. Properties of the sand-cement are described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c. l l l l l l l t I .J

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-129 2.5.5.1 Slope Characteristics (Revetment) The stone revetment, located as shown in Fig. 2.5-41a, extends from the original site grade to El +20, with a maximum height of 13 ft. Although no special exploration programs were performed for the revetment, the general site borings described in Subsection 2.5.4 3 indicate the natural soils at the revetment locations are 1 to 2 ft of topsoil underlain by dense glacial till extending to bedrock. The gla-cial till is described in Subsection 2.5.4.2.b. The depth to bedrock varies from 0 to approximately. 40 ft beneath the revetment, as deter-mined from the contours in Figs. 2.5-12 and 2 5-14. The topsoil was stripped and the revetments are founded on bedrock or on glacial till. The fill behind the revetment consists of offsite borrow in the area near the railroad tracks, identified on Fig. 2.5-44c, and random fill in all other areas. The fill materials are described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c. 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analysis of Revetment Wave design of the revetment is described in Subsection 2.4.5.5. Seismic analysis of the revetment was performed to determine the deformations during an SSE event. The analysis was based on a time history of acceleration and seismic shear stress from the 2-dimensional finite element program FLUSH (Lysmer eti al., 1975) followed by a com-puter integration of rigid-body displacements using a Newmark type ana-lysis for a wedge failure surface. Three cross sections of revetment were considered in the analysis: a. Section Q-Q - Revetment A, thickest underlying soil (about 40 ft) with revetment height of 10 ft b. Section R-R - Revetment A, highest section (13 ft) /3 c. Section S-S - Revetment B, highest section (~.161 f t ) with thickest soil below revetment (15 ft) The locations of these sections are shown on Fig. 2.5-41a. The soil profiles and finite element grids for these three sections are shown in Figs. 2.5-54 through 2.5-56. The horizontal carthquake motion input at the bedrock surface was modelled using the Housner artificial record, scaled to match the design SSE spectrum for 5% damping shown in Figure 2.5-38 for the range ( of f requencies of 2 to a Hz, which brackets the natural frequencies of all three soil / revetment sections. An upper cutoff frequency of 15 Hz was used in the analysis. The duration of the design earths take motion was 20 seconds. l l l

Insert 2 of 2 on page 2.5-129 (continued) Soil properties used for the analysis were conservative values based primarily on published data in the literature. The properties are summarized in Table 2.5-20. The shear modulus at low strain (less than 10-6 in./in.) for each element was determined using the relation Gmax = 1000 K2 (Om) where G = shear modulus at 10-6 in./in. shear strain (psf) max K2 = shear modulus parameter, constant for a given soil type, density and strain level 5, = octahedral ef f ective stress (psf ) The K2 value for the revetme it stone was based on the average value for the rockfill shell in Oroviile dam, (California Department of Water Resources, 1979) determined from cyclic triaxial data and from actual performance of the embankment during the 1975 Oroville carthquake. The K2 value for the glacial till was based on values for the deep alluvium at San Fernando Dams, reported in Seed et al. (1973) and on in situ measurements of shear wave velocity for a similar till in Boston (GEI, 1976). The K2 value for the of fsite borrow was based on the plate load test data described in Subsection 2.5.4.5.d. Values of unit weight and Poisson's ratio for the of fsite borrow were based on Table 2.5-15.For the rockfill and glacial till, values of unit weight and Poisson's ratio were estimated based on typical values in the literature. A damping ratio of 0.5% at low strain was used for each of the soil types. The variation in shear modulus and damping with strain level were based on die curves presented in Seed and Idriss ( 1970). For these analyses, the water level in the revetment and fill behind the revetment was assumed to be at El +14.5 MSL. For evaluation of displacements, five trial wedges were selected through each revetment, as indicated on Fig. 2.5-57. For each wedge, the horizontal yield acceleration required to reduce to f actor of safety of the wedge to 1.0 was computed using a pseudo-static wedge ana-lysis (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970). The friction angles of the various materials which were used to compute the yield accelerations are shown in Table 2.5-20. The f riction angle for the of fsite borrow was based on triaxial test data presented in Table 2.5-15. Values of fric-tion angle for the revetment stone and glacial till were estimated based on data in Marsal (1972) and GEI (1981), respectively. The friction angle between the filter fabric (Polyfilter X) and the adjacent soil was estimated based on the data presented in Haliburton et al. (1978). / F The time history of average earthquake acceleration for a given wedge was then compared to the yield acceleration fo r tha t wedge. Whenever the wedge acceleration exceeded the yield acceleration, horizontal displacement was assumed to occur. The total horizontal

r-l l Insert 2 of 2 on page'2.5-129 (continued) l ~ displacement was deteymined by accumulating displacements through the durationoftheca/thquhke. Settlement was computed by assuming *that I the computed horizontal displacement represented the horizontal com-ponent of downslo'pe crest movement along the back side of the wedge, as shown in Figure y.5-57 2 The' assumed displacements at the base of the s wedge are also 'shownf on Fig. 2.5-57. .I i The analyses indicate that the largest overall crest cettlement for Revetment A resulting from the SSB event will be about 0.5 ft for Wedge 1 at Sect' ion R-R. The analyses also indicate that the cap-stone at Revetment A.(Wedge 3) may slump an additional 0.5 to 1.5 ft, resulting in 'a total settlement of 1.0 to 2.0 ft for the capstone. For Revetment B, the largest overall crest settlement will be about' 2.0 ft for Wedge li (Decause oi the thinner capstone and A-Stone layers at g Revetment B,,d separate analysis of the settlement of the caps, tone alone t was not performed. Dased o,n the hydrologic and wave runup analyses, described in Subsection 2.4.5 5, the settlements at, Revetment A or B resulting from the SSE event would not significantly af fect'the perfor-mance of the revetment. The static stability of the highest section of the revetment, (Section R-R, Figure 2.5-56) was also analyzed using the wedge analy-sis described by rthe U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (1970). The wedges analyzed were -those shown on Fig. 2.5-57, plus a combined wedge con,. sisting of the upper portion of Wedge 3 and the lower portion of Wedge 4. The properties used in the analysis were as given in Table 2.5-20. The ninimum static, factor of safety, F 1.51, calculated = 3 for Wedge 4 is satisfactory for permanent slopes, based on the criteria given in U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( 1970). This minimum factor of safety is considered to be a very conservative value due to very con-servative friction angle ( $ = 36*) used for the revetment stone. Using a best estimate of friction angle

• at low confining pressure, & = 46',

based on data in Marsal (1972), the minimum static factor of safety is F = 2.15. 3 i s ( 2.5.5.3 Logs of Dorings / The general site exploratiori programs and boring logs are ~ ~ described and referenced in Subsec' tion 2.5.4.3. 2.5.5.4 Compacted Fill L Compacted fill, behind the revetment is described in Jubsection 2.5.5.1 and properties of the fill materials are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.5.c. a

SB 1 & 2 FSAR 112. Wone s, D. R. and D. B. Stewa rt, 1976, " Middle Paleozoic Regional Right-Lateral Strike-$ lip Faults in Central Coastal Maine," Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 304. 113. Woodwa rd, 11. P., 1957, " Chronology of Appalachian Folding," American Association of Petrofeum Geologists _ Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 10, 2312-2327. 114. Zartman, R. E., P. M. Hurley, H. W. Krueger and B. J. Giletti, 1970, "A Permian Disturbance of K-Ar Radiometric Ages in New England: Its Occurrence and Cause," Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 81, pp. 3359-3374. 115. Zartman, R. E., 1979, Personal Communication to F. X. Bellini, Site Geologist, Seabrook Station, Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Seabrook, New Hampshire. 116. Desai, A. J.; Saidman, M; Hirschfeld, R.; Rand, J.; and Pizzuti, R.; " Geologic Investigation Prediction and Construction Evaluation for the Cooling Water Tunnels, Seabrook, N.H. Nuclear Power Station," in Proceedings of 1976 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, published by American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, New York, 1976. 117. Geotechnical Engineers Inc., Report CEI-1, "Geotechnical Report, Circulating Water Tunnel,"pune 1974. I scar ook Stu.+ eon l 118. Geotechnical Engineers Inc., Report CEI-3, "Geotechnical Report, Intake Tunnel Extension,"feptember 1975. l g,. g g g g / 119. Geotechnical Engineers Inc., Report GEI-6, " Drillers Logs for A, B, C and P Borings"tj g ggg, 120. Cc-technical Engineers Inc., " Cyclic Mobility Potential of Foundation Sands from Borings FIA and F2 Circulating Water Conduits, Seabrook Station", October 1973. 121. United Staes Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 1963 Earth Manual, First Edition. 122. Tarkoy, Peter J. " Rock Index Properties to Predict Tunnel Boring Machine Rates", University of Illinois, June 1974, National Technical Information Service Report No. PB 239 664. 123. Bellini, F. X., D. H. Corkum and A. J. Stewart, 1981, " Geology of Foundation Excavations at Seabrook Station, Seabrook Nil" in Geotechnology in Massachusetts Conference Proceedings, O. C. Farquhor, ed., in press. ItJ5E QT lofl + 2.5-119

Insert 1 cf 1 on pags 2.5-139 4 Hendron, A. J., 1968, " Mechanical Properties of Rock," Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, K. G. Stagg and O. C. Zienkiewicz, Editors; John Wiley and Sons, New York. Boston Edison Company, 1977, Soils Report for Pilgrim Station Unit 2 PSAR, Amendment 33, NRC docket No. 50-471; Pilgrim Station, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Banerjee, N. G.: Seed, H. B.; and Chan, C. K., 1979, " Cyclic Behavior of Dense Coarse-Grained Materials in Relation to the Seismic Stability of Dams," Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. UCB/EERC-79/13., University of Cal'.fornia, Berkeley, CA.

Wong, R. T.; Seed, H. B. ; and Chan, C. K., 1975, " Cyclic Loading Lique-faction of Gravelly Soils," J. of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT6, pp. 571-583.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1963, "Navdocks DM-7, Design Manual - Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures," Department of the Navy. Washington, D. C. Lysmer, J.; Udaka, T: Tsai, C. F.; and Seed, H. B., 1975, " FLUSH, A Computer Program to Approximate 3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Inter-action Problems," Report No. EERC 75-30, Earthquake Engineering Re-search Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Dupas, J. M. and Pecker, A., 1979, " Static and Dynamic Properties of Sand-Cement," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol.105, No. GT3.

Seed, H. B.: Lee, K. L.; Idriss, 1. M.I and Makdisi, F., 1973, " Analysis i

of the Slides in the San Fernando Dams During the Earthquake of i Feb. 9, 1971," Report No. EERC 73-2, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA. California Department of Water Resources, 1979, "The August 1, 1975 I Oroville Earthquake Investigations," Bulletin 203-78. l l Geotechnical Enginers Inc. 1976, " Report No. 2 on Subsurface Explora-l tions for the MASCO Total Energy Center, Boston, MA," Project 74190, Winchester, MA.

Marsal, R.,

1972, " Mechanical Properties of Rockfill," Embankment-Dam Engineering, R. C. Hirschfeld and S. J. Poulos, Editors John Wiley and Sons, New York. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., 1970, " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors i f or Dynamic Response Analyses, " Report No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. l l l l l t

\\ Insert 1 of I on page 2.5-139 (continu3d) a 1 U. S. Army " Corps of Engineers, 1970, Engineering and Design, Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams, Engine?rs Manual No. EM 1110-2-1902, I Appendix 7. I I Haliburton, T. A. ; Anglin, C. C. ; and Lawmaster, J. D., 1978, " Testing of Geotechnical Fabric for Use as Reinforcement," ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 1, Dec., pp. 203-212. Seed, H. B. and Silver, M. L., 1972, " Settlement of Dry Sands During Earthquakes," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 98, No. SM4. Schnabel, P. B. Lysmer, J.; and Seed, H. B., 1972, " SHAKE, A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites," Report No. EERC 72-12, College of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, December 1972. Seed, H. B. and Whitman, R. V., 1970, " Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," Specialty Conference on Lateral Stress in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Soil Mechancs and Foundation Division. Silver, M. L. and Seed, H. B., 1971, " Volume Changes in Sands During 3 Cyclic Loading," American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 97, No. SM9. Bowles, J. E., 1977, Foundation Analysis and Design, Second Edition, McGraw-liill Book Company, New York. .4 e 4 s

i SB 1 & 2 FSAR D TABLE 2.5-12 l (Sheet 1 of 2) [

SUMMARY

OF RdCK PROPERTIES Property Rock Type (2) Range of Values Average Value 1. Permeability of Rock Mass (cm/sec) a. Borehole water D, Q 0 to 7 x 10-3 (1) pressure tests (20 ft test zones) b. Pumping test, D, Q 10-3 1 x 10-3 Boring F-5 (200 ft thickness of rock) 2. Compression (P) Wave Velocity (ft/sec) a. Seismic D, Q 13,000 - 16,000 (1) 9 b. Uphole and cross-D 16,500 - 18,500 (1) hole geophysical tests e, Laboratory sonic D, Q 14,682 - 20,050 17,110 tests (no con {ininc) pressun;J eg spet,.uc n3) 3. Shear (S) Wave Velocity (f t/sec) a. Uphole and cross-D 8,000 - 10,000 (1) hole geophysical tests 3 4. Density (g/cm ) D, Q 2.63 - 3.01 2.80 5. Ifnconfined Compressive D 6,000 - 34,000 18,300 Strength (psi) Q 6,000 - 19,200 12,100 6. Modulus of Elasticity - Initial Tangent Modulus Ei (106 psi) a. Uphole and cross-D 6.5 - 9.8 (1) hole geophysical tests

I i TABLE 2.5-17 (Sheet 1 of[s SUtNARY OF SAND-CDtENT FIELD 6 IABOF x t, h 8 UATER/ BATCH ^^ k DESCRIPTION 1;* h$ g. IN LBS a: h DE AI 2

