ML20078F556
| ML20078F556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1983 |
| From: | Bernabei L GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 12-429-2-SP, 78-389-03-OL, 78-389-3-OL, 80-429-02-SP, 80-429-2-SP, ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8310110071 | |
| Download: ML20078F556 (104) | |
Text
m A
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fNC "T
Before Administrative Judges 55 007 -6 Af0 :50 '
Charles Bechoefer, Chairman Dr. Frederick P.
Cowan Dr. Jerry Harbour gg_
00CMETitrC 4 SEpy:cy d E,';C t!
ASLBP Nos. 78-389-03 OL In the Matter of 80-429-02 SP CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OL I
50-330 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 'nd 2)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
)
50-330 OM SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENOR BARBARA STAMIRIS' MOTION TO LITIGATE DOW ISSUES On September 23, 1983, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") granted intervenor Barbara Stamiris leave to file a supplemental memorandum demonstrating how the Dow documents and the Dow complaints filed in the Dow Chemical Company's suit against Consumers Power Company
(" Consumers") support two issues she wishes to litigate in these OM hearings.
Intervenor hereby submits this supplemental memorandum in support of the following issues:
(1)
Consumers used and relied on U.S.
Testing test results to fulfill Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( "N RC " ) requirements when it knew the test results were invalid, and (2)
Consumers knowingly misrepresented to the NRC that a single test boring taken near the diesel generator building indicated that unmixed cohesive fill had been used, or alternatively, did not disclose to the NRC that the single test boring demonstrated the use of random, improperly compacted fill in the area and constituted evidence of site-wide problems.
e 8310110071 831005 PDR ADOCK 05000329 O
PDR 7;SO3
I.
BACKGROUND.
Intervenor believes that the allegations of the certified Dow complaints, standing alone, are sufficient to support litigation i
of these two issues as management attitude issues.
In the alterna-tive, she has argued that these allegations support the admission of new contentions in these reopened OM hearings.~1/
Moreover,.as will be argued below, certain Dow do'cuments examined in conjunction with documents already admitted in this re-cord, make out a prima facie case that Consumers knew of the invalidity of U.S. Testing results at a much earlier time than they informed the NRC and that Consumers relied on these test results during this time.
In addition, it is apparent from the allegations of the original and the first amended Dow complaints that Dow has had experts evaluate certain documents already admitted before this Licensing Board, including the Bechtel Report on the " Administration Building Foundation Settlements," December 1977, and the test boring taken near the diesel generator building.
Apparently Dow experts believe these documents indicate site-wide soils problems, contrary to Consumers' professed evaluation of these same documents.
Thus Dow alleges Consumers fraudulently concealed this information about site-wide soils settlements problens from the use of random, cohesionless fill during negotiation of the Dow-Consumers 19 78 General Agreements.
Similarly, the allegations make out the case that Consumers concealed this information from the NRC as well during this critical period of time, late 19 77 and early 19 78.
b[
The Board has set out the standard for admission of new contentions in its Memorandum and Order Denying Admission of Mrs. S tamiris '
containgent Crack Contention (August 17, 1983).
l _.
II.
CONSUMERS AND BECHTEL CONTINUED TO RELY ON U.S. TESTING RESULTS EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW AS EARLY AS 19 77 THAT THESE RESULTS WERE INVALID.
It is useful to list the formal and informal reports which either Bechtel or Consumers reviewed regarding the validity of U.S.
Testing test results, beginning in 1977.
First, in a QA audit of soils work conducted from October 3 - 7, 1977, Consumers' auditors found serious deficiencies in U.S. Testing results, including failing tests which were never cleared and tests which were passed using incorrect data.
See Audit Report No. F-77-32, attached and incor-porated herein as Attachment 1; Board Exhibit 3.
A cursory review of this Audit indicates large variations in test results for percent compaction in the same or adjacent areas.
Clearly these large varia-tions should have signaled to Consumers and Bechtel that the test results were not reliable.
Id. at 5-6.
Mr. Howell testified in the last set of hearings that since he was on distribution for the audit report, in the usual course of business he would have received it. Therefore, it appears Consumers and Bechtel were notified of serious deficiencies in U.S.
Testing results as early as October 1977.
Second, the December 1977 Bechtel Report on the Administration Building Foundation Settlements ("19 77 Bechtel Report") documents deficient test results such as failing tests which were never cleared.
See 19 77 Bechtel Report, attached and incorporated herein as Attach-ment 2.
In addition, the Report's conclusion that backfilled soil above the elevation of the footings is adequate, id[. at 5, is not s ubs tantiated by the U. S. Testing results.
For example, according to Table 2 accompanying the Report, borings at 597.5 and 588.0 foot elevations show strain and insufficient bearing capacity.
Therefore, the Bechtel Report's conclusions were not supported by the underlying data.
. Third, Bechtel notified U.S. Testing in a letter of February 1, 1978, that "a careful review" of U.S.
Testing's data shows the company " erroneously reported the fill below the Administration Building to be in conformance with Bechtel Specification (s). "
Bechtel further determined the cause to be U.S. Testing's " repeated erroneous selection of compaction standards...."
Under these circumstances Bechtel knew that U.S.
Testing was using the same erroneous compaction standards over the entire site and yet continued to rely on U.S.
Testing.
See Bechtel February 1, 1978 Letter, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment 3.
Finally, the U.S. Testing Bechtel correspondence conducted in the Fall, 1979 (recently. released as Dow documents) show that Bechtel was directing many U.S. Testing activities on site, including choosing the locations for tests; dispositioning or clearing failing tests; reviewing and checking all test results; and determining the method of calculating percent compaction.
See September 4, 1979 Bechtel Letter and Bechtel Report, and October 1, 19 79 U.S. Testing Response, attached and incorporated herein as Attachments 4 and 5, respectively.
In fact, U.S. Testing claims that Bechtel's normal practice during this period was to disposition failing tests by scanning reports to look for passing results in the same general area. (emphasis added).