5 (7./WT/

0 n. IN AGG. ADDED TOTAL gy y SAND) rict Betch Design 13-(12) 30 226.0 6.0 lbs 35.0 lbs 41.0 lbs 1.32 73 73 5-1/4 2651A 10.1 (14.93) (10) 25 231.0 6.0 lbs 34.0 lbs 40.0 lbs 1.55 72 71 5 8.45 (17.45) (8) 20 236.2 6.2 lbs 33.8 lbs 40.5 lbs 1.96 69 71 5 6.75 (22.07) (6) 15 241.3 6.3 lbs 34.2 lbs 40.5 lbs 2.61 69 70 5-1/4 5.05 (29.4) (4) 10 246.5 6.5 lbs 34.5 lbs 41.0 lbs 4.0 70 68 5-1/4 3.36 (44.64) (4)

ump Dump Test Pit PTL 3.45 114 2,730 56.0 gal 84 2

reprt' (6) 175 2,735 56.6 gal 70 3-1/2 YD76 5.18 rodded (8) 235 2,700 57.1 gal 74 4 6.88 56.6 gal 62 2-3/4 vibrated (6) 175 2,735 5.18 56.6 gal 66 1-1/2 ict Bedding 19P PTL (6) 175 2,735 >u th set #1 S/C-1 5.18 on-sefsty related) 2ct Bedding 19PSet #2 (6) 56 1/4 )uth 5.18 175 2,735 56.6 gal on-safety related) J Lina East to South PTL 56.6 gal 56 3 Lp2 shop S/C-2 (6) 175 2,735 on-scfsty related) 5.18 FL Pittsburgh Lab. PTL (4) 3.29 109 2,730 56.0 gal 4.28 Ist D te on tiix 177 (5) 4.1 137 2,730 56.0 gal 3.40 teign (6) 4.88 164 2,730 56.0 gal 2.84 l Cylind2r samples varemolded in a Single-Use Fiold, using tamping rods, ipping of molded cylindrical specimen was conducted at the time of testing. a s.mplas were stripped from mold af ter 24 hours and placed in plastic bag for curing in the curing room, ual prcduction batch weights were not available. Therefore only the design mix was given. 5 \\

SB 1 & 2 L FSAR I A'IURY DAT_A 1ADORATORY talCLEAR CUBE UNCON. COMP. CYL. UNCON. COMP. h DDISITY DDISOMETER STRDiGHI - PSI STRDIGTil - PSI t PCP 6" DIR. TRAllSM. (2" X 2") (6" / X 12") j 8'8d4 WET PROCTOR WET DRY WT VI MAX. WT PCF 7, 3 7 28 90 3 7 28 90 gy (7. MC) Td PCF PCF (7. MC DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYO 9 %*S DAYS DAYS COMP) I8 29 8 I 29 'da s ria o da s 5.0 126.6 0' 1050 N ~ dad 0 l 1000 550 580 1230 39C 810 1050 6.2 126.9 230 450 650 190 570 680 250 380 580 24C 550 670 6.0 126.3 80 250 400 14C 320 370 2 4 6 100 240 430 15d 300 390 days days days 7.9 125.2 50 70 180 40 57 130 210 30 60 60 30 100 230 30 50 120 200 20 50 60 8.7 122.6 25 25 30 10 50 70 25 25 30 NA 40 70 4.1 125.6 NA NA 50 3.8 128.8 70 110 50 60 110 220 110 180 240 2.8 132.0 120 150 320 120 150 300 5.0 124.8 42 120 170 35 110 170 110 8l dayvs 6.2 124.8 30 50 130 230 40 100 210 330 30 80 150 230 40 100 230 310 30 30 18 0 200 40 100 220 270 5.5 124.8 80 100 60 130 240 270 90 130 60 140 260 280 80 150 60 120 260 240 6.5 124.0 50 60 100 150 10 60 100 180 50 50 80 150 NA 60 130 150 80 50 80 120 NA 60 100 160 22.5 40.3 59.7 41.5 70.1 94.2 61.0 87.3 157.6 NA - Data was not available (esually because the sample crumbled or the movement of the needle was not readable in case of cube specimen), s s )

( f TABLE 2 (Sheet 2

SUMMARY

OF SAND-CEMDif F: = U WATER / BATCH ^^ fd M M m DESCRIPTION W4 MM hgg hd

s 9 IN LBS as

'4"18 oEl Me5 !!S33 b E iEt e o^ h (7./WT/ k*$ IN AGG. ADDED TOTAL M SAND)

r 56.6 gal 5

11/7/77 Potable Water Line PTL (6) 175 2735 North of Pipe Shop S/C-3 5.18 Set #1 (non-safety related) Set #2 56.6 gal 11/16/77 East 6 South of Elec-PTL (6) 175 2735 trical Shop S/C-4

5. Its (non-safety related) 56.6 gal 11/22/77 Manhole 22P PTL (6) 175 2735 (non-safety related)

S/C-5 5.18 56.6 gal 12/5/77 Elec trical llanhole 29P PTL (6) 175 2735 (non-safety related) S/C-6 5.18 1/4/78 Electrical Duct Man-PTL 5 169 2735 56.5 gal / hole 2E 6 3E Set #1 S/C-7 (non-safety related) 56.5 gal Set #2 5 169 2735 56.5 gal ( 1/12/78 Exeter-llampton Duct PTL 5 169 2735 Bank Sta. 3+25 to 3t50 S/C-8 i Set #1 (non-safety related) Set #2 Note: e All Cylinder samples were molded in a Single-Use Mold, using tamping rods. i l e Stripping of molded cylindrical specimen was conducted at the time of testing, e Cube samples were stripped from mold af ter 24 hours and placed in plastic bag for curing in the curind e Actual production batch weights were not available. Therefore only the design mix was given. l \\ k

e Sba62 FSAR 5-17 Elp (. IABORA'mRY DATA 1ABORATORY PAJCLEAR CUBE UNCON. COMP. CYL. UNCON. COMP. h DENSITY DENSOMETER STRENGTl! - PSI STRENGT11 - PSI f PCF 6" DIR. TRANSM. (2" X 2") (6" f X 12") g j hg dN 8 M 88 WET PROCTOR W$r DRY WT N M WT MAX. WT PCF 7. 3 7 28 90 3 7 28 90 gy (7. MC) fd PCF PCF (7. MC DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS COME 9 0 8.2 122.6 25 50 80 180 40 80 120 160 50 50 100 250 30 80 150 180 25 50 100 NA 40 80 140 140 120 120 110 120 140 120 2 2 5.7 126.6 40 30 90 80 30 90 170 190 50 30 50 50 30 80 170 180 25 30 50 30 20 NA 170 150 B 2-1/2 5.5 126.8 30 30 130 210 NA NA 130 190 30 30 100 200 NA NA 110 180 30 30 100 210 20 70 130 180 2 2-1/4 4.5 128.4 30 50 50 20 50 110 30 50 50 20 60 120 50 60 75 NA 70 130 li). 2-1/2 6.0 125.2 la 50 150 NA 90 140 ta 30 150 NA 80 150 tm 50 150 NA 90 150 l3 1-3/4 6.2 NA 30 100 180 ta 80 170 l 30 60 150 40 90 160 NA 90 150 NA NA 150 1-1/4 5.5 126.8 124.0 123.3 112.5 9.5 NA 50 60 80 160 G (90.3) NA 50 80 t:A 140 l@ 1-3/4 5.3 NA 14.07. 121.7 111.4 9.2 ' 3 hourd OMC (89.8) tm 50 80 NA 160 NA Sand 121.0 11I.4 8.6 Alone (89.8) 122.5 112.0 9.4 (90.3) 6 2.6 rg 121.7 111.7 8.9 ~3 days) (90.1) im 50 30 80 130 119.9 111.1 7.9 NA 30 80 NA 130 l (89.8) NA 50 80 NA 150 1 NA - Data was not available (urually because the sample crumbled or the movement of the needle was not readable in case of cube specimen)

• p e p [ -)n P pPay ngf tgy @ 5 P room.

i I

(( TABLE 2. (Sheet 3

SUMMARY

OF SAND-CEMENT Fit

• C WATER / BATCH

^^ DESCRIPTION yD Qh h$g g sa g RoR ghp u{ IN LBS g g, k '] N g d d. 6 5 *$ 3" DATE 6 0111ER REF. 5 s DETAILS u o 8 p IN AGG. ADDED TOTAL gS g y 56.6 gal /23/78 Stump Dump - Test Pit PTL 5 169 2735 YD105 //2/ 78 Exeter-Ilampton Duct SC-9 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 5' Line Set 1 (non-safety related) Set 2 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 7l f/3/78 Exeter-Ilampton Duct SC-10 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 71 Line Set 1 (non-safety related) Set 2 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 5, 2/16/78 Service Water Trench SC-11 5' (safety-related) Set 1 5 169 2735 56.6 gal Set 2 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 5 5 2/17/78 Service Water Trench SC-12 (safety-related) Set 1 5 169 2735 56.6 gal Set 7 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 5 o All Cylinder samples weremolded in a Sing 1c-Use Mold, using tamping rods. 'o t a : c Stripping of molded cylindrical specimen was conducted at the time of testing. o Cube samples were stripped from mold af ter 24 hours and placed in plastic bag for curing in the curing o Actual production batch weights were not available. Therefore only the design mix was given. \\ (

SB 1 & 2 I FSAR 1 (;LD61.ABORA10RYDATA LABORATORY NUCLEAR CUBE UNCON. COMP. CYL. UNCON. COMP. h DENSITY DENS 0!1ETER STRENGDI - PSI STRENGUI - PSI

• PCF 6" DIR. TRANSM.

(2" X 2") (6" d X 12") g, y$H y d$ 8 WET PROCIUR WET DRY WT M VI HAX. WT PCF 7. 3 7 28 90 3 7 28 90 gy (7. MC) Td PCF PCF (7. HC DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS COMP) 1/2 4.7 126.8 30 80 150 90 190 50 100 190 100 170 30 130 180 100 170 v 4-1/2 3 126.6 80 50 100 90 150 100 50 190 90 160 80 30 160 170 50 30 160 100 190 80 10 110 90 210 2-1/2 4.5 80 40 140 200 ~) 3-1/4 4.6 127.6 30 30 110 80 180 30 10 120 80 160 30 30 110 150 50 10 150 NA 160 50 40 160 NA 170 3-1/2 3.5 30 30 110 2-3/4 5.0 126.8 30 40 210 250 50 200 240 10 50 160 250 70 250 N/A 50 150 180 260 50 100 160 230 40 260 270 50 80 150 230 70 240 270 5-1/2 2.8 30 130 140 180 230 ) 2 5.5 127.7 30 50 190 250 110 200 310 10 50 210 250 100 220 330 30 30 210 300 30 30 160 180 120 210 270 10 30 140 180 130 240 260 b 3-1/4 3.8 40 40 140 150 250 3;h4,- rdIcd cd, 8 r-7

• Data used in preparing Figure 2.54 W /

4 NA - Data was not available (usually because the sample crumbled or the movement of the

room, needle was not readable in case of cube specimen)

/ /

/ TABI.E 2.5-17 (Sheet 4ofp

SUMMARY

OF SAND-CDIENT FIELD & 1ABORAlt h WATER / BATCH ^^ 5 = 5 3ESCRIPTION } $f $H, g g H IN LBS g oR Hhp g"hy g$ 3 I 8 g3$g _ }Uf 6 011tER REF. I s DETAILS 9 e a: sa o o g4 p. IN AGG. ADDED TOTAL gv g y D 5 1 IicaW:terTrench SC-13 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 54 2 1;ty-related) S.i 1 Set 2 a 169 2735 56.6 gal 48 2 Set 3 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 51 2-1/2 51 2-1/2 Lcborctory Tests CEI 5 1 16.18 2.79 sal pritm (part by weight of batch

)

reprt [ o vice water Trench SC-14 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 58 2 fety-related) Set 1 Set 2 SC-14 5 169 2735 56.6 gal 52 1-1/4 7y11ndar sampics were molded in a Single-Use Mold, using tamping rods. iping of snolded cylindrical specimen was conducted at the time of testing, caples were stripped from mold after 24 hours and placed in plastic bag for curing in the curing room, il production batch weights were not available. 11terefore only the design mixwas given. \\

1 l SB 1 & 2 g FSAR )Y DATA 1ABORATOTJ NUCLEAR CUBE UNCON. COMP. CYL. UNC3N. COMP. .I DDISITY DENS 0 METER STRDiCT11 - PSI STRD'GTil, PSI

• PCF 6" DIR. TPANSM.

(2" X 2") (6" d X 12") b#4 WET PROCTOR WET DRY WT WT MAX. WT PCF 7. 3 7 28 90 3 7 28 90 (7. MC) Td PCF PCF (7. MC DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS COMP) 2.5 126.2 50 50 90 230 80 140 240 50 50 110 220 90 160 250 50 50 110 220 N/A 3.5 60 50 100 230 90 150 250 60 50 100 170 90 150 250 50 50 100 230 N/A D.7 100 50 180 270 90 180 230 100 50 150 240 80 180 220 0.7 60 80 130 240 N/A 124.0 66.7 123.9 72.5 126.2 85.3 1 127.4 141.0 126.2 133.0 126.8 130.0 124.4 117.9 124.5 139.4 125.0 133.7 2.8" d cylinders + 126.2 91 124.8 89 124.1 106 124.0 119 '3 conf stress /7.1 PSI 123.9 134 3 conf stress /7.1 PSI 124.] 122 '3 conf stress /7.1 PSI 124.4 372 3 conf stress /42.7 PSI 124.1 376 3 conf stress /42.7 PSI 124.0 364 3 con,f stress /42.7 PSI $.6 127.1 90 170 250 90 170 220 5.2 110 170 200 120 170 160 d"I A ?Yy" $'T

• [Ita used in preparing Figure 2. AU g )

NA - Data was not available (usua ly-tricause the sample crumbled or the movement of the needle was not readable in case of cube specimen) / W

a Table 2.5-17 (Sheet 5 of 5)

1) Add new Table 2.5-17 (Sheet 5 of 5) directly behind Table 2.5-17 (Sheet 4 of 5).