See Attachmen't d at 3.
It is clear that one of the major faults in U.S. Testing data is that those tests which clear failing tests are too distant from the location of the failing tests.
Given Bechtel's intimate involvement in conducting and reviewing the tests, it is obvious Bechtel knew that many of U.S. Testing re-sults were invalid.
Bechtel's knowledge must necessarily be imputed a
to Consumers.
' One draws the conclusion from these documents and Dow's expert evaluation of the 1977 Bechtel Report, as stated in the Dow Complaints, that Bechtel and Consumers knew that U.S. Testing results were invalid as early as 1977 and yet continued to rely on them.
Clearly, Consumers did nothing to inform the NRC of the serious failings in U.S.
Testing results.
In fact, from a presentation Consumers made to the NRC Staff on July 18, 19 79, one concludes that Consumers actively concealed not only the gravity of the problem but all specifics of the invalid test results and testing procedures from the NRC.
See Portions of Consumers' Presentation to NRC Staff made on July 18, 19 79, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment 6.
The five major faults documented in the 1979 Bechtel Report are completely omitted.~2/ Consumers states only that an audit of U.S.
Testing found an " administrative problem".
See Attachment 6 at 8.
Thus, the newly-released correspondence between U.S. Testing and Bechtel and Dow's evaluation of the 1977 Bechtel Report highlight what was suggested earlier in these hearings:
Bechtel and Consumers knew that U.S. Testing results were invalid and relied on them to fulfill NRC requirements.
Bechtel outlined in its 1979 Report the following five major faults with U.S. Testing reports:
1.
Erroneous field density test data; 2.
Incorrect soil identification; 3.
Incorrect (or questionable) laboratory test data; 4.
Calculation errors; and 5.
Improper or incomplete clearing of failed tests.
e
._ _.. _. _ ~_
6-III.
CONSUMERS FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE NRC THAT THE TEST BORING NEAR THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING INDICATED IMPROPERLY COMPACTED RANDOM FILL AND POTENTIAL SITE-WIDE PROBLEMS.
On September 29, 1977, Consumers took a soil boring near the diesel generator building.
This boring indicated that improperly compacted, random fill had been used in that area in violation of l
FSAR requirements.
Considered together with the other information t
available to Consumers, this boring showed site-wide problems, or at least problems outside the Administration Building area.
Consumers failed to report to the NRC that the test boring revealed uncompacted, random fill or site-wide problems.
In fact, Consumers reported the opposite -- that this and other test borings showed fill was adequate i
in locations other than the Administration Building.
t The log for the diesel generator building boring indicates that random, uncohesive fill was used in the area.
The " Description and Classification" column of the boring log lists sand, clay and gravel, clearly random fill.
See Boring Log, attached and incorporated 5~
herein as Attachment 7; Stamiris Exhibit 19.
In addition, it cannot be denied that placement of random, cohesionless fill in this area was in violation of FSAR requirements.
Contrary to Consumers' statement in its Response to Intervenors' Motions with Respect to Dow Lawsuit at 13, the job requirements did not call for random fill.
Both the PSAR and the FSAR required co-hesive fill.
In 1975 Bechtel Specification C-211 required " cohesion-less" material.
At dhat time Consumers QA Department issued a nonconformance report QF-66 requiring Bechtel to conform to FSAR I Q e
1
-:r,a+sr.-,--
,y.,,,-~e%,
m-,,,,e-,...--,,-
..~+m,,mw c
,y,-.,
,-,,w-.__,,rm,-,
yy.,,
-g.w..,wm-,rwy-w--_ey,
~y-y7
-%-,,,-v~=
- ---.-y
- requirements.
(Bechtel in turn issued an SAR Change Notice No. 0097 which stated Bechtel would in the future comply with requirements in the FSAR. )
The FSAR required cohesive material for this area.
However, the NRC determined in its Inspection Report No. 050-329/78-20; 050-330/78-20, Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building (March 22, 1979, "NRC Report 78-20"), that Bechtel continued to use construction drawings permitting random fill in violation of the FSAR.
See NRC Report 78-20, at 6-8, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment 8.
Therefore, Consumers has known since at least 1975 that construction requirements called for cohesive, not random, cohesionless, fill in this area.
Moreover, Dow alleged. in its first amended complaint that the Administration Building Report " confirmed that the serious deficiencies in the fill were not localized and instead were present throughout the site...."
Dow First Amendment Complaint, t 12.
It appears that Dow's experts have determined that the 1977 Bechtel Report shows site-wide problems.
Among the deficiencies in the report, as argued in Part II, supra, is its failure to support the conclusion that fill above elevation 618 is competent soil.
If one accepts Dow's expert evaluation of the DGB soil boring and the Bechtel 1977 Report it is clear Consumers knew about site-wide soils problems in 1977.
Not only did Consumers fail to notify the NRC but Consumers adamantly insisted that the DGB soil boring and the 1977 Bechtel Report indicated adequately compacted soil in other areas of the site.
s I
W a
-g-Don Horn testified before this Licensing Board that the test borings, including the one taken near the diesel generator building, showed no soils compaction problems.
Tr. at 7960.
Similarly, Mr. Horn stated during a deposition taken on October 22, 1980, that although some Bechtel personnel believed the problems at the Administration Building demonstrated the soils settlement problems were site-wide, the borings indicated to the contrary that the fill in the areas of the borings was adequate.
See Horn Deposition at 219-23, 227, attached and incorporated herein as Attachment 9.
Apparently Dow's experts disagree.
In f act Consumers even today argues that the DGB boring log shows competent soil.
Applicant's Response at 10.
Consumers states that the NRC Staf f agrees that the blow counts included in the DGB boring log demonstrate acceptable soil.
Yet applicant's own chief expert witness, Dr. Peck, has stated in his soils textbook that blow counts are unreliable indicators of the competence of soil when one is testing clay.
See Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn, Foundation Engineering (2d ed. 1974) at 114-15.
Thus Dow's evaluation of the DGB boring log accords with Dr. Peck's, at least as Dr. Peck and his colleagues evaluate soils testing procedures in clay.
Dow's expert evaluation of this boring log and other technical reports may well be critical to this Licensing Board's evaluation of Consumers' honesty and candor in reporting to the NRC Midland's soils settlement problems.
IV.
THE DOW COMPLAINT AS A WHOLE RAISES DOUBTS ABOUT CONSUMERS' FULL DISCLOSURE OF SOILS SETTLEMENT PROBLEMS TO THE NRC.
Dow and its experts certainly reviewed the documents before this Licensing Board and additional documents concerning soils settlement problems at the Midland site prior to filing suit against
..4 e..
9-Consumers.
Dow seems to have reached completely contrary expert opinions about several technical reports in evidence before this Licensing Board.
These evaluations go to the heart of the question whether Consumers reported to the NRC the serious and site-wide nature of the soils settlement problems as soon as it knew of it.
Dow alleges that the DGB soil boring and the 1977 Bechtel Report indicated as early as 19 77 site-wide soils settlement problems and use of random fill beyond the Administration Building.
(Dow is concerned with Consumers state of knowledge about the soils settle-ment problems during the negotiation of their 1978 General Agreement. )
In effect, if Consumers knew that these problems were site-wide in 1977 and concealed this information from the NRC it made material false statements through such omissions.
Such material false statements are certainly more serious than any so far admitted to exist in the FSAR.
Other documents already omitted in these hearings show that in 1977 Consumers had more knowledge than it acknowledged of site-wide soils problems and improper fill in areas beyond the Administration Building.
For example, Mr. Horn testified that at least three soil borings outside the area of the Administration Building were taken.
Tr. at 7976.
Yet nowhere in the record have the results of that third soil boring been disclosed.
Further, it appears certain pages are missing from the 1977 Bechtel Report if one assumes the numbers are.. umbered consecutively with Bates ' numbers.
Pages numbered SB 13770-71 are omitted from the Report with no explanation.
O e
,e--
a
-nv.e.
-r,
_ 10 -
Nowhere in the record of these OM hearings has Consumers represented to this Board or the NRC Staff that it did no other internal reviews of the soils settlement problems on site after the failure of the administration building grade beam.
Given the seriousness of the problem it seems improbable that Consumers did j
nothing more than take three test borings, and then lost or mislaid the results of one of them.
Therefore, it may be that Dow has obtained through discovery or other channels other technical reports supporting its allegations that Consumers knew in 1977 that the soils settlement problems were site-wide.
Further, it appears that even in July 1979, af ter Bechtel had written a comprehensive report on the failure of U.S. Tes ting, Consumers did not give this information to the NRC but instead down-played the significance of U.S. Testing problems.
Consumers f ailed in 1979 to disclose fully the problens it uncovered, af ter the NRC had indicated its overriding interest in soils settlement issues.
It is certainly possible, as the Dow documents and Complaints suggest, that Consumers did the same in 1977 when.it had a greater economic incentive to conceal such problems.
V.
CONCLUSION.
For the foregoing reasons, intervenor Barbara Stamiris submits that the Dc;: documents and Dow complaints support litigation of all three issues raised in her original motion.
Respectfully sdbmitted, i
s
+; %
t g
LYNNE SERNABEI Government Accountability Project for the Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Q Street, N.W.
DATED:
October 5, 1983 Washington, D.C.
20009 e
-7 >. v g(r:--- - y.g POWST DA h Octobcr
- s I
WRBird W
3-7. 1977 SHHow211) hb 8 CQQEllY Y"Jf!Kircking vp PLANT: Midland UNIT 1 & 2 OUALITY ASSURANCE f
cM fargugli SUBJECT OF AUDIT: Soil Placement g
( ?. -
PROGRAM IJ_FNe
(
I m n<mn N-h Records ORT NO F-n_n l QA SUBJ FILE
=
I.
AUDIT SCOPE ATTACHMENT 1 The k)urpose of this record review audit is to verify the documentaum associated with the placement of Structural Backfill, North Plant Dike.
West Plant Dike, and Plant Area Fill conforms to the specifications and to expedite' dike turnover._
II.
AUDITORS
- D. A. Blumenthal, CPCo QAE (IE&TV) - Team Me=ber
- D. E. Horn, CPCo QAE Civil Supervisor - Team Leader III. PERSONNEL CONTACTED
- Ben Cheek, Bechtel Lead Civil Quality Control Engineer
- Keith Berk, Bechtel QCE (QC Vault)
- Pat Guiette, Bechtel QCE (QC Vault)
- Mar'; Kerridge, Bechtel QC Documentation Clerk
- Tom Lieb, Bechtel QCE (Civil)
- Daryl Osborn, Bechtel Assistant Lead Civil QCE
- John Speltz, U.S. Testing Lab Chief IV.
SUIS!ARY OF AUDIT A.
A Pre-Audit Conference was held on August 31, 1977 in Ben Cheek's office with those in attendance as noted in Sections II and III above.
The audit scope was the only item discussed. The audit scope originally was to observe soil placement, however, due to heavy rains and no soil placement in "Q" areas, the audit scope was changed to that given in Section I.
B.
The audit was performed on soil reports North Plant Dike')D 72 (5-23-74) through MD 514 (9-21-74), West Plant Dike MD 25 (9-12-74) through 10 307 (9-27-76), Structural Backfill MDR 611 (10-7-76) through MDR 1121 (8-11-77),
Plant Area Fill MD 1122 (10-7-76) through MD 1854 (8-12-77) and gradation reports for structural backfill material received February 4, 1977 through August 31, 1977 to assure failing tests have been cleared by passing tests; correct optimum moisture contents, max 1=um and minimum dry lab densities have been used; the test results were properly evaluated for acceptance; and test reports could be located in the Quality Control Documentation Vault using the attached checklist.