<a +- e -

• ww = Vi.-myw ; + *- v grysse_ap g----j gt ourJPufp

TABLE 2.5-1' / ( Sheet 5 of ' l 1 SU.tGRY OF SAND-CEMENT FIELt [* E* a E2 h b DATE DESCRIPTION Q$ $n dQ WATER /DATCH $N e d o, g & CTfHER REF. 4dy yy$ $n$$ IN LBS do} mA N o' g DETAILS

1. N~

UD 3$m" NO O m 3 <"d NNS 3 IN AGG. ADDED TOTAL 7/78 Service Water Trench t19 7 7 4, E6250 to 119774, E6300 safety-related B/78 Service Water Trench N9774, E6250 to N9774, E6300 safety-related 29/78 Service Water Trench M9774, E6250 to N9774, E6340 safety-related FES: All cylinder samples were molded in a Single-Use Mold, using tamping rods. Stripping of molded cylindrical specimen was conducted at the time of testing. Cube samples were stripped from mold after 24 hours and placed in plastic bag for curing in t i 1 (

SD 1 &2 FSAR ) l l & LABORATORY DATA N I"d LADORATORY NUCLEAR CUDE UNCON. COMP. CYL. UNCON. COMP. j O $., DENSITY DENSOMETER STRENGTil - PSI STRENGTil - PSI

• m" PCF 6" DIR. TRANSM.

( 2" X 2") (6" X 12") 2 WET PROCTOR WET DRY WT WT MAX. WP PCF 3 7 28 90 3 7 28 90 ( % MC ) Ya PCP PCP (% MC DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS COMP) 60 110 160 260 60 110 100 270 50 130 280 80 125 150 200 60 110 160 150 80 100 150 160 100 160 220 180 130 180 270 80 140 200 190 140 190 350 80 130 200 200 140 50 150 290 320 90 300 330 80 160 300 300 90 280 320 80 150 340 280

• Data used in preparing Figure 2.5-45.

te cu rin g room.

Table 2.5-19 (3 sheets)

1) Add new Table 2.5-19 (3 sheets) directly behind Table 2.5-18.

i t

TABLE 2.5 TYPES OF ENGINEERED BACKFZLL BENEATH CATEGORY I STRUCTURES ^ Page 1 of 3 Category I Structure Type of Engineered Backfill Allowable Maximus Between Bottom of Structure Bearing Bearing III Pressure Pressure and Top of Sound Bedrock Fill Offsite Tunnel Concrete Borrow Cuttings 'tsf tsf UNIT NO. 1 60 12 Containment Structure x 60 .36 Containment Enclosure Building x 60 2.8 Containment Enclosure ventilation Area x 60 Control Building x' 60 Diesel Generator Building x 60 I Non-Essential Switchgear Room x 60 RHR Spray Equipment Vault x 60 Primary Auxiliary Building x 60 x Fuel Storage Building 60 Fuel Storage Facility Wall x 60 52 Condensate Storage Tank x 60 14 Emergency Feedsater Punphouse x 60 4.0 l Steam and Feedsater Pipe Chase (East) x 60 18 Steam and Feedsater Pipe Chase (West) x 60 4.5 Pre-Action Valve Building x 60 x Personnel Hatch Area 60 x Tank Farm Area 60 x Refueling Water Storage Tank 60 Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank x l l

a l .ADLE 2.5 TYPES OF ENG2NEERED BACZF2LL BENEATH CATEGORY I STRUCTURES Page 2 of 3 Category I Structure Type of Engineered Backfill Allowable Maximum Between Bottom of Structure Bearing Bearing and Top of Sound Bedrock (II Pressure Pressure Fill Offsite Tunnel Concrete Borrod Cuttings tsf tsf UNIT NO. 2 Containment Structure x 60 12 Containment Enclosure Building x 60 36 i Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area x 60 2.8 Control Building x 60 Diesel Generator Building x 60 Hon-Essential Switchgear Room x 60 RHR Spray Equipment Vault x 60 Primary Auxiliary Building x 60 Fuel' Storage Building x 60 Fuel Storage Facility Wall x 60 Condensate S:orage Tank x 60 5.2 Emergency Feedwater Pumphouse x 60 14 Steam and Feedwater Pipe Chase (East) x 60 4.0 Steam and Feedwater Pipe Chase (West) x 60 18 Pre-Action Valve Building x 60 4.5 Personnel Hatch Area x 60 Tank Farm Area x 60 Refueling Water Storage Tank x 60 Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank x 60 4

TABLE 2.5 TYPES OF ENGINEERED EACKFILI, BENEATH CATEGORY I STRUCTURES Page 3 of 3 Category I Structure Type of Engineered Backfill Allowable Maximum Between Bottom of Structure Bearing Bearing and Top of Sound Bedrock (l) Pressure Pressure Fill Offsite Tunnel Concrete Borrow Cuttings tsf tsf OTHER STRUCTURES Circulating Water Pumphouse x 60 Service Water Pumphouse x 60 Electrical Control Room x 60 Intake Transition Structure x 60 Discharge Transition Structure x 60 Piping Tunnels x 60 Waste Processing Building x 60 Service Water Cooling Tower x 60 Safety-Related Electrical Manholes xI2) x(2) 2.5 0.5 Safety-Related Electrical Duct Banks x(3) Safety-Related Service Water Pipes x(4) NOTES: (1) Backfill concrete and sand-cement were not used as engineered backfill beneath the foun-dations of any seismic Category I structures. (2) Offsite borrow was used beneath all safety-related electrical nanholes except Manhole W19/20. The maximum thickness of of fsite borrow beneath safety-related manholes is approximately 18 ft. Manhole W19/20 is founded on tunnel cuttings with a few layers of offsite borrow included within the tunnel cuttings. The thickness of the combined tun-nel cuttings and of fsite borrow beneath this manhole is 15.3 ft. (See Fig. 2.5-42c. ) (3) The maximum thickness of offsite borrow beneath safety related electrical duct banks is approximately 18 ft. (4) The thickness of offsite borrow beneath safety-related service water pipes is 14 ft or less, except in the area between the Circulating Water / Service Water Pumphouse and the Intake / Discharge Transition Structures where the thickness of offsite borrow beneath the service water pipes is approximately 25 ft.

Table 2.5-20

1) Add new Table 2.5-20 (attached) directly behind Table 2.5-19.

) i 1 I l l l l t l { l

TABLE 2.5 Properties For Seismic Deformation Analysis of Revetment Property Revetment Offsite Borrow Glacial Filter Stone or Random Fill Till Cloth 1. Unit Weight Saturated - below water 140 pcf 136 pcf 140 pcf Moist - above water 126 pcf 126 pcf 2. Shear Modulus Parameter, K (1) 170 55 110 2 3. Damping at low strain level (f 10-6 in./in.) 54 54 54 4. Poisson's ratio, p Saturated - below water 0.3 0.48 0.48 Above water table 0.3 0.3 0.3 5. Friction angle 36' 34* 36' 32* (1) Parameter K2 used to compute shear modulus at low strain level (f 10-6 in./in.) with equation Gmax = 1000K (E )I where d', is the 2 m octahedral effective stress. r

I l l Figure 2.5-14 l

1) Relocate Boring B-22 as shown on attached copy.

t I t f r 1 i 1 )

~l 0~~ ( ga - 60, - .e', 's ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ /.e, 5 bms )/ N Q/- ' ' 'l*** 'N l / '/ o. ,l/j /o 'N h ,f' K \\ / ,/ - ao. 9_ / K k ,/ [ / .eaa \\ / /

• e4 "2

'\\ \\ x/,/ /- .e44 - eo. o. - _. / // \\ / ~ N yj,x:,/jp-cp' Qg.743) [ / '.e24 N c. \\ / / / l ,/ - ~ _ _ j ~ --- ~4 0' l O- / \\ ' l/ l / ~~' *10, /7l ,/,/ / 's ( l /, .. -? s lI \\ .~.- . : l. ',..~,' $* } y k *,,e y I ,s",/ i s I l '?

ej N

l l 'QC f,/;gl a' o ~~ :;,. - - {l l 's u 2- ~, NO \\.-~e l y 0 /. s x q .e, j s~ 's '/o. l ) ,l ~ .ta s, \\ '~ ~ ' s

, t n '*. o,.e

-d?s 02 3 (~ - ~~ s /.., s~ ~,...... > v s s O* '

s. %

,e . o f, ,f ,Q j

• ais N

h}gg b2-s,5o s ,l.z. . o,.,a'.