C.
The findings associated with this audit are noted in Section V.
/
i
- Contacted during Audit l
- Attended Pre-Audit Conference and Post-Audit Conference
- Attended Post-Audit Conference
___(*** Con tac ted during Audi t and attended Post-Audit Conference SY h
DATE f f-Y -N SHEET 1
OF 12
[6h M
[
6
()
FILE:
lh).4.3.4&18.4.3.6 1
- f.
DATE:
Octobar 3-7, 1977 P1 ANT: Midland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO J-77-32 c.
IV.
SUMMARY
OF AUDIT (Contd)
D.
Future audits will be run the same, when scheduled.
E.
'A Post-Audit Conference was held on October 11, 1977 in Ben Cheek's office with those in attendance as noted in Sections II and III above.
~The audit findings were presented to those in attendance by D. A.
Blumenthal and D. E. Horn.
Bechtel QC understood and agreed with the findings and recommended corrective action.
V.
CLOSED OUT FINDINGS Finding 1
~
West Plant Dike MD-276 and 277 (sampled 9-15-76), 278 (sampled 9-16-76), and 285 (sampled 9-17-76) have NA in the optimum moisture content column.
f' -
North Plant Dike-
,I MD-92 (sampled 5-25-74) shows maximum dry lab density 110.6.
It. should have been 103.4..
MD-93 (sampled 5-25-74) shows maximum dry lab desnity Ilo.6.
It should-have been 103.4.
MD-109 (sampled 5-28-74) shows maximum dry lab density 103.4.
It should have been 115.1.
~
MD-119 (sampled 5-28-74) shows maximum dry-lab density 127.2.
It should have been 128.0.
MD-155 (sampled 6-4-74) shows optimum moisture content 18.8.
It sh.ould have been 18.4.
MD-L95 (sampled 6-24-74) shows optimum moisture content 11.0.
It should have been 11.6.
MD-223 (sampled 6-25-74) shows optimum moisture content 10.3.
It should have been 11.6.
MD-224' (sampled 6-25-74) shows optimum moisture content 13.5.
It should have been 13.0.
MD-257 (sampled 7-L1-74) shews optimum moisture content 9.8.
It should have been 10.4.
This,also shows maximum dry lab density 126.8.
It should have been 127.4.
-m---
,y a
n-.--
,-g
- - - - = -
~
e si;E; TE;eTTT,7sfr~
PLANT:
FEdland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placem2nt r'
Records s.
AUDIT REPORT ~NO F-77-32 v'
V.
CLOSED OUT FINDINGS Finding 1 North Plant Dike (Contd)
MD-269 (sampled 7-12-74) shows maximum dry lab density 116.2.
It should have been 116.3.
MD-290 (sampled 7-16-74) shows maximum dry lab density 125.2.
It should have been 128.3.
4 MD-318 (sampled 7-19-74) shows optimum moisture content 13.0.
It should have been 13.3.
ND-336 (sampled 7-20-74) shows opdimum moisture content 20.5.
It should have been 20.0.
HD-341 (sampled 7-25-74) shows ptimum moisture content 17.0.
It should have been 15.5.
MD-377(sampledS-6-74)showsmaximumlab'drydenEity109.
It should have been 111.9.
HD-476 (sampled 8-19-74) shows optimum moisture contene 17.0.
It should have been 17.1.
ND-512 (sampled 8-28-74) shows maximum lab dry density 109.4.
This should have been 109.0.
Structural Backfill Area MDR-919 (sampicd S-25-77) shews maximum dry lab density of 109.3.
It should have been 125.3.
It also shows udnimum dry lab density as 90.3.
It.should l
have been 109.3.
l Plant Area Fill l
MD-1262 (sampled 4-8-77) gives maximum dry lab density of 117.0.
It should l
have been 117.1.
MD-1300 (sampled 5-1-77) gives optimum moisture content of 11.1.
It should l
have been 10.4.
i MD-1385 (sampled 6-1-77) gives optimum moisture content of 13.5.
It should have been 13.4.
l l
l
(h lh).4.3.4&18.4.3.6 FILE:
DATE:
October 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Mid1rnd UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placement Records s
AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 s.
V.
CLOSED OUT FINDINGS Findinr 1
.[
Plant Area Fill (Contd)
MD-1420 (sampled 6-8-77) gives optimum moisture content of 9.8.
It should have been 8.6.
It also gives maximum dry lab density of 127.3.
It should have been 132.9.
HD-1521 (sampled 6-17-77) gives maximum dry lab density of 117.0.
It should have been 117.1.
Corrective Action Requested: Recalculate the test results using the proper values and determine the acceptability of the corrected test results.
Corrective Action Taken:
The test results were recalculated and corrections y/'
made.
The above errors did not change the acceptance of these tests even though they did change the test results.
Corrective action verified October 25-26, 1977.
For further corrective action see Section VI "Open Findings" Finding 1.
1 Finding 2 Specification C-210,' Revision 5 Section 12.6.1 states in part, "The water
_,,,pr content. during coopaction-shall not be more than 2 percentage points below optimum moisture content. and shall not be more than 2 percentage points above optimum moisture content.3."
,s,,
Spec Lfication C-210, Revision 5 Section 13. 7.1 states, "All cohesive back-fill in the plant area and the berm shall be compacted to not less than 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557, Method D".
Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 13.7.2 states in part, "All cohesion-less backfill in the plant area and the berm shall be compacted to not less than 80 percent of relative density as determined by ASTM D 2049..."
Contrary to these requirements, the following tests had failing results and did.not indicate being cleared by passing tests, b/
/.
i l
Sheet 4 of 12 1
@ ATE:
Octobsr 3-7, 1977 PIANT: Midlnnd UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT'OF AUDIT:Soil Placament Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 u
~
V.
CI.0 SED OUT' FINDINGS
~
Finding 2 (Contd)
A
~
Plant Area Fill Tes t No.
Date Samnled Comcaction Moisture MD 1153'*'
Actual Op timum 10-21-76 10-21-76 61.6% of Relative Density 1155#
11-03-76 73.5% of Relative Density 1191-11-02-76 74.6% of Relative Density 1194' f1317 5-09-77 75.4% of Relative Density o <<
'1318 4
5-09-77 18.0%
15.2%
1319 5-09-77 11.5%
15.2%
1320 5-09-77 11.7%
15.2%
1321/
5-09-77 5-17-77 94.0% of Mau mum Density 12.2%
15.2%
1337-
~
1388" 6-02-77 12.4%
15.2%
1393e 6-03-77 9.8%
15.2%
1398-6-03-77 11.1%
13.4%
1404 /
6-03-77 11.2%
13.4%
1415' 6-07-77 1498' 10.2%
13.4%
6-15-77 6-16-77 88.2% of Maxinum Density 9.9%
13.4%
1509s 14.5%
10.0%
4 12.9%
15.2%
North Plant Dike MD 418 8-14-74 17.2%
20.0L
_ Structural Backfill _
MDR 620 10-13-76 10-12-76
- 72. 3% of Relative Density 625/
10-20-76 51.5% of Relative Density 629 10-20-76 79.2% of Relative Density 632 10-21-76 73.5% of Relative. Density 637 11-11-76 76.3% of Relative Density 663/
11-11-76 53.0% of Relative Density 664*'
11-11-76 72.3% of Relative Density 667*'
11-23 67.5% of Relative Density 673 11-23-76 33.9% of Relative Density 679 11-23-76 71.8% of Relative Density 680
11-24-76 60.0% of Relative Density 68 V 11-24-76 70.6% of Relative Density 688 /
77.1% of Relative Density 700 1-13-77 1-13-77 75.0% of Relative Density 701 3-14-77 68.1" of Relative Density 721 /
60.0% of Relative Density
.7.
2 e pg.w. w.
. w..- ; -
Sheet 5 of 12 p*
_ _ _.,. - -,. * ~ '
6 FILE:
.4.3.4 & 18.4.3.6 DATE:
Octobar 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midltnd UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placement Records AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 w
V.
CLOSED OUT FINDINGS Finding 2~
Structural Backfill (Contd)
Moisture Test No.
Date Sampled Compaction Actual Optimum HDR 734s' 3-17-77 34.0% of Relative Density 736/
3-18-77 79.0% of Relative Density 737j 3-18-77 41.9% of Relative Density 738 3-18-77 72.4% of Relative Density 739,
3-18-77 70.6%.of Relative Density 740' 3-18-77 69.3% of Relative Density 741/
3-21-77 77.8% of Relative Density 744' 3-21-77 56 2%.of Relative Density 746 '
3-21-77 54.9% of Relative Density 75 7 '
3-23-77 68.7% of Relative Dcasity 767-3-29-77 54.3% of Relative Density 768<
3-30-77 66'.9% of Relative Density
~770' 3-30-77 "65.Or o.f Relative Density 785' 4-07-77 69.3% of Relative Density 79 9#
4-12-77 78.8% of Relative Density 826' 4 77 70.4% of Relative Density 843-4-28-77 66.8% of Relative Density 845/
4-29-77, 70.4% of Relative Density 854-5-09-77 67.4% of Relative Density 861-5-10-77 76.3% of Relative Density 862.-
5-10-77 74.0% of Relative Density 8891 5-13-77 56.5% of Relative Density 914
5-24-77 9.0%
11.8%
922
5-26-77 75.7% of Relative Density 925' 5-27-77 11.4%
15.2%
938
6-08-77 56.5% of Relative Density 940Le 6-08-77 78.6% of Relative Density 993e.
6-25-77 60.2% of Relative Density 998'"
6-25-77 77.4% of Relative Density Corrective Action Requested: Determine if there are passing tests in the same arca to clear these failing tests.
Corrective Action Taken: Test reports Plant Area Fill MD 1317-1320; North Plant Dike MD 418; and Structural Backfill MDR 620, 629, 632, 637, 673, 679, 700, 701, 757, 767, 768 and 770 have been cleared by' passing tests and Struc-tural Backfill represented ^ by MDR 854, 861 and 862 was removed.
Corrc9tive Action Verified October 26, 1977:
A
-y v- - --y e
4
r
~
DATE:
Octcbar 3-7, 1977
~
PLANT: Midland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placam2nt Records 9
AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-31 w
V.
CLOSED OUT FINDINGS
~
Finding 2 (Contd)
Corrective Action Taken-Test reports Plant Area Fi'l MD 1153, 1155, 1191, 1194, 1321, 1337, 1388, 1393, 1398, 1404, 1415, 1498, 1509 'and Structural Backfill MDR 625, 663, 664, 667,.680, 681, 688, 721, 734, 736-741, 744, 746, 757, 768, 770, 785, 799, 826, 843, 845, 889, 914, 922, 925, 938, 940, 993 and 998 are in h "Non-0" area and have keen efven to CPCo Proiect Manage-ment Orga_nization_(Field) for resolution in letter 186FOA77 For further corrective action see Sectica VI "Open Findings" Finding 2.
Finding 3 Relative Density Reports 59 and 61 were missing from the QC vault.
g/'~
Corrective Action Requested: Obtain copies of these reports and place them
~
- g-in the QC Vault.
l(.;;-j
~
%;P Corrective Action Taken: Copies have been obtained and placed.in the QC Document Vault.
Corrective action, verified October 26, 1977.
VI.
OPEN FINDINGS Finding 1 Specification. C-110, Revision 5 Section 12.6.L states in part, "The water content during compaction shall not be more than 2 percentage points below optimum moisture content and shall not be more than 2 percentage points above moisture content..."