• 10-

~~~~~ ' ~ ~-, ,./ O .,. 9,. ,y l y'l . A [y 't ~/ l l / z-fr'-f / l t ~~~...... BEDROCK CONTOURS ,/ N *10 - - g] .cf as,- b~' ~ .=0' / ' '~ EXPLORATORY DORINGS - SOILS MQTORY BORINGS - BEDROCK q,/ w/ \\ N ~~~~~*X====- f/ ~ ~ x. r, 7 w% w 'N ^ i, s .c-o 3, i., u g2*~~'</ % 0 S o $4, ,x 0 / N p s._ / s

/ s' --~,s.~ d / B \\ ~- ,qd, / ' ~ ' ~ ~. N -- /' O' '" s' / ct e x /,. + / N ~ \\ ec [ "A ,/ /, %~% N ./,, /* 3 2, - -3 0 v ~/ 'N /, /. - ~ no. ~ ~ N 's ///m- / .h .~ s~' /*my .e.. .t( / / s' ' .m c / ' / z 4 3.- :.?* 2=%m;-[y 'N ,/,Q ; "..9?:J' P x .c.. /rC-;h x [ ) ' ('- &M l V /. d. ^ ( ix.,. x s .~. 9 3 3 <- s s s x .a> fy,. '. Q.%.c 9:d. / ,' u.....'

• ,.-..M: p l.

a j ^ ) u, h.,,<, 'l. -.p._. e?h,, '" . y ~ ~~~~ } b \\ / ,\\ .y. 5 z, ,.\\,, s O R %p, j'>f/.. 'S, - "L

• 0 k 9.$ s?%, 'i==L/

\\ i, f1 DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL k L' ( -20, ~ '- - ,.u O* 10 0* 200' 300' 400' S00' 5 NY I 'I \\ -- ~30 . 16 3o-o; ' \\ l .,1 s ,, u- \\ L- ) ) g ) / I ^" ^ "I" AND E Tl AATEb 8 DROCK TOP GRAPHY SEABR K TIO U IT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE 2.514

l l i l l l Figure 2.5-41a

1) Add new Figure 2.5-41a (attached) directly behind Figure 2.5-41.

I f

/ ( RETAll NOTES

• I)FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES REFER TO FIG 2.5-41,

2) FOR SECTIONS D-D THROUGH P-P, REFER TO FIGURES 2.5 -42 0 THROUGH

2. 5 - 4 2 d.

3)FOR SECTlONS Q-Q THROUGH S-S REFER TO FIGURES 2.5-54 THROUGH MH Wl9/20 2.5-56. 3 k-OS 4 V[ 5 Q:::a f e __ __ _ g I-ll m: F ll my 1i 1 UNIT ll i m 2 Il

9. SERVICE WATER PIPES k /

~ l l'

---

- ELECTRICAL DUCT BANKS

!I PIPE I I, O TUNNEL I $j zit::d t_ _ b. ~ li O R g n o REVETMENT A l 1 \\

e 4lNG WALL REVETMENT B S /' U N';

========_~ _a/

t _ _ - W.f _

lT ~ I ll [m, gg ll N l o UNIT ( ll l 1 ll - r / ll Lhr: TT- [ re=x p_ - _ i}~l-, J. =ti _J MH W33/34[*N > J ~ Q.I I lHW29/30 ) uh N i i i i ii iy k 7R MH Wl3/14 SEAWALL REVETMENT A MHW15/16 l O. 50 100 200 300 400 500 FEET i i i i i a t GRAPHIC SCALE s x Z H < e _J O 0. Z PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LOCATIONS OF ADDITION AL SECTIONS - l SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 18 2 BUILDING AND UTILITY FOUNDATIONS FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY S IS REPORT l FIG URE 2.5 - 41y' / i l

Figure 2.5-42 Delete existing Figure 2.5-42 and replace with new Figure 2.5-42 (attached). l i S. ), '\\ \\ 4 I i. I l \\ i t i 4 I ( 's l =

-- i l \\ l C piot tuAM (f afil PWE Cmaltlettil-Costanutui st'6C70A SUIL0see {. LA. 37 LasT ! if 44 ait Aas G Fleect.*g3 UIST 8 af A88 Sitkas & PRIDFF 'ES tsA64 STtAaleFispeeftG i ry=s Aat totst)3 oss1Assoastm7 R4,AC104 BLEDeus

1. 1Pt C 1

,A,.-,- 1 ,A.,&. A.EA i .m t.. _, s T / Y e5 o \\ _ - - = ~ =: ~~ se ~ * ' _N r ..g F, 9. r=.... , _ 8 ...t. t.... m, j w"Rf"j '\\__.-,[~* ~ .~ e f l SECTION A-A o so rs see ""an"'amf%_sud""5 SCALE asFtti Laeff 8 CONI &senetNT BE LC10A DugLleg FutLstonAM tea c! [ FL4L 4 ton AM suitems0 l I f utmaincy ettomaita ?vurnOust i or sotsuo Faisato seiM ~ to"nocu ELEvaiS + teac tusL33 2010 l { ' i i,-.[- ...- [. ' C7 t* ~ $?7Q~~i ~" '=T'~== TT 010 < -- ~ 5* ~~'~4 so q'+ o 4 ,4 q __w ..s-I L,I C ', 20 to f-D"CI' .} fM '..- . 4 0 *- G 4 .f,0'O - kf**4

• • ** **1'.".*
• I 'CA' l-- _

-eOLO - - ~ ,#0010 ~-. TION B-B SEC O SO 79 10 0 fam"sunYammmmD SCatt weptgi 1 \\

o 9 na cFatomarta

• staar (East)

W.tN e i sanncs matam miAarioscmAmes Pmenoun taamsiTion :Taucfunae / I TOPWSQLeso A0cm ? < wsww m ., ~ - - ~ ~~- g,, a g yggggy Q hl, l k FLuus rg.g atterwu oucis agiricati a"raiF~~ ~W .e ant a s e's MINIMUM EXTENT OF ENGINEERED Bt.CKFILL a Twts

l. FILL CONCatit-UNDit ALL SE15M6C CATEGOtt 151tuCiutt5 FRCM SOTTOM OF FOUNDAflON TO YOP OF SOUND SECtOCK.

2. 3 ACIFILL CONCBEf E-SEYwf EN THE OUTSIDE WALLS OF All SEISMIC CATEGORY 15f tuCiutf 5 AND THE WALLS OF SEDROCg EXCAVAT40N%UP TO THE BEDROCK SutFACE.

n,f o. 5 OFF5 tit tOttow-SEDDING AND BACKFILUNG REQUIREMINTS wEtt A5 FOLLOW 5: f- -- elVEtfiCAL LIMsT:IROM TOP OF SOUND SED 40CK TO Af -? d V LEAST thatE(3) FEET ABOvi TOP OF SUttED FIFE 5 04 ELECittCAL DUCTS. -Ni0 - 8 b) hot l10NTAL LIMif: 1) MINIMUM OF Fivf(5)PEET PROM EACH SIDE OF THE PnPE(5) Ot ELECTRICAL DUCTS.WHEN THE PIPE 5 2 b O' O - -- -- - 04 ELECitlCAL DUCTS witE RELOW TOP OF (A1111NG ROCK, THE LIMIT WAS THE SIDES OF THE EXCAVAftD TRENCH,2) ALSO A ANNIMUM OF TEN (10) FLET PROM SIDES OP SitudiutEL

4. 5 AND-CEMENT-5AME REQUlttMENTS A5 0FF51TE tottow.5EE TEXT 704 DETAIL 5 ON LOCAilONS OF SAND-CEMENT.

5. TUNNEL CUTTINGS-5AME 4EOutathENTS A5 OFF5ef t tottOW g

SEE 7txt FOt DETAILS ON LOCATIONS OF TUl4NEL CUTTING 5. towf l # 6.lN MANY CASES,SACKFILL CONCRETE WA5 USED IN LIEU OF OFF5ITE 604 tow. conTaissutaf et hcfon tusLDene g EXTENT OF R ANDOM FILL i i I.

1. RANDOM FILL 15 M)NSAFETY-RELATED FILL USED FOR GENERAL gutaognc, agg omatta SifE GRADING IN ALL AREAS NOT REQUltlNG ENGINEttED L

pump,,ougg S ACLFILL, NOTES To, o, w L NON5AFETY-tELATED FIFE 5 AND ELECTelCAL DUCTS NOT SHOWM --"*C~' --~~ ~ ~ ' ' ~, O 2.IN SECTION A-A, B ANDOM FILL E RTEN05 AFFROKnM A1ELT 1000 FT, -~ ~ TO THE LEFT OF THE OFF5ITE tottOW.

• ]-

gLtCin4ALDuCTS j 3.IN SECTION S-8,8 ANDOM FILL EXTENDS AFFtOKIMATILY 100 FT. TO THE LtFT OF THE OFF5ITE 608 tow, gryp cagg m '7" ATUNNEL CUTTINGS AND SAND-CEMENT NOT USED AT ANT FROHLt1 5HOwN ON THis FaGutt. maf E2 Pet s (TVPiCALI ,,; o-ENGINitaED B ACKFILL-FlLL CONCREft ENGINittED B AC4FIL1= SACEFILL CONCRETE gg f[$ '"c'"""o **ct"'t-o"5'" 'o** SECTICN C-C B AN-M,,LL .:..: g. ' scEE Nt PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE EXTENT OF EXCAVATION St-ABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT .3 l FIGURE 2 5-47 l_ _ _ =

Figures 2.5-42a, 2.5-42b, 2.5-42c, and 2.5-42d

1) Add new Figures 2.5-42a, 2.5-42b, 2.5-42c, and 2.5-42d (attached) directly behind existing Figure 2.5-42.

l l,m 9 h = TURSON E CONT (NSATE W4TER d NAM DING STORM 4 TANK UNif t to-y / / OFF SITE ~ / DORnow J / OR Tum=Et OrFSiTe e0RRow 1 .0 j ,US,,T .C,U T TINGS q$TRUCTURAL OR TUNNEL CUTTING w / o nue /

• • • 'an*"'

CONCRETE) o,aucs,,~ neeen m, ? / / / <r=wT - ~ w / FILL CONCRETE TO D q j -10 / // g_S 1,0 1,S 20 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE -2 0 S ECTI ON D-D W D DVILDING Umsi1 CONCENSATE DATER [FlM AL gp31 STORAGE TANK, UNIT l EL

• 20' 2 0

/ OFFSITE DORRow OR Sue W AT Of7 SITE BORROW --.N.FL.C.UT. TINGS, SS j TUNNEL (ST RUCTuRAL CONCR E Tg) On TUN CmhG,3 N LU E TOP OF SOUNO FILL U S flLL CONC. BEDROCK CONC. f;4 0 A G ^ $.3 d 4 -iO 7r O S to 9,9 to FEIT -. S .Rir e SCAL -2 0 S ECTION E-E i \\ \\

.g s I i e i UNIT 2 I CONTAINWENT REACTOR BUILDING OFF$lTE BORROW j OR TUNNEL F - CUTTINGS

1. 'NeYES

/ / v 50 PRE-ACTION VALVE gggggg; BUILDING FOR UNIT 2 JOINT / [ (nNISHict:5 / 20 l 10 N l f 3 [ BACKFILL ) BACKRLL O CONCRETE CONCRETE / g w FILL / p

• l0-CONCRETE

~ ) y / .20 ) / 3o / TOP OF SOUND [ h -40 BEDROCK f O 5 10 20 30 FEET 50 - tu a i i I l G R APHIC' SCALE i l l SECTION F-F I l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHlRE DUILDING FOUN O ATIO N = SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 18 2 C ROSS - S ECTION S i FlW AL SAFETY AN ALY S IS HEPORT ..'l ( l FIGURE 2.5 -42o e

/ f UNIT 1 CONTAINWENT REACTOR BUILDING / OFTSITE BORROW OR j PRE-ACTION VALVE / 30 - C ING Let u to6508 BUILDING TOR UNIT 1 SEISMIC s to iss2 8 JOINT 20. / BACKF1LL CONCRETE p h 1 FILL CONCRETE BACKFILL / CONCRETE imq,, ,g FILL CONCRETE / W TOP OF SOUND h BEDROCK 10 f zo G / W J w / 3o / s to 20 30 o it { n. i e i GRAPHIC SCALE ( <h SECTION G-G \\ \\.

1 V REACTOR MANE-UP MFUEUNG WATER WATER STORACE TANK. UNIT 2 $TORAGE TANK UNIT 2 CONTROL SutLDesse ) d UNIT 2 0FfSTTE BORROW 0FTslTE DORROW p OR Ost 30 TUNNEL CUTTimes TuwNEL CUTTiwos k FIN AL GRADE EL* 20 FT iact pucre as cF Fte estal } tuot nacto as CF Fia ste25 f /I $ SERvlCE WATER PIPES ) %,, _ 'D ~ l & oo o/ L' k 0FF$sTE OP OF SouN0 O BLOROCK \\ BORROW ~10 -20 i.7 k Y YY GR APHIC SCALE SECTION H-H l l REFUEUNG WATER STORAGE TANK. UNIT 1 REACTOR MAKE*UP 0FFS OW OR WATER STORAGE TANN,UIGT1 { N* STE AM GENERAT0ft ".*u Lc".E'**'" 3, / t g / rois,. m0E i y ,o Et + r0 FT t service WATtR PiREs STRUCTURAL M AT - E #0 %oOO o# u orrstTE s0RROw 2 .,,. (.':::.) - Q ~~y//- l' ~- / .ON. RETE, .R _ W. _ ,,R,,, _, bEDROCR -30 = 0,,,,p to M y pFEET GRAPHIC sCALI SECTION 1-1 t PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BUILDING FOU N D A T I O N SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 18 2 CROS S - SECTIONS FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5 - 42 b i 4

) 1 pI R L O' 20 15 0FFSITE BORROW - 10 d E j 5 z O SAND-CEMENT MIX l O 38' / SERVICE -h WATER PIPE w -5 j .,,$,, E... 0. ( -10 (TOP OF SOUND BEDROCK 0,,,,S 1,0 1,5 2,0 FEET GRAPHIC SCALE SECTION J-J y-(LECYnCAL DUCT tame is i.. l i 1 r. ecanow 9 e 9 e= wmcc.am nmNN - ~ ~ 6 d6 ,'i W SECTION K-K i

bwASTE PROCESSING fFINAL GRADE EL* 2 OFT t BUILDING OFFS!TE BORROW t TUNNEL CUTTINGS M l IS see so=um a e"s e => l b ELECTRICAL 3 DUCT BANKS' Q i \\ l/// ga SERVICE WATER nPEs j g,,,,, j-s E b o 3 3 ~ - * &rlLL CONCRETE 4 ^ ~ ~ 0 .,3 ?....' '? ? ? " ~ ' * ' ' S ECTION L-L T SEAWALL \\ CCTRICAL MANHOE WIS/36 [ECTRICAL MANHOLE Wl3/M \\ / t -or,m E BORROW OR j ' SEAWALL-- orrstTE 8 r i. j " "o* OFFSITE $e h / o. .9 'o is 2071I7 l "s F1LL CONCRETE Gstarmc EAtt SERVICE WATER PIPES j -so ,-3 l SECTION M-M l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUNDATION CROSS-SECTIONS FOR ELECTRICAL SEADROOK STATION - UNITS 18 2 DUCT B ANKS, MANHOLES,AND SERVICE WATER PIPING FIN AL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT J l FIGURE 2.5 -42 c 2 ,/

d CONTROL ButLDING UNIT 2 FlMISH GRADE EL*20FI \\ \\ 20-%j \\ I 0FFSITE s0RROw OR k FFSITE BORROW / O TUNNEL 15 - // OR WH Wl9/20 CUTTINGS TUNNEL CUTTINGS Yta [eI5) s

1. NsS7 r

P 380 s =- ---- e z a t ] fs TUNNEL CUTTINGS p r UO r&"w&=. .;wtT1C 'O yTUNNEL CUTTINGS _ FILL CONCRETE uewi __ ~ -(TOP OF SOUNO usw,,

1. N "O '

8EDROCK 0 5 10 FEET a-a ea a t a e a n1 GRAPHIC SCALE S ECTION 0-0 = l \\.

I y 5 ? p" FINISH GRADE FL* 20E ELECTRICAL ,is M AN HOLES W33/34 g i i E e OFFSITE BORROW a 97Q ~ SEwlCE w TIR PIPL3 TOP OF SOUND " L.? e saw war SECTION N-N f riNI$H GRADE EL.'20 FE ELECTRICAL 'S M ANHOLES W29/30 2m to TL E. I -J 55 I $o OFFSITE BORROW-

• y

[ M s SERVICE WATER PtPE3 -to-N o S eorrIT 'g4',c d T D S ECTION P-P_ CHOSS-SECTIONS FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FOUN D ATION PUBLIC SEADROOK STATION - UNITS 16 2 M ANHOLES AND SERVICE WATER PIPlNG FIN AL SAFETY AN ALY SIS REPORT FIGURE 2.5

• 4 2 d

/

l Figuran 2.5-44, 2.5-447, 2.5-44b, 2.5-44c, 2.5-44d, end 2.5-447

1) Replace existing Figure 2.5-44 with attached revised Figure 2.5-44.

2) Add new Figures 2.5-44a, 2.5-44b, 2.5-44c, 2.5-44d, and 2.5-44e (attached) directly-behind Figure 2.5-44.

t 9

!!) l l f! lIll1 ( \\ ( \\ r: i j

• I Qe> aWzm F>~ 2u

.a I ~ 1 1 1 1 l 1 2 2 2 2 2 u !I1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 n 0 u i _ ii il rt ij lt ii r g T-s.~. 2 ' g{_ -s~ i ..W t ~s. g 4

i. A l

\\ p 4 \\ i T V )\\ E 1 I c N oR .LI0 n. N0 s o w.** E% il

i. C 6 X

~ q l;i .O e

• FS

.. iiN .N O N. =R x a\\ i =. 2 h RA \\ GU 1

u..

T T g s %= y% I ( FS fr __\\ oe OP i E 8 7I A or C i

u. N rf RE 2A e

4s lFSDss T 6T c OIF Y t u oFI t O fen l lin . lIn a N 1 tgi T i I 0 e. EGs s2 R: tr5B Ai e O D s4R As u3RIT 1 l OO 2 o t .s 8 WNn# )2 4 u. 5 Bi Aa 5 N# 1 D# l ~.. ,a

l **

g

n. Wmdz%oW ou O 2koFoz Fg9 mWm7ym

] <F < u<xFonI4

a. Wm U Zr u @ 0 oz 1

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 O 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 P E AR SC NO TE 9 T MN 5