Specification C-210, Revisipn 5 Section 13.7.1 states, "All cohesive back-
. fLLL in the plant area and the berm shall be-ec=pacted to not less than 95 l
percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557,. Method D".
~
Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 13.7.2 states in part, "All cohesion-less backfill in the plant area and the berm shall be co=pacted to not less than 80 percent of relative density as determined by ASTM D 2049..."
, Contrary to these requirements, the following tests had been passed using incorrect testing data.
Using the correct testing data, the tests fail.
k' Sheet 7 of 12 i
L
DATE:
October 3-7, 1977 PLANT: Midlend UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Piscement R2 cords
' AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 VI.
OPEN FINDINGS 6i Finding 1 (Contd)
North Plant Dike HD 290 (sampled 7-16-74) shows optimum mois.ture content 11.6.
It should be 9.5.
Using the correct optimum moisture content of 9.5%, the actual
. moisture content is 2.2% above optimum moisture content.
HD 360 (sa= pled 7-31-74) shows optimum moisture content as 21.,4.
It should be 15.2.
This also shows maximum lab dry density as 103.2.
It should be 115.1.
Using Ehe correct optimum moisture content of 15.2%, the actual moisture content is 5.4% above optimum moisture content. Also using the correct maximum lab dry density of 115.1, the co' erect percent of maximum density is 86.4%.
I HD 377 (sampled 8-6-74) shows optimum moisture content as 18.0.
It should be 15.2.
Using the correct optimum moisture content of 13.2%, the actual moisture content is 4.5% above eptimum moisture content.
Structural Backfill HDR 621 (sampled 10-14-76) shows minimum dry lab density as 94.2.
It should be 112.2.
Using the correct minimum dry lab density of 112.2$ the correct percent of relative density is 41.5.
Corrective Action Requested:
(1)
Determine if there are passing tests in the same area to clear these [
failing tests.
(2)
If these failing tests cannot be cleared by passing tests in the sa=e aren, present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering so Project Engineering can determine what additional tests, reviews, etc. are needed to justify the material these tests represent. Have P.roject Engineering justify the material these failing tests represent.
(3)
Determine the underlying cause(s) and take corrective action to preclude repe ti tion.
Corrective Action Taken:.
(1)
North Plant Dike FD 290 and HD 377 have been identified on Bechtel NCR 1005.
North Plant Dike PD 360 and Structural Backfill PDR 621 density problems have been identified on Bechtel NCR 1004.
Corrective action verified October 26, 1977.
North Plant Dike MD 360 moisture problem has been identified on revised NCR 1005.
Corrective action verified October 28, 1977.
h (vetober
.4.3.4 & 18.4'.3.6 i
FILE:
3-7, 1977 DATE:
PLANT: Midltnd UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placement Records l
AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 w ',
VI.
OPEN FINDINGS Finding 1 (Contd)
NCR. QF-199 bas been written to resolve the corrective action still open.
Finding 1 Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 12.6.1 states in part, "The water content during compaction shall not be more than 2 percentage points below optimum moisture content and shall not be more than 2 percentage points above optimum moisture. content..."
Specification C-210, Revision 5 Section 13.7.1 states, "All cohesive backfill in the plant area. and the berm shall be compacted to not less than 95 percent of maximum density as-determined by ' ASTM D 1557, Method D".
Specification C-210, Revisio bi Section 13.7.2 states in part, "All cohesion-less backfill in the plant area and the berm shall be compacted to not less
~
than 80 percent of relative density as determined by ASTM D 2049".
Contrary to these requirements, the following tests had failing results and did not indicate being cleared by passing tests or had been marked passing.
North Plant Dike MD 142 (sampled 5-30-74). shows optimum moisture content 8.0, moisture content 10.3.
This test failed but it is shown as passing.
MD 143 (sampled 5-30-74) shows optimum moisture content 13.8, moisture content 11.4.
This failed but it is shown as passing.
West-Plant Dike i
HD 227 (sampled 10-6-75) failed moisture but has not been cleared.
9 Plant Area Fill Moisture Test No.
Date Sampled Compaction Actual Optimum MD 1311 5-03-77 61.6% of Relative Density 1326 5-10-77 18.5%
15.2%
1328 5-10-77 12.2%
15.2%
1412 6-07-77 10.4%
15.2%
~
Sheet 9 of 12
.u m...
DATE:
Octobsr 3-7, 1977 PLANT:
Midland UNIT 1&2 SUBJECT OF AUDIT:
Soil Placement Records
' AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32
~
VI.
OPEN FINDINGS Finding 2 (Contd)
Structural Backfill Moisture Test No.
Date Samoled Compaction Actual Optimum MDR 621 10-14-76 78.0% of Relative Density 671 11-12-76 74.8% of Relative Density' 672 11-23-76 75.4T of Relative Density 685 11-24-76 56.2% of Relative Density 686 11-24-76 70.9% of Relative Density 691 71-24-76 62.0%. of Relative Density Corrective Action Requested:
(1) Determine if there are passing tests in the same area to clear these, failing tests.
(2)
If these f ailing tests cannot be cleared by passing ~ tests in the same area, present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering sc Project Engineering can determine what additional tests, reviews, etc. are needed to justify the material these tests represent. Have Project Engineering justify the material these f. ailing tests represent.
(3) Determine the underlying cause(s) and take corrective action to pre-clude repetition.
Corrective Action Taken:
(1) Bechtel QC has determined that none' of the above have passing tests in the same arca to clear the failing. tests.
(2) North Plant Dike MD 142 and ND 143, West Plant Dike MD 227 and Plant Aren Fill MD 1326,1328 and.1411 have been identified on Bechtel NCR 1005.
Structural Backfill MDR 621, 671, ~672, 685, and 686 have been identified on Bechtel NCR.1004.
(3) Corrective action has been taken as of the last of July,1977 by Bechtel D U.S. TestTng to more adequately clear failing tests. Therefore, the corrective action to preclude repetition for not clearing failing tests need not be addressed.