r a,128 sun 126 - e 124 - 8 e 8 122 l !"e m e o 120 e. 1 e e I* ~ 11 b 118 o m z $ 116 o p II $ 114 Minimum Required Degree of Compaction 11 2 I I I I I I I l10 96979899 100 A= 90 92 94 96 98 100am f 0F MODIFIED PROCTOR PERCENT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR Dl557-70 COMPACTION ASTM Dl557-70 COMPACTION S: (1) Results shown correspond to all field density tests on Of f site Borrow placed in various saf ety-related areas of the plant site during Feb. 1978, Feb. 1979, March 1979, Jan. 1980, Feb. 1980, and Feb. 1981. Field density tests were performed according to ASTM D2922-71. A one-point compaction I test was done for each field density test. (2) All layers were compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557-70 compaction. If the measured degree of compaction for any layer was less than 95%, the layer was recampacted and retested until adequate compaction was achieved. Only the final compaction result for each layer was plotted in this figure. (3) The total number of test results used to prepare the histogram is 41. O FFSIT E BORROW PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEA DROOK STATION-UNITS 18 2 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TYPICAL WINTER PERIOD l FIGURE 2.5-44 e

( ( \\

i;3 ;

>> n.og om>. Ow ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 i4 !Ii l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 1 O w. -;E _r4t. d "f n.. I g. 2 ' x s. e s k ws law tj fi A 4 1 q e Ts _ {~ T t T R

• s*

IN0 ___ m\\_ y i J t E e O L10 l_i.. F O e 6 e E% i [ x, t I C e F N e OS a q{- .e'i 5 O T fx \\i,A. ~ c2i T RA T ,- m.. h_ e T eo s

• GU

( FS t fr c E 8' oeOP i a /* , %e =R s{Sc rf REi 2A

v. N e

e, % e ar C 6T c OIF e u 4 lFSD i s,T o 7IO t ttuoFI FEi et n. a ) %1 e a N 0 tgiIGn T e E s2 Ri

• k t 5 B Ai e

OD h r s4R Ai ~ T 1 ul3RI ~- 2 saOO t WNn i ~. )2 7 Bn w 5 r Ai i, 1 Di 5 Ni i ;_;; ;;* mgogtu cWmowz%OW o1 u y g t 9 z >- [g,_ g - ) 1 q '<mFonJa owg5> o@o. Q;Oz 2 2 3 3 4 4 O 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 1 1 P ~ E AR N SC O TE 9 T MN 5 E l j

128 h ~ 126 e 3 124 e* e o 122 e e f e e e u.o 120 l8 o. o o b 118 8 g, o g ll l I Z $ 116 3 q - u i e E ll4 _. Minimum Required p O n l Degree of Compaction 8 l 112 t i i l I I I I i llO l96 97 98 991004La 90 92 94 96 98 100 abu f 0F MODIFIED PROCTOR PERCENT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR D1557-70 COMPACTION ASTM D1557-70 COMPACTION $: (1) Results shown correspond to all field density tests on of f site Borrow placed in various safety-related areas of the plant site during April and May for both 1978 and 1979. Field density tests were performed according to ASTM D 322-71. A one-point compaction test was done for each f f ield density test. l (2) All layers were compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557-70 If the measured degree of compaction for any l compaction. [ layer was less than 95% the layer was recompacted and i retested until adequate compaction was achieved. Only the l final compaction result for each layer was plotted in this l figure. (3) The total number of test results used to prepare the histogram is 51. I OFFSITE BORROW PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK STATION-UNITS 18 2 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS TY PIC AL SPRING PERIOD FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE 2.5-44o ,/ /<' ~

ll [f ( O m >. o m Z m._ [. o o u. f= 3 z ;, 2 2 2 2 2 l 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 u ~ O as = l 2 a s w \\_;s-s- i L1 iW g A r Ns. Y j A 4 I0 c f tut N0 1 4 s t E E% l _ AT j S

1. ,Kl1 C

I R F F 4 e OA g' C L. 6 g. g RT 1 \\g t GU h C =R e O T Al ( Y N

• g 2A N

4 T . t), h fr c wT 6i 7o i

u..

g t E 8 gg. \\ i a 5 ( FS t L oe OP i W N t,T ., 3.* g or C -.. g %1 . (k rf REi u e 4 c OIF Y t t oFI ) 0 u FEu a lFSDs I h-tgi I u T e. EGi s2 Ri t 5BAa 1 e OD r s4R Ai 2 u3RIT l OO ts8 WNu )2 n .5 Bi u Ai a 1 Ni 5 Di i.. a.

• i: ": E.:g; cgowzp9w ou_ oO2EUF_021wUp EwmgbM

-) 4 a_ <mian. <E w%OwZ 0o21gqjoZ a J 2 2 3 3 4 4 O 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 Q 1 1 PE AR SC 1 l! 5

\\ I28 enuene ~ t 126 P 124 122 l o 120 I. u. m ~ h F 11 8 I[@ 8 E i z hJ IF8 l l 11 6

oco, a

I ll l i ll4 Minimum Required l l O Degree of e i l Compaction i d 112 l l i l l I l I I l l10 6 96 97 98 99100Am 90 92 94 96 98 100 Lru NT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR PERCENT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR M Dl557-70 COMPACTION ASTM Dl557-70 COMPACTION RES: (1) Results shown correspond to all field density tests on offsite Borrow placed in various safety-related areas of the plant site during August 1 through 15 of 1979. Field density tests were performed according to ASTM D2922-71. A one-point I compaction test was done for each field density test. (2) All layers were compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557-70 compaction. If the naasured degree of compaction for any layer was less than 95%, the layer was recompacted and retested until adequate compaction was achieved. Only the l final compaction result for each layer was plotted in this l figure. 1 (3) The total number of test results used to prepare the l histogram is 69. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFSITE BORROW SEABROOK STATION-UNITS 18 2 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TYPICAL SUMMER PERIOD l FIGURE 2.5 - 4 4 b w -

) i 90 ~. .....g .ggs....... y 1i i e sisiii i e i sis 6 6 a a i 3.[.1. ___ D 'l-f. SPECIFIED GRADATION BAND 80 p- - FOR OFFSITE BORROW m = -d- - (refer to Fig. 2.5-43 8 2.5-51 Z a /"E-r m; 70 - 'l \\- for actual test results.) oO ~ ~ [ W a:

a

} E g n N ( a: g. g y, cn 2 60 ya wo N-gg - y 7 z )Z t r o g 50 l iW f f} ti gW -tm d i H a 2 I..~ n Fr.m?i.... !.....,...J"* i i m..a u.. 1 04E ..n 3 ED N ~ O o WE&4 20 z "- 0 wq j o 20 128 100% SATURATION gh IO wq UNE FOR G= 2.67 0. 12 6 O 9 124 PERCE AST 122 go D. notes: (1) aesults shown corri >- 120 tests on Offsite Be area shown on the Z 11 8 - Nov. 1977 and May, g sity tests were pe Wo D2922-71. A one-g e for each field dern > !!b ~ (2) All layers were cc E ASTM D1557-70 cory o II4 ~ degree of compactB than 951, the laye ret.ssted until ado l12 achievea. only t.t each layer was plc (3) The total number c t I pare the histo 9rar 11 00 2 4 6 8 10 12 WATER CONTENT,% (ATTout GF DENStIT kEASU#WINil [ k-(

4 T -\\\\ 128

e a s

on.au 126 - 1 124 - 122 I ti. i 0 120 D. >-b IIB m Z $ l16 l ll4 _ Minimum Required O i Degree of Compaction II2 - I 'i [, F g i i i it i i l p iio i 5 96 97 98 99 IOO.L. 90 92 94 96 98 100a = NT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR PERCENT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR M Dl557-70 COMPACTION ASTM Dl557-70 COMPACTION spond to all field density irrow placed in the Revetment site plan during Sept., Oct., SITE LOCATION PLAN June, July 1978. Field den-THE GEoTECHNICAL DATA PRESENTED IN THIS FIGURE PERTAIN TO THE SHADED f ormed according to ASTM AREA SHOwN BELOW. > int compaction test was ibne sity test. I NIT -(pj/ spacted to at least 95% of UNIT 1 2

- g

ction.

If the measured 2I on for any layer was less gih-COOLING TOWER recompacted and r was I w 'luate compaction was final compaction result for e sted in this figure. REVETMENT A .f test results used to pre-is 9. OFFSITE BORROW PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SEABROOK STATION-UNITS 18 2 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS 95% CRITERIA REVETMENT AREA FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE 2.5-4 4 c _ -a

i 45 .....-.m... ... e.% . % 4 % a... e m o e. e.

e. e. =. so.

3,_ g gie a uisi t i ii uisi a e i .?.__ .K_ -e SPECIFIED GRADATION BAND 40 -. FOR OFFSITE BORROW fhDz 3 - (refer to Fig 2.5-4382.5-51 a 3/ j Y~p' ~~ for octual test results.) DO C gr 35 gQ

a. :

- y I }_ .A ..i H-Q r-ir $3 30 _y_ __4. z r i ro [.. O Z _d... t 1. _w 25 u._ ro o {x w 1 ' 20 oe i o< .....m.. i ...-m.. h. 3 og 15 o WF QM rg 10 z 128 wq 100% SATURATION og5 LINE FOR G = 2.67 126 e n-I e O 90 5 124 PERCEN1

• e ASTM 122 e

u. o e e N TES: (1) Results shown correspo

• 120 s'

e p g tests on Random Fill p area shown on the sitG (nz 11 8 Nov-1977 and MaY. Jun w sity tests were perfos O D2922-71. A one poin9 for each field density >- 11 6 e e g e (2) All layers were compat y ASTM D1557-70 compactf O e [l4 8 degree of compaction f e than 90%, the layer wa retested until adequa9 glg achieved. Only the ff ge each layer was plotted (3) The total number of LG i I I I I 11 0 pare the histogram is O 2 4 6 8 10 12 (4) The gradation of the Random Fill WATER CONTENT,% placed in the area t ar vm or einserv unasu==cav i l as the specified I gradation for offsite Borrow. \\ ~ \\

l i \\ m l l 126 e 124 e 122 e tu e g 120 S .=, H l18 e a I z $ l16 !e h i f $ l14 -I l o !l l12 -l l I I I 11 0 12 94 96 98 IOO&m. 90 92 94 96 98 1004.m ' OF MODIFIED PROCTOR PERCENT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR Dl557-70 COMPACTION ASTM Dl557-70 COMPACTION nd to all field density laced in the Revet.nent plan during Sept. and t\\ te, July 1978. Field den-SITE LOCATION PLAN ned according to ASTM THE GEOTECHNICAL DATA PRESENTED IN compaction test was done [q'E A HOWN EL W. test. ted to at least 90% of an. If the measured Ni [I ar any layer was less E recompacted and COOLING TONER 4 e compaction was i Tal compaction result for in this f i cp2 re. it results used to pte-13. UBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RANDOM FILL SEA BROOK STATION-UNITS 18 2 COI.t PACTION TEST RESULTS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 90% CRITERIA-REVETMENT AREA l FIGURE 2.5 - 4 4 d j /

/ 45 40 .sgs....... nui>> >> .our..> sy m j q l-7 i - SPECIFIED GRADATION BAND -.. {j A DO t-- FOR TUNNEL. CUTTINGS - f { Q(for octual test results) -- b-- m 35 a ~ 1--- refer to Fig.2.5-46 8 2.5-50 -- y l E< 0 3. y! .._ L_ 9 g_ - --\\--- ,j M 30 t a Fo p a 7p e .i.....B ____. gz l g.. _4 .. =. __w 25 y,, 7,.. N.. _ Fo .t Og s_

7...

..q N. gw s - 20 o ._s }.--_.p

. 7__.._... _

~_ ..i.. u< g I aa... H u..r i %.- b. 1 .ad~, ....a.- I oD I5 o W~ F o %e< l0 c 5 4

0. S.5. 4 I

c 100% SATURATION gF 5 4 LINE FOR G=2.83 g 152 O O 150 - PERCENT e e ASTM 148 u. ou-V. tiOTE: >." 14 6

• d% 8 e

F

• Ce I e G

e We z 144 e w O e og >- 14 2

p.

• mo e

I40 e 13 8 13 6O 2 4 6 8 10 12 WATER CONTENT,% { AT Tet#E OP O(nSITT Mt ASumastnT 3 ( \\

i I 1 154 l 152 e i 150 e e 148 i u ~ l o i46 m a 8 3 - i b 144 i v) z o e I wo 142-Ce IIE o 14 0 Minimum Required o Degree of Compaction i 13 8 - I I i -1 I I I 13 6 36 97 98 99 IOOA. 90 92 94 96 98 IOO L. OF MODIFIED PROCTOR PERCENT OF MODIFIED PROCTOR Dl557-70 COMPACTION ASTM D1557-70 COMPACTION >: (1) Results shown correspond to all field density tests performed on Tunnel Cuttings in saf ety-related areas of the plant site. These areas were 1110160-102201, E5290-53601 ( August 13-26, 1981) and 1410140-102101, E5420-55501 (September 11, 1980-May 20, 1981). Field density tests were performed according to ASTM D2922-71. A one point cog action test was Mne for each field density test. (2) All layers were compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557-70 compaction. If the measured degree of compaction for any layer was lens than 95%, the layer was recompacted and retested until adequate compaction was achieved. Only the final compaction result for each hyer was plotted in this figure. (3) The total number of test results used to prepare the histogram is 52. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TUNNEL CUTTINGS SEABROOK STATION-UNITS 18 2 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE 2.5 - 4 4 e /

Figures 2.5-45, 2.5-45a, 2.5-45b

1) Replace existing Figure 2.5-45 with attached revised Figure 2.5-45.

2) Add new Figures 2.5-45a and 2.5-45b ( attached) directly behind Figure 2.5-45.

i l l y.' A7 ..ims._ '_ CL.nhJ. _2 ., - ~ s ~ n,- ~ ~, m,.

j. _,,,,.2-2'P '...

.~#'** 4*' < th A.-

f;. LEGEND G Unconfined Compressive Strength after 7 days of curing IIUnconfined Compressive Strength after 28 days of curing JkUnconfined Compressive Strength after 90 days of curing NOTE: Results shown correspond to all safety-related SAND-CEMENT placed within the plant site, which was placed in a lO-ft-wide service water pipe trenchexcavatedinrock,centerlineN9774,betweenl i E6250 and E6430 during the period February 16 to March 29, 1978. Tests performed according to l ASTM C39-74. Ref. Table 2.5-17. \\ \\ I

t 4 i i i

j,,gey 350 i

i i a i i .n n @b*?dk[h"?Y2*% y A .ff TA.

a. C E M EN+T,*,

. _ ~.. "e ..uwa,% b19mr.2":*;g

• /--n ~ vw W

. RESULTS4.. 300 u, tTE f;,. Aw . < w%wh: [$0fpg. -wAv e r # @ rSA 3 , d l,s;Q M} $cggips ]

3:3 T, sg m

. y'. %2t _ N6s:9MWY %4&i. Wag:y&; m y)j- ~ - b.,'}}g:p;\\ ;;x D _^ % ., f[ L3; 250

,;;;;}gg.;;,y,ggy~}}A a.

m'g ; +

,9

u _NW j l g) . ~..,.:W a &., .' gl-u

A e

• q: )g

,j.s-r e< } p <,..'q., . D.. cq ~ k [ .E3 + d.;g 200 ~ a .' cs s M 'i?; y t EfCO' I uo g -.g.lE gp - , ((yg%MW:. E B E 150 u, g >py .: : ~y g [ "g.t ' { {.'i th e x. 3j s g e J;L. - y .j.- ., e m g ; :.+ ~ 14inimum Required 28-Day ~ ..A 4 :10, Compressive Strength 100 u O' d oU 43[ ,o D. ' 0g .e4 4 50 o O C D D v>. ca e 'O m a e m I I I I I I I I 'O c O O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 q 11 UMBER OF DAYS CURI!1G _m i. 1 Public Service Company of flew flampshir sat 1D-CEMEt4T Seabrook Station - Units 1 & 2 TEST RESULTS Final Safety Analysis Report l Figure 2.5-45 I p

J fp r 4.g g y' c' 1 ( ",A e ~ 3 s t-j ^ g y 4 k L. / y - t. -.. ~. } t a )- (..X 7 %s q; en-r. '9

• s

+ ~%;? 5 y t .+ - I \\ L j M {[! A

6 sA y

,p q. y 1 7 w r.3 p.$ h

• ^

s y \\ lj. < T LEGEND. A J. 4s. Unconfined Compressive Strength j QE 3 i j N( after 7 days.of curing l-A Unconfined Compressive Strength s d after 28 days of curing 8 Unconfined Compressive Strength ,l after 90 days'of curing w s. s. .g, j- ~ U+ N, s o s'I% Results shown are for all tests of FILL s J. .? -A CONCRETE placed under the containmenc<. ~,r.. t Unit 2, during the period May 24-- ~ m., Qber 11, 1978. Tests performed ,t + - according to ASTM C39-71. \\- ,3 s ~ ( ,s. s' .. ? . a.

1. a e

e j se I yi N t' ' i.\\ l q' > # (~ t a t g ' \\.. O b, '*= k v., ..:s '1, ( )\\,.

j..,,,

-b

'e' j s s, w i c. 3 g .-..+ , e% q - .T, 3 r. (* N'

• ti 4 1-

.x -f i g -x + ,-f s .k 1 F % ^' e a y e S f.,, n 'w I ,\\ a'

v.

? s -. y. ( db L

• ly e;

sh ?* .y w I L Ik " ' %. g N = y k.,(\\, NT k. . \\ g n N .4, ---n. -J n, - -,

\\ l I I I i 1 I i l 3 3 \\ ~ 8000 m .., g j.,. w. '., c,%ik %47??./ -:-V vw:indwra g .;A ?.;*:fq@b::y$QkN;j,,A;;l~: ,,, llW Q nae s;4g fWW[ ..,llCONCRITC, p4g... FIL nrr 7000 a '.,

4,

. -t% o.= .m- .s a 'JL g3,jg +. g.: 2 - w,j_l;Dage n. - <., a s ,,,,.f y ' im? i . AA ..:.l

• h 1 bA j

r PA ,Y, s a4A '{ fAA F ~ j 6000 IA$A fA-e 4 'A S A .c /1A AAA- ~ AAS ~ nA 4 c n o N as y Aw ~ W 5000 F dA o 3

e.

1 teu Yg s. o m o s M d m e. x Qs*e*e' D o b g *i e p_J - u 4000 S y ,*g. o ,a l ooe : ), _ 4. u c to o 'y n.h + 141nimum Required 78-Day o + ( Compressive Strength 3000 d'

a.,

t ~ 2000 ~ 1000 m> i e c l m 'O m C 'O 0 v e co p (N g i l I I I f I i 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 13 UMBER OF DAYS CURIf3G Public Service Company of tiew Hampshire FILL cot 1 CRETE Seabrook Station - Units 1 & 2 TEST RESULTS Final Safety Analysis Report l Figure 2.5-45a,_.

.9 e [ i 15GEND e Unconfined Compressive Strength after 7 days of curing e ALUnconfined Compressive Strength after 23 days of curing e Unconfined Compressive Strength after 90 days of curing NOTE: Test results shown are typical for BACKFILL CONCRETE placed in various safety-related areas of the plant site during the period ( May 30, 1978 to October 30, 1980. Tests performed according to ASTM C39-71. 1 E. E,,: These. test results pertain to BACKFILL CONCRETE placed around the outer walls of the following safety-related structures on the date' indicated: Structure Date of Pour ' Waste Processing Bldg. May 30,31, 1978 December 19, 1979 October 30, 1980 Diesel Gen. Bldg., March 23,27, 1979 Unit 1 May 4,8,22,23,24,29,30, 1979 j Fuel Storage Bldg., September 21,25, 1979 Unit 1 March 12, 1980 Primary Aux. Bldg., May 16,18, 1979 { Unit 1 Service Water Pumphouse January 4, 1980 July 14, 1980 i Containment Bldg., June 4,28, 1979 ( l Unit 1 July 3,6, 1979 Control Bldg., Unit 1 March 8, 1979 June 1, 1979, l 9 \\ \\

s ) 7000 I i l I i I I s . h z..g;a og . ae. 19..f,,f, yw~s: %.g-a a . o . stms y q.rw o n .;y m a. a - q:. a.e.y..

p.

S; y.t.t.,*p? s t Wo.6ek".9 WtUt1 ked, '. p$ '.VW,V4 .W FI CONC.R_E_TE dwth D. <..T,.E.w..B,A_CK.,STf,,f) E S U L. TS.R. g Pl~/.h 6000 q .g .N". ..~ .. ~ w, [Y hk',Y *.'YA Y ',o g .~,j ~ ',.;yy>;[ g 3: y - l ^ S :. ;W - te '4 a.. s .M," ;. ;.,'. y-. S* . l ;.:,';~{?xAtQ 'j D ~- ,. Q ~ '..q t .'l 5000 .a e..e,}. 'e~ R 4 . s .2 a. ll O a tr c .:t n o n a p 4> j! A, u) 4000 s G L 1.** ou e a fi O i u 3000 5 1 .a -1 o e c a f: I u c 8 S - Minimum Required 28-Day 2000 (p Compressive Strength ,~. 1 i 1000 l v w \\ en y e e t 4 t t C m os r-m 1 I I I I I I 0 O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 NUMBER OF DAYS CURING Public Service Company of New Hampshire BACKFILL CONCRETE Seabrook Station - Units 1 & 2 TEST RESULTS Final Safety Analysis Report l Figure 2.5-45b /4 /

e' f 6 *ti' 't a '

• se
• e to 10 40 so l00 200 93 N

N eo 80 ~ pg 70 y \\ +0 ! .o ?> $ 50 SO j s 5 e0 80y I E 30 g M s 10 N 10 m' 10 t t I i 1 0 100 10 3 01

== COeSigs GaAvit $ANO flNES COAtst FtNt COARSE Mf D.UM ftNE 160 h !$s 10 0 % G ovo e 2.83 155 4i i U 5 ^ l U = iso a 8 5 ? i ins a 5o a O 140 i a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOTE : MOl5WRE CONTENT-PERCENT OF ORY DEN 51TY PEAKS OF SOME OF THE PROCTORS OVER THE 100% SATURATION LINE ARE DUE TO MATERIAL HAVING HIGHER SPECIFIC GRAVIT Y. TaMNEL CuTTIMGS

SUMMARY

Pl.OT OF COMPACTION CURVES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE A c r m g ;;,7 C r q c /l SEABROOK S TATION - UNITS 1 & 2 (MARCH TO SEPTEMBER 1979) FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE 2.5-50

a U 5 5f AtaDA00 5et yt Gt NaNGS U 5 5t4NOA8D 5stvt tavuca 85 8 6* 3' 4 *f4' 'If /e

• 4 to 20 to 40 10 0 700 90 90 to 60 70 *-
• - 10 6

6 i 7 60, e i 60 5 5 30 g ? s0 I I 40 do r 30 30 l 10 10 10 10 t 1 1 100 to I 0t

== COestti GRAvit 5ANO FINES COAtSt fiNt COA 45f Mf DIUM ftNt O 135 t 5

• 100 %

G s 210 130 O e v 5u 125 5 g 5 "4 120 t E S m a 115 110 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MOISTURE CONTENT

• PERCENT OF DRV DEN 54f f OFF S iTE BORP4tAJ

SUMMARY

PLOT OF COMPACTION CURVES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE n cutnTz: : TU,;;tt CUTT;;;CC SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 (JUNE TO DECEMBER 1979) FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l FIGURE 2.5-51 v e

Figures 2.5-52 and 2.5-53 Add new Figures 2.5-52 and 2.5-53 (attached) behind existing Figure 2.5-51. j t

/ STATIC LOADING !. +20 ft El U _[ srAwsr v-u.s. Water N Level for \\ Design 11 i = x \\ i n N N 4///// p =i

=

1 Non-Rigid Wall K Y II TWII A1 Active Static Earth Water Pressure Pressure EARTHOUAKE LOADING El. +20 ft U f ] unw v . wwe \\g Water N Level for II Design + = w e-- N \\ sN \\ = v-(// l; d =, R R Non-Rigid > KYH Y II Kq 9 A3 w gp 7 Active Static Static Dynamic Earth Water Component Component Pressure Pressure of of Surcharge Surcharge Pressure Pressure i \\

\\ k cbova MSL '^" NOTATION 4-- ,w__ 11 = Depth of wall below grade, ft. Y, = Buoyant Unit Weight, use 62.5 pcf for offsite borrow Y = Saturated Unit Weight, use _125 pef p_q 3 I I for offsite borrea EA9 Y = Unit Weight of water, use 62.5 pcf 9 = Live Inad Surcharge = 500 psf minimum )ue to q. = (Fixed or Permanent Surcharge, psf Jurcharge f where applicable) Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure, K = A use K =0.30 3 K = Coefficient of Dynamic Earth Pressure, h use Kh = 0.19 for SSE Kh = 0.10 for OBE NOTES tbove MSL 1. A non-rigid wall is defined as a retaining wall which is not supported at the top by floors, etc., and can deflect under earth pressure. 7,xa .e 2. Finished plant grade is +20 ft MSL. Design groundwater level is El. +20 ft MSL (refer to ~' Section 2.5.4.6). 3. See Pig. 2.5-53 for lateral loads on rigid walls. p K Y fl h3 Dynamic Pr:ssure Incrtment Public Service Company of tiew Itampshire LATERAL LOADIllG DIAGRAMS SEABROOK STATIOtl, UtlITS 1 E. 2 FOR tlOti-RIGID WALLS Final Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.5-52

l / b e STATIC LOADING g y El. +20 ft above MSL vru v team w,, g \\ Lev for Design \\ N = = i y N \\ V// HM !-4 WM M Rigid Wall / K Y 11 Y li Kq 300 psf o 3 u o Earth Static Pressure Pressure Pressure Water Due to Due to At-Rest Pressure Surcharge Compaction EARTHQUAKE LOADING u El. +20 ft above MSL v / wu v w ee wee wer g Water -e--- e se 1 or II e l U \\ w .a M H / h ej l= 4 1-i i K Rigid Wall K Y 11 Y ll K 9p $9p o3 y o Earth Static Static Dynamic D Pressure Water Component Component P At-Rest Pressure of of I Surcharge Surcharge Pressure Pressure \\ \\ l J

\\ \\ 6 NOTAT10iN H = Depth of wall below grade, ft. Y = Buoyant Unit weight, use 62.5 pcf for 3 offsite borrow Ys " Saturated Unit Weight, use 125 pcf for offsite borrow Yw = Unit weight of water, use 62.5 pcf 4 " Live Load Surcharge = 500 psf minimum psf p = (Fixed or Permanent Surcharge, q where applicable) Coef ficient of At-Rest Earth Pressure, K = o use K = 0.5 g K = Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure, p use K = 3.3 P K = Coefficient of Dynamic Earth Pressure, g use KD = 0.28 for SSE K = 0.15 for OBE g NOTES I 1. A rigid wall is defined as a foundation wall supported and effectively restrained by the - h =~H under earth pressure. Kp 2. Finished plant grade is +20 f t MSL. Design groundwater level is El. &20 ft MSL (refer to Section 2.5.4.6). "H 3. See Fig. 2.5-52 for lateral loads on non-sY H rigid walls, 3 namic EC; cura ncrcment LATERAL LOADING DIAGRAMS Public Service Company of New Hampshire FOR RIGID WALLS SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 & 2 Final Safety Analysis Report Figure 2.5-53 r ,/

Figures 2.5-54, 2.5-55, 2.5-56, and 2.5-57 w Z,f-58

1) Add new figures 2.5-54, 2.5-55, 2.5-56, nd.5-57A(attached) directly behind Figure 2.5-53.

FFSITE BORROW 20( c. -:x. - b,'?'o.c;;.NY^ s....:. c. +-

).'...:.

. c....

.. W :N 6'..? %'?NW $ $.h,;'516 5E A' f*^ /i..;e;x n 5,':s... - -d iv- .m..:. y ~ .,.&??$..........,.,$;.p :: ,.r. :. I*.?' ,... n... :e ;p;, ;.... ..w... -d ...h k$,.., :s... +.$f"&, @,Str.S'^.' - [. p,.. ... -. ~ ??'i... 6.$4iY~'- .. '..l ' i W. t $? k i ' I k M. s% a. a.n.,:.w cw W:*.m..,.=,m:..:'.WCW:,v.%.,, M,, W,,....MWMM.,.NWW W, eWA 's m.

s. ~ %..

9.,7 ). :.. r..s @.

. e..-

..r.m.x.=.. a

e...... }.'

.s s . g;... ~ - '..fo. ..,..6 s c*.:7. :'

• .d..

. w c..x.j...,f

-7

.4.*. . J,. s. ;..'..*.*- ~v

,5.; <.... ;.

-) <.., , rf t.,-;,. - + .2*

• s.: :..,...,

. i f.,- 4.. s. = + s :,.., *-. .:.= 9. :,.,,,.= ". :., v- ~ ..$.T. - .y s M2 t o l0 .+ . :.+. - n .m-n O .F[(, w w.. i. ....e s + -10 N'.. - M..!' h.,, -20 Q'......*.*

s

- 3c GLACI AL TILL -40 NOTES I) SEE FIGURE 2.5-41o FOR LOCATION OF SECTION.

2) SEE FIGURE 2.4 -43 FOR DETAll OF REVETMENT STONES. 1 I

I i i I I l O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 GRAPHIC SCALE 6 L