~~
~
Corrective action verified October 26, 1977 Plant Aren FLll MD 1311 has been identified on revised NCR 1004.
~
Dorrective action verified November 1,1977.
NCR'QF-199 has been written to resolve the correceive action still open.
~
DATE:
'Uctob2r 3-7, 1977 4 *'
PLANT:
Midirnd UNIT 1&2 SUEJECT OF AUDIT:
Sail Placcm:nt Ricords AUDIT REPORT NO F-77-32 VI. OPEN FINDINGS (Contd)
Finding 3 S'pecification C-211 Revision 3 Section 5.6.2 states in part, " Material oc-livered to the jobsite for use as structural backfill shall be visually in-spected, and tested in accordance with ASTE C-136...".
ASIM Cl36-71 Section 4.2 states in part, "In no case, however, shall the frac-tion retained on any sieve at the completion of the sieving operation weigh more than 4g/in.2 of sieving surface.
Note 2 - This amounts to 200g for the usual 8 in. (203-mm) diameter sieve".
To preclude repetition to NCE QF-152 (the same deficiency as this), U.S.
Testing developed a new gradation form that has check points that include documenting thac the 200 gram material limit on any individual 8 inch sieve' has not been exceeded.
In addition, a training session was held on February 21, 1977.
f?
t Project Quality Control Instruction No. SC-1.05 " Material Testing Services A
and Concrete Production" Rev. 3 Section 2.7.2 Reports, Item A states, " Perform a daily review of the subcontractor's jobsite inspection and test reports
'for acceptability, completeness, and the laboratory chief's signature for concrete, steel,'and soils.
Sign and date on the report verifying the acceptable status".
Contrary to these requirements:
Structural Backfill Date Sampled Amount Retained Log Number G-270 1-13-77
- 40 Sieve - 225.2g 0364 4-27-77
- 10 Sieve - 217.lg 0417 5-11-77
- 10 Sieve - 221.4g 0431 5-16-77
- 10 Sieva - 260.lg 0451 5-18-77
- 10 Sieve - 211.7g 0505 6-02-77
- 200 Sieve - 228.0g 0704 7-18-77
- 10 Sieve - 249.5g Corrective Action Requested:
- 1) Present these findings to Bechtel Project Engineering and obtain engineer-ing rationals from Bechtel Project Engineering as to the acceptability of the material these tests represent.
(2)
Evidently the corrective action taken in NCR QF-152 was not adequate.
)
Determine the underlying cause(s) and take further corrective cetion to preclude repetition.
Sheet 11 of
'.2
s umi M 4 ee ATTACHMENT 2 4
t 1
3ECETIIL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPuRATION
/
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 JOB 7220
.l s
i
'\\
t ADMINISTRATION BUILDING FOUNDATION StaALD M S ALONG COLUMN LLNE 0.4 SB 33;.gg SL3 i.qc, 3;y sg
~
/3 y-Prepared by: j pi S/j b g e GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES o
O,/,
,Dece=ber, 1977.
-e g
e 4
mem - * *
- * ' = *
- e.e.ame e y
c-w c
- +,
m.-,,, - -,
y, p,
,n nr s-,
r
,,,w
~,
u"< g,j
~
~
I:rrRapCCTIO7 Early in septe=oer,1977, we were requested by project engineering to assist in reviewing conditions surroundins footing settlements during The founda-construction of the Midland Project Ad"*-istration Building.
The affected tion location plan for this building is shown in Figure 1.
foundations are those along Colu=n Line 0.4.
construction and engineering The following data are presented to enabit in e rsluating the settlenent of these footings.
/
BACKCROUND f
The' original ground at the Midland site was at approximately Elevation 603 Af ter ground surf ace prep-
' in the vicinity of the administration building.
i
')
aration, P ant area fill was placed to approximately Elevation 634.
An s
l lj excavation was.later nade to about Elevation 610 to acco=nodate co ti 2
Figure 2 shows a cross-section of the tunnel j
tion of the steam tunnel.
After construction of the tunnel.
j and the approxi= ate excavation sche =e.
!.4 the vest side of the tunnel e=cavation vas backfilled to approxi= ate 4j-Elevation 600 to construct the foundations along Column Line 0.4 of the
..j After foundstion construction, the re=ainder of
- )
ad=inistration building.
2.
the excavation was backfilled with sand to grade as shown~ in Figure
- 1.i
'j During the early part of Septerber, Geotech was nade aware of settlements The settlement data are given in Table 1.
if along the Cole:n Line 0.4.
}
S
$ y.'.j.g g 'j~~~'l~l. M "l*' ",
. -FIELD-OSSERVATIONS *
.?;
l site reviews were made..
l.........
. During..tha week.of Septe=ber.19-23,.1977,.severa These took place before.
by engineering, ccustruction, and Geotech personnel.
M**he a6 hgg y7
__ -. ~.. _
w 5
l,,.-
.1.,r s.
,p and after the renoval of the subject footings.
0.4, it was noted that the soil under t.nd Upon renoval of Colut:n P,.A.
This was confirmed by pushing a 3/4"9 steel adjacent.to it was sof t.
bar with little effort approximately two feet into the ground,by walking hing of a
- on the soil and noting its spongy characteristics, and by pus shovel with little effort.-
Tasts taken at that time in and adjacent to Pg 0.4 included moisture con-l These tests also were taken density, and unconfined conpression.
l
- tent, b
at Colu=n E 0.4.
I I
1 After these field observations, it was decided that two borings should be
.)
0.4.
0' taken to further evaluate the conditions along Colue:n Line 4
At that time, 3echtel Construction's decision was that all affected footings e
'e
.i be renoved.
j
,a
.A 2
4-BORUGS two test borings were coupleted at footings 3
..2 On Septc=her 27 and 28, 1977, At footing M 0.4, standard penetration tests (SPT) g 0.4 and E 0.4.