s REVETMENT STONE MM%MNMN \\ k WhhMMM1Nhh POLYPROPYLENE FILTER CLOTH M & I'~;hh N N h h h h h @ J:Pi 5[ N%KhMNNM N COMPACTED NATURAL SOIL M(.W L:+G ffM MRAM M NMh ' 'l * ,-y gdAMNXNXMWf d _MiNIi'.. * : s-d::. ;;; .y y.gy.. wx NyNw V:::g';ir 'i':'T"..:...*...!.i...::......!::.. ~- MWw wN V,, :.. .i.... /..:. ... i. s+' *e+w +s-:e ern..., ic....:.. w: :5.x !N !:N:::w %y; :......'..;... ... :w x - w v

7.:

.. f. .:s. .......s.. ~ s. f .. g. .........s +M.+: M

9;*;*h;p. h{' :

':+: l .-:+t+t M.+:c; .s.. ..,,...... :s :... ::l ......W::.. Shhh. m,. :..... - s. :.. .. :.. s .. g.,. . :ss - 'I TOP OF BEDROCK i i i i I I I 80 90 10 0 110 12O 13 0 14 0 SOIL PROFILE 8 FINITE ELEMENT MESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE R EVETM ENT A - DEEPEST SOIL DEPOSIT SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 18 2 CROSS S ECTI O N 0-0 FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSI S REPORT FIGURE 2.5-54 / d

( 7 OFFSITE BORROW i l t I l 20 - :*4.W. i 3 i. '. v.t..by jq. ' f.. 9W.u..;d..; <:' ; u %...c. +. Y>.%.Sh**... M

• ~.'.'.;, %..

w?n%,,v.zt, '...:< y; &.m:m. *.vc-c.c.::..n :. t:

s , '......v. m. - O./ '.N. y

• .t t

n 7* f.4-[. i.. s:s, c fp.;, e, i ....,.g u p;... :.. ..: g..:;.e :-c:....a; n.....g. 3.5:e.. v., '.- ;:n... ,:p-;q:n...,.:m,?

a;;

L.w:..'..;p....:. c::.:;. c.::.:.,..,.:. .y r.

p:::p:v

.., ::p,.

n. ;

,ve:y;. .y...

?

.a. -(:+. -l.+ n-l -. .. y.f. ;g ..~.. v..iy:.a.> 4 ..p;.. . :;r. i:{.. l4n}.s -

i. n.: <:,

..m. 1_;.. .r h.ru.f;l. p......>

-:i.1.%.:......t....

..o ~... _ y...ep. ._.r.- !h.*' t)Q f~l;j. 1,% Y.W:;p ts&?.:.Ql$5.'.d.'.~  ?. h';.\\.,2.. :7.y? ;.:_Qji:,- :-.%:,.,'?'r. :.:-:..@n L'E W. O l' .Q 7. . o...:,

n. f'..e.,- e. '..v...

.'.'.',i...'l....,4 . r...:,. .:a.:,.,, e..

c.,

'. ', ',4.,. ~,... > z....,3... r. ". v. ' ' :' ? --.... -?.. * -

3. n. ; ' '. '

' ' ~ ~ ? :' < ~ ~ 10 r ~'-~:'- m :. a .v ra. ~. :,c.;,.. .a.<..., .,,..a [e m : a.. ..i,.. .s,.,...., ......r..,. n .c.; .t... ,y,. m..;;;,. . r,.., ;, ;,... : *z:q.3.?.. ,,.;'.,,,t..,.y. .gs '.:q:,., . gy::.. J .~., 3...

.,

y

5.;..,.

,.. _s r . f.;,p..y.;; g...y,,,;. j,,.a .,,g.., .s y) 2

-H.

.:.r .;i:;.....- -* z O o i.lfge

!.j:;.

p ..t.. 4 ?, d w ..y ;- ,y. -10 GLA CI AL TILL I i I I I I I o lo ao so 4o 50 so G RAPHIC

SCALE, NOTES: 1)SEE FIG U R E 2.5-41o FOR LOCATION OF SECTION.

2)SEE FIGURE 2.4 - 43 FoR D ETAILS OF REVETMENT STON t 1 1

w. N REVETMENT STONE i h\\k-N. V' Nc.A'"NNNN-~ POLYPROPYLENE FILTER CLOTH .M6hhNNNNNNN % wi.MANNNN N C MPAC.lD NATURAL SOIL

5 @ W3S A N NNN s

FWAW @$:h. _NNNNN a+ c: e.w enxNNNNxg; ggj.

i...

g g-25:: g

.g.s;gx x x x x xkijgi;. -

.:q .::: :::..gw"x x x xsx w..;.:.- :- .v.:- mm' %gg. ggjj

s::

.-g. ::.: .....i.e.:......:.. .. MAN % TOP OF BEDROCK I I I I I t i 1 70 80 90 10 0 11 0 120 130 14 0 FEET I 1 I PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SOIL PROFILE 8 FINITE ELEMENT MESH SE ABROOK STATION UNITS 182 REVETMENT A - HIGHEST SECTION CROSS -SECTION R-R FIN AL SAFETY AN ALYSI S REPORT FIGURE 2.5-55 t l

f OFFSITE BORROW I I I 9.?@B @i.s65$ @jn'Mf.%s@j+, ??.$...-Sji.yff.}:7'idp?.19$.b$ji/S y:!J 20 - 5.Ef,5Y'.?;yfs9::.' -9. n.-....c... . a. y,2.. -

2. g.ngy.y.: y.g,,.,:.r...y:h'?.y:.y

1

.-y;o,:.g<:p,gyq_.v -....,....w,~.:. ...ya. g

y..,s;. a.:s _ ?...u.e w,;,;,~; ~~,

r c :.;<.'.:.):,.. .- c .y.,: - .r .r..p:g.s.:: c dl ;:y.,:p.:--u...: s,+-a:.ib w r::.g" : s.. :::m;.w.n.s ' <. a..,,.e.:. > s.. ..'z. :.:.*n... ....g.c :. D.?_.:&, y.:/.&. M.,:::.u, - :;, >..; %. r.:,.. y H,>- *.. ::;.J;.y;::,y::.:. s :r:? s.

• p :

i.:, l. a -o s. .e: .:'h,k53(!bY z '.5,'Ih'. ;fih:,I. h[?,bhl I*',hf,bY.f..I((*NhN ('i.f..fh.I*bk.[h,kI.'.! $$fiY , ?

• * -Y ' W.
• 6 y-m

., G::*..

• * *5 ;;r"
• ^'b

l... \\ 1... < .., l *. M., =i;

• 5 '_.;.;,.ry;_7' P.:.,... :,',.Q... ", N...

.G..::;.':.'::: -2g:<c;?l.W(.

. eq.'-V;ib,3'y'.i

%. W;3 H.. ~:W.i.. 1.,- .n. .a _

,. _,..,,.4..,g.,_c;.5., ;..

g., iO 5.:, g _.; ~ y,.. c. ~.. HM....:.. 'g. - _3 m O N ~ z o__ H <t GLACIAL TILL -10 w _aw -20 - 1 I I I I t [ O 10 20 30 40 50 80 GR APHIC SC/ NOTES l}SEE FIGURE 2.5 - 41 o FOR LOC ATION OF SECTIO-2)SEE FIGURE 2.4-23 FOR DETAILS OF REVETMEPJ I \\ w 1 b

t t ii REVETMENT STONE KNNN m:. NNN POLY PROPYLENE FILTER CLOTH Q.AgNXNNA G.c d W.N. ANN ,f e- @ #pAhh\\?N OMPACTED NATURAL S0ll ju ,$..:$N.,.h.g...M\\\\\\ 1 ' n/%. x x x w::e;47 -i.s x x x x ~;5_~..... 5g 35 4g. u ~.. m.m._ im i i:.:: ::. .,j.h:;:..h N . :.g g w.... 's* Q'.., .,. f. if ! .:illf R :'^ ..~..:.:Am... .....m'h:.:.. ; . j:i:j,' :.~j q N N TOP OF BEDROCK /W. - N I I I l l I l 70 80 90 100 11 0 120 130 LLE, FEET N. lJT STONE. SOIL PROFILE S FINITE ELEMENT MESH PUDLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE REVE T M ENT B SE ABROOK STATION - UNITS 182 ~ FIN AL SAFETY AN ALSIS REPORT {F I G U R E 2.5 -56

f If 7..,ji 3,,,',7,df'.e,.;,,, e.V.P..'{.t.,.:M.7. s ,.,.I.N REVETMENT STONE t':f, (SN, h.;.'5.b; bj.kh:h.. N;);.$.k.f-).N...v$ $ Uj ~N, $h h.%..,N+ 'N-' [ ' ~ y.*... ~ ."H:m t::; gB? >:[,g.C;.1:L;.t.MN s.,h:.rf;,,* s... * ^ s. u. t w :. q '?. -N TRIAL WEDGE NUMBER .M).;O.rt. ..':M /l;'LOVFSltQ:-@00WRbwd..ql;:[3Es. f.:iM.;.;-li-;., 'c : ".% $t Wd!;; 4?

• jn:qi ;.r y..:~:

.. J ~

;; +] g.. v.. c

Misi.:

4 .[&:... le,;' !0hA!.!'[0'.@NS:.':l? %l' SG7 47,? s.(.Y.,; t.; d*Q ;',7.1 ?. (;i. 5 .Yk'.

Q-. ', %,:.;; % r*?'.';~;'N.,. i..,.[ " ' ?'? <:;,%

FILTER CLC

• _.,y, Y.Q.l.N,. ff.. **">..r;,*; &*

'l', i*, -[.,f f., 'i r,' o.n m - . <-.. %- er;. :.x... m. y ' A. 1..,=*.9.',s

i2 a

.'6.' - s

... r'."

y,;y ~- - s-59s.M....I A. Y..::5f.E.. I5.2.. '5.:' ~.. 1

.v.- : :...

. J. : TRIAL DIS PL ACEMENT WEDGES ( not to scale ) NOTES

1) See Figs.2.5-54 through 2.5-56 for emoct geometry of sections anotyred.

2) See Fig.2.4-23 for detoils of revelment stone.

3) Wedge 3 not onelyzed for Revelment B due to reduced thickness of stone.

4) Displacements for Wedges 2 and 5 were significantly lower than for the other wedges.Therefore, settlements were not onalyzed for these wedges.

\\

~ t h 8h

• COMPUTED HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT OF WEDGE 8v 5 SETTLEMENT OF CREST N

N INITIAL SHAPE s ASSUMED DEFORMED SHAPE s \\ TH N N N N N r :. p,=, i;: - 8O 8 l9. h h 8v 0 80 fjf{;; v SETTLEMENT FOR WEPGES 1 AND 3 (not to scale ) 8h COMPUTED HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT OF WEDGE 8h _ ' 8________ 8,.= SETTLEMENT OF CREST H N I N j NITIAL SHAPE s ASSUMED DEFORMED / SHAPE H -g \\ f l 8h=0 8v z0 SETTL EMENT FOR WEDGE 4 l (not to scale ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TRIAL WEDGES AND METHOD OF SEABROOK STATION - UNITS I B 2 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS FINAL SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT REVETMENTS A and B l FIGURE 2.5 - 57 f w ,e

SB l'& 2 FSAR TABLE 3.2-1 (Sheet I of 4) SEISMIC CATECORY I STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS A. SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES h66.AOYe,4) FSAR d System and Component Reference Section 1. Containment Structure 3.8.1 Cylinder Dome Base Hat Liner Plate 2. Containment Internal Structures, including Fill Mat 3.8.3 3. Other Seismic Category I St'ructures 3.8.4 Containment Enclosure Building Containment Equipment Hatch Missile Shield Containment Enclosure Ventilation Area Control and Diesel Cenerator Building Control Room Makeup Air Intake Structures O Emergency Feedwater Pump Building, Including Electrical Cable Tunnels and Penetration Areas (Control Building to Containment) Enclosure for Condensate Storage Tank Fuel Storage Building Main Steam and Feedwater Pipe Chase (East), Including East Penetration Area Main Steam and Feedwater Pipe Chase (West), Including Mechanical Penetration Area and Personnel Hatch Area Piping Tunnels Pre-Action Valve Building Primary Auxiliary Bejlding, Including Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Equipment Vault Safety-Related Electrical Duct Banks and Manholes Service Water Cooling Tower, Including Switchgear Rooms Service Water Pumphobse Tank Farm (Tunnels), Including Dikes and Foundations for Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) and Reactor Makeup Water Storage Tank Waste Processing Building 4. Foundations for Seismic Category I Structures 3.8.5 / l ./ l [

---

___----__---_---.-----------------------------------------------J

SB 1 & 2 FSAR TABLE 3.2-1 (Sheet 4 of 4) System and Component Reference Section 2. Onsite Power Systems a. A.C. Power Systems 8.3.1 4160-V Switchgear (ESF Buses) 4160-V Non-segregated bus duct between ESF buses and diesel generators 4000-V and 460-V Motors (associated with ESF) Diesel Generators Diesel Generators Control Panels 480-V Motor Control Centers (associated with ESF) 480-V Unit Substations (ESF buses) 4160-V to 480-V Transformers (associated with ESF) 120-V Vital Panel Boards Containment Penetration Assemblies Power Cables, 5-kV and 600-V (associated with ESF) Instrumentation and Control Cables (nuclear-s a fe t y-rela ted) Emergency Power Sequencing System Electrical Supports, Fittings and Accessories (nuc lea r-s a fe ty-rela ted) Conduit and Cable Tray Raceway System (nuc lea r-s a fe ty-rela ted) b. D.C. Power Systems 8.3.2 125-V Batteries (nuclear-safety-related) Battery Chargers (nuclear-safety-related) 125-VDC Switchgear (nuclear-safety-related) 125-VDC Panelboards (nuclear-safety-related) Vital Instrument Bus Panelboards Inverters (vital instrument buses) Electrical Supports, Fittings and Accessories (nuclear-safety-related) NOTES 1. These items not required as mechanical supports for CRDM housings, but are required to ensure functioning of the control rods. 2. Any reactor vessel internal, the single failure of which could cause release of a mechanical piece having potential for direct damage (as to the vessel cladding) or flow blockage, shall be classified to a minimum of Safety Class 2 (see Subsection 3.2.2.1 for definition), seismic Category I. 3. Failura could cause a loss-of-coolant accident,.but less than a Condition III loss-of-coolant. .[NSEST /c5l

Insert 1 of 1 in Table 3.2-1 (Sheet 4 of 4) 4. All seismic Category I structures are founded either on sound bedrock or on engineered backfill extending to sound bedrock. Tne type of engineered backfill used beneath the foundations of all seismic Category I stritetures was fill concrete, except.for safety-related electrical duct banks, electrical manholes and service water pipes which were founded on offsite borrow or tun-nel cuttings, as shown in Table 2.5-19. l l f e i

TABLE 3.2-2 (Sheet 10 of 31) ANS Principal FSAR Sa fe ty Design /Const. Code Seismic Section Systems and Components Class Codes /Stds. Class Category Building (II) Supplier Notes 9.2.5 Ultimate Heat Sink Atlantic Ocean Intake & Discharge Tunnels NNS ANSI B31.1 AE Piping 3 ASME III 3 I YD AE Expansion Joints NNS YD AE Cooling Tower Ce> ling Tower Fans 3 MFRS. STDS. I CT AE g 2-Cooling Tower Pump 3 ASME III 3 I CT AE g, s Piping and valves 3 ASME III 3 I CT AE 9.2.6 Condensate Storage Facilities Condensate Storage Tank 3 ASME III 3 I YD AE Piping and Valves NNS ANSI B31.1 YD/TB AE 9.2.7 Reactor Makeup Water System Reactor Makeup Water Storage NNS API-650, )( YD AE Tank ASME VIII Reactor Makeup Water Pump NNS ANSI B73.1 PA AE [ j C ho138 herC. M

SB 1 & 2 FSAR r This ratio corresponds to a period interval varying from 0.0006 seconds at a period of 0.03 seconds to a period interval of 0.01 seconds at a period of 0.50 seconds. 3.7(B).1.3 Critical Damping values The percentages of critical viscous damping used for the seismic analysis of Category I structures, systems, and components are based on recommendations presented in Regulatory Guide 1.61. These percentages, which account for stress level as well as type of construction or fabrication, are summarized in Table 3.7(B)-1. 3.7(B).l.4 Supporting Media for Category I Structures h tructures are founded either directly on bedroc M l [gg ace, fill over bedrock exci p ut _r~ cate or manholes founded on gjg y,, sert structural backfill over L oe roc a com ete - ragmented / e6 :2, fsa re+v.r elate <{ ciec triu l] l0fG46 Nr0W *r %ntl '*+%*SEsl Identitication of theJmanholes founded on g, the depths ofg e peted DNSM backGil over the bedrock under these particular manholes, the widths of hof f*