At footing ]LT,0.4, standard penetration and shelby tubes (ST) were taken.
r.
tests were taken.
2 4
Borings included visual inepection and description of soils, Qp tests 61L by the meket penetroceter method) and any (conpressive stren _.:
g (los's"or gain).
'i wisual observa'tions of water cenditions
~5 s
sa n.4
- 'N*W g
,w
- Nm
> r s'
, o-l Samples for proctor testing vsre also taken as shown in los of ho es.
13A, LM3, and ETA.
The boring logs are shown on Figures 3 through 7.
TT.SIING PROGRAM i
Shelby tubes taken from Boring LN vere subcitted to U. S. Test ng Laboratory for unconfined compressive tests.
by U. S.
Sanples taken at foundations P_A_ O.4 and M O.4 were also taken d
Results of 2d unconfined cocpression tests were ma e.
Testing personnel a:
testing are given.in Table 2.
l It was also decided to run Proctor tests on the san:ples taken direct y h
t ndard to be under and adjr. cent to footings in order to determine t e s a i
These results are used in calculating the in situ percent compact on.
found in Figures B, 9, and 10.
i cent The Proctor curve in Figure 8 was used to calculate the in s tu per d by the Field. This co=paction using the in situ dry density data reporte 1
1 i
reviously infor: nation is conpared in Figure S with the percent compact on p This comparison shows that the percent cor:paction was in all J
reported.
i cases lower than that previously determined.
~I i
the In order to illustrate the effect of a reduced percent compact on on i (CDR) tests previously strength of soil, the data of California Bearing Rat o ils are presented in Figure made on three identical secples of the Midland so ffort, which The sa=ples were cos:pacted at three levels of conpsetion e 5
11.
'{
SB 13ygg
~
.. ' ~.
.o 3
3 resulted in co=pactive energies of 56,000 f t-lb/f t, 20,000 ft-lb/ft, and 12,403 f t-lb/f t, respectively. It is seen that the prassure values for a penetration of 0.1" at the nar4mm dry density reduced from 04.5 psi to 3
to 12,400 5 psi by reducing the co=pactive energy frca 56,000 f t-1b/f t 3
ft-lb/ft.
CC::CI.USION
. Based on available data the material under and adjacent to the subject footings, (Elevation 618-622) had insufficient bearing capacity to support the foundations.
The backfilled other than the soil in question (below 618) appears adequate and this conclusion is supported by SFT borings.and compression tests.
t b
t 1
O
]-
4 s
k 3r i
.g k
b.
1 J:
i SB 13 ygg n.
( ;
t l
e.
.-..s*
,,s Administration Building Anchor Bolts for Col. Line 0.4 Top Belt Elev. 634' 1/2" Per Dug. 901, Rev. 1, Sec. D The Coluur.s and Crade Beam For Column Line 0.4 Shows Settlement Per As Built Elevations Taken 8-23-77 A
(f t)_
Colu=n Elevation Settlenent Fa 634.10 0.11 4
N 634.03 0.17 k
634.01 0.20 M9 634.05 0.16 K
634.02 0.19 P
K 633.93 0.28 3
J 633.93 0.28 p,
^
H 633.92 0.29 T
i i)
~
j 1
'4 11-
.i
- i
- i "J
c.i
- i 3
1 3
3
.1.,
- o
.h
.}.
SB 13757 i
1
~
~
s' b.*. S.:* ** t s w
- d"' * ~'~ ~
TCD10 4
... G yl. s ;, s.s....'.. L InDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ?.XCAVATION UNCONFINF.D COMPRP.SSION TESTS
- Allowable Remarks
- Unconfined Compression' Bearing Vnlue tr Strength Lbn Per Sq Ft
{
Sampic Sample 1,ocation Elev ion
, Ebs Per Sq Ft 0*
20.0 625 1
730 i
.04 20.0-622.0 I
l 1
420 487 I
621.0 PA
.04 l'709 6.7 s
2 1984 612.0 PA
.04 20.0 546 A
f 633 611.0 PA
.04 i
B
.12.0 788 9.4 622.0 l
LN
.04 5.0 3
1792 2081 1
IN
.04 621.0 i
4 l
j
.10.3 3653 1
4241 1
Ch 617.5 ST-1 Boring LN 20.0
' I cy 1849 I
2145 n.
615.5 l
{j ST-2 Boring LN 9.1 5123 5945 603.0 C3 GD ST-3 Boring LN 20.0 l
2704
)
3137 597.5 I
ST-4 Boring LN 20.0 2423 2817 588.0 ST-5 Boring LN I
\\
- AtmT /ARTH n 2166-66(72)
- 1/3 x 5.14 x 1/2 x Unconfined Cone Stronnth
w w
m.
=o O
o o
S PD I
in
. _3 g_____.__.______,,
8
- I g
- * /J Nff,m--
l 8
g l
-.4 ss 3
".*E.E Ig I
f gl c.. '.k%9"
-
- i.'
Ie ir l
I 4
4-
- s. ' *'iG T.itt:SE&.N sr
- 4 s
a.
l i I gI
- f...-*.%
M g g s
- 9.. sg..-.*e;7.
i
.'.-. c, t.ga. ;6 -t
.. :p /,..-C..s.y M
,8 C
a 3
lI i
ei i
'+dredfjerg j
88 w
8
~'
-e
.:--e.
si.,
I' II s
- I
!g l
n It I
A i i
s u
g L,.s, At c,
T y
Ii
,T 1I 8
I:
l I:
s II
'l g i, ji, a
is e
I, la e
+
r,
_ s Y
t I n
c.
Y j
j g,1 C
et a
M N
g a i
z
'a g u
c
- 1 8
8 s
- I J
I z
H H
1 In c
o H
5 l,,
8
~
a i
m.
e
<9 g
- oa i
e*
8 e
I r-y sa s s a-s a
z u
I ii a
a T,
z o
13 o
H O
i I I I,8 lI