• f their structural foundations and the total structural height are summarized guthn 5 below:

g Depths of Widths of Total Suprodi9 Hanhole Soil over Structural Structural Mderal Numbers Bedrock (ft) Foundations (ft) Height (ft) W13/W14 6-12 18 x 18h 9 offsde borreu> W15/W16 6-12 18 x 18h 9b ofTs A h, 29/W30 14 19 x 224 15 offsde boucu, W33/W34 18 18 x 18h 12 CU5$4' borro w -Wlq/2o /5" 2Ne X D '. s 2. W asI cutNT 4 All manholes are fully embedded. Ec acil ic uni for; struetwal-baclefiH with-sheee-medulc3 C - 13,000 p;i and averagc shcar wave velocitj l -G - 500 ft/. 3 I aSec + M2 3.7(B)I2 Seismic System Analysis This subsection contains a discussion of the seismic analyses performed for seismic Category I structures and systems. Included in the discussion are the methods of seismic analysis used, the criteria used for mathematically modelling the structures and systems, the assumptions made in the analyses, and the effects considered. 3.7(B).2.1 Seismic Analysis Methods The seismic response of Category I structures, systems and components has been determined from suitable clastic dynamic analyses. The results of / t these analyses are used for the design of scismic Category I structures, systems and components, and is input for subsequent dynamic analyses. l 3.7(B)-2 l

Innsrt 1 of 2 on page 3.7(B)-2 All seismic Category I structures are founded on sound bedrock or on engineered backfill extending to sound bedrock. Engineered backfill was also placed around all seismic Category 1 structures. The bedrock at the site is uniform, competent, and nonfragmented. Engineering properties of the bedrock measured in both the field and the laboratory are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.2.a. The engineered backfill consists of either fill concrete, backfill concrete, of fsite borrow, tunnel cuttings, or sand-cement. Properties of the engineered backfill materials are described in subsection 2 5.4.5. The type of engineered backf t11 used beneath all seismic Category I structures was fill concrete, except for safety-related electrical duct banks, five electrical manholes, and the service water pipes, which were founded on offsite borrow or tunnel cuttings, as shown in Table 2 5-19. i s 4 I l l l

i.. i. I i l Insert 2 of 2 on page 3.7(B)-2 i 4 j The values Values of shear modulus, G, and shear wave velocity, v, for both the offsite borrow and tunnel cuttings used for the analyses of j the manholes are discussed in subsection 2.5.4.7. J 4 4 a i i f I i i l 4 1 + t 4 i i e f i l i l i t I f 1 i e r 4- -.. - -, - +. -,., -.. - _,..., - - - -,. -. - - -. - -. - -, -.. ,,,n.

SB 1 & 2 FSAR o) e. Stability Acceptance criteria for stability are given in Subsection 3.8.5.5. 3.8.4.6 Materials, Quality Control and Special Construction Techniques The primary materials of construction are concrete, reinforcing steel ar.d structural steel (rolled shapes and plates). Descriptions of the materials and basic quality control procedures are dis-cussed in Subsection 3.8.3.6. 3.8.4.7 Testing and In-Service Surveillance Requirements Other than normal quality control testing discussed in Subsection 3.8.3.6, no additional testing or in-service surveillance for the seismic Category I structures described in Subsection 3.8.4 will be carried out. c"V O 3.8.5 Foundations 2s The following sections discuss the physical descriptions of the foundations, applicable codes, standards and specifications, loads and load combinations, [ design and analysis procedures, stru tural acceptance criteria, materials, quality control and special construction techniques, and testing and inser-tg M vice inspection requirements ror the foundations of scismic Category I struc-6o tures. 9 k00 3.8.5.1 Descriptions of the Foundations ti The locations and relationships of the various seismic Category I foundations' gp are shown on the plot plan, Figure 1.2-1. Details of individual foundatty.s, .g including type and dimensions, are given in Table 3.8-15. This table also - contains a list of figures showing plans and profiles of the foundations. s LbuIl6l*& s FoundationsforseismicCategoryIgnnet;m are ; -.~~~ % convent iona lly a g reinforced concrete mats of varying thicknesses supported onfc y tet u f} The walls of the containment enclosure building extend to a spread footing, k Q_ 10'-3" wide by 10' deep, which carries the load from the walls to sound rock. This footing is not continuous, having openings for the pip. ch.i e. and elec-trical tunnels below the emergency feedwater pumphouse. The bottoms of this footing and most mats are embedded in the rock in onder 9gf to transfer horizontal shear torces. If the bottom of a foundatauc does not g '.; extend to sound rock, fill concrete was placed from the soundy M to the

i. $

elevation of the underside of the structure. G a /re d 0V lEM l The only exceptions to the above criteria arefths44. safety-related electrical manholesAand most of the 8350 feet of safety-related electrical duct banks which are supported on v r. gins.<d fi H (see Subsec t ions 2.5.4.5vand 3. 7(B). l.4 ). Compaction requirement s for thi.iQ ensure firm support which, along with j d yine u ad b m k fill cfnwcol }gk fill l, e3 Corus'5% of oNN % lbor row O'- Y UM FE l C t., tN35 3.6-131

.\\s'

[l 4

T

• (

u. SB 1 & 2 FSAR N ,i s-3.8.5.3 Loads and Load Combinations .y - ~ structure foundation, see Subsection 3.8.1.3 for loads, N For the containment Icad combinations, load fac,to p and the design approach used with the load combinations and load factors.s \\;\\ ~ v y ForotherseismicCategoryIstructurefoun(ations,seeSubsection3.8.4.3 3 for loads, load combinations, 'I6Ad f actors ard the design approach used with s the load combinations and load factors. .5-r p, s f'a Foundations and structures are checked for sliding'and o drturning due to,, earthquakes, winds, and tornadoes and for flotaticn due to floods and high ^ water table using load conibinations described in Subsections 3.8.1.3 and s s 3.8.4.3 for the contair. ment, structure and the other seismic Category I struc-tures, respectively. 1 s... Lateral earth pressure.9 are considered as applicable. Non-rigid walls are designed for active earth pressure xnder liitatic conditions and for an eyaiva-lent static earth pressure based on a coef ficient of dynamic 't:a'Tch pra.ss tre that dampens with depth under, seismic conditions. Rigid wau i are desigaed for earth pressure at rest under static conditions and for Ap equivalent static earth press'ure based on a constant co'ef ficient of dhpnic egth y,resy sure under seismic conditions. phfcq/ yrp.c g/,- y;,,, .fe,,. 4.Ae f e,, repr% 2 C-C. easof 4cerd hon e ar c. tac m s o, l, ~ J and J.S'-53 -el discussed,o w t 3.8.5.4 Design and Analysis Procedures Su bsechon :1.5.4.II. t The foundations of Reismic Category I structures are analyzed and designed in accordance with Subsections 3.8.5.2 and 3.8.5.5,to determine maximum stresses c in reinforcing and com rete, using the load combinations discussed in Subsection ~3.8.5.3. 'T* ? %t BoundaryCo$ditionsandExpectedBehavior a. ,y g m. ~ foundations of s'eismic Category I structures are founded directly Most on sound: rock or on fill concrete; three e.sfety-related electrical manholes and unst of th'e ' safety-related.. electrical duct banks are supported on engineered till. The entire length of the duct banks, however, is, designed with~the assumption of support on engineered fill. ? 1 i'. Design and analysis, including idealization and boundary conditions, for the circular base mat of the containment structure are described in Subscetion '3.'8.1.4. The base mat is designed to sustain all credible loads resulting from the containment and internal structures. i-Design procedures for all structures insured that foundation mats and footings were sized to limit bearing pressure on the rock to 60 tons / square foot on horizontal surfaces and 10 tons / square foot on vertical surfaces. These bearing pressures were established on the basis of results of tests of unconfined compressive strength 3.8-133

SHEAR MODULUS, Gmos t p s il (of sheer stroin / s 10 8 in/in) O 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 0 1000 1 0 1 E 2000 lb E w EU l " 5'" * " O* 3000 (,7%...,<. c H c....c e,. : t fuNNQ CufflNG5 8 i,sv........ .........o e w z 4y 4000 o.., b. u.....a s,.. pl.f. l.. A f.sts 5000 f NCYTES :

1. See PSAR text, Subsection 2.5.4.7 for description of method used to backfigure G trom plate load tests.

2. Curves for G vs 5 were generated from the plate load test daEfusina*the relationship JU /5 ' with G and a being the G =G p$$$Nload"idstUElubE.

3. Values of G for shear strain levels greater than 10-6 in./in. can be obtained using the average modulus reduction curve for sands pichented in Seed and Idriss (1970).

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NE'd flAMPSlilRE SilEAR MODULUS AT IDW STRAIN LLVELS SEABROOK STATION - UNITS 1 & 2 FOR Ol'PSITE 13ORROW AND TUNNEL Ct)TTINGS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l l'iqui e 7.5-58

D APPEN3IX 2G STATIC AND DYNAMIC ROCK PROPERTIES TABLES Table Title 2G-1 Unconfined Compression Tests 2G-2 Laboratory Compression Wave Velocity Measurements t L' b,4j kbl, Ye lGitth s. hd k o ukrW'GS D F O CA ) Qit: Com h w Atiy,,,.. tc l l 9 i l D

0 APPENDlX 2G STATIC AND DYNAMIC ROCY. PROPERTIES FIGURES Figure Title 2G-1 Unconfined Test elf Stress-Strain Curve 2G-2 Unconfined Test ElG Stress-Strain Curve 2G-3 Unconfined Test E2A Stress-Strain Curve 2G-4 Unconfined Test E2C Stress-Strain Curve 2G-5 Unconfined Test E2J Stress-Strain Curve 2G-6 Unconfined Test E2M Stress-Strain Curve 2G-7 Unconfined Test B7B Stress-Strain Curve 2G-8 Unconfined Test B42D Stress-Strain Curve 2G-9 Unconfined Test B42F Stress-Strain Curve 2G-10 Unconfined Test B42H Stress-Strain Curve 2G-ll Unconfined Test FIA Stress-Strain Carve b RfC5 Sb~I McTE The shess - stfo co caeves noen m 3 through aG -s i are 4-ermina4ed at the last sham rcad ng be. fore su dde n, bcdile fatture. The opmy co m p re s sive imci o3-Sautuce

• recorded by 4h e.

4es+ no3 uochine owd tuas u se d +o coIcwlo +c. 4hc c-p re sTive 54renc34hs conbed in Table 26-I. D

Table 2G-3

1) Add new Table 2G-3 (attached) directly behind Table 2G-2 in Appendix 2G.

4 2 a .a, .~ .4 t t t 5 t' t P . f. a t. .b. b 6 4 4 .b. .4 .g m ~2 a 4 9 .7 .A s .s w .a... .s. .h g g. .e.

• =.

.e e., e .8 .h p Y .ea ,o 6 6s ..E 6 e. .e.... s.,. e. e.- . L- .4 ,. 4 .3 .i... 6 s, .o .6 f. A. i.. .,= . 1 c. ea e. ,o 4 w e 6 a u 4 1 g = Z a ~ q ~. wy y o ~ W p4 .~. - ~ 4 .~ o c O m- ~. e .n, 2 ~ g -4 g o g ~. ~- ~ o m p a ~ ~ I Z W ""* ~. n. ~ o a

• f. Z W N

e e

• t o.

.a. n ~. .4 ~. ~ s1 E* W

~...

m ~ ~. ~. 3 ~. ~. g ~. ~ ~ ~ Em OO ~ .-l Z e. . ~. ~. ~. o. ~~ o ~ ~ =

• > (f)

.W

.e. t.t. ~ ., ~. e .o. ~ 2 ~ .~.. a. o u ~ o e ~ ~ ~ .N *4 o C W M e ~, ~ ~ ~. a. p ~. ~. ~. ~~ .~. ~. t. n. ~ ~ t/J ~ ~. _. ~. ~ ~. ~. ~ 3. 4 ~ ~. t ~., o.. ~ n ~. E o. ~. ,~. ~ ~. 5 t _7 c.,, u, e .s ~ e e o .. 3

• • • • l.

4 4 = 4 4 4 1

• 3

%.. I. R a s

• n \\

~ 4 t 8. e . 1 -R. 3 'S *i '. C X L ~ n =

• s 3

,2 r

a..

4 a. 4 4 4 4 4 4 ~- =- ..= ~,, ; ~ ~ ? 5

• \\
• h h

.'e ~ E. 6 h J. 5

• .. i t

.~ 3 a. 4 e,; 4 -A. ri -4 3 a. ~ ~ ~ ~ e. a, a ~ ~

• ~

.? ~- ,a

n..

a r. a m 5 a ~ .s

i l Al l ACHM EN-~ 1 l l l .:}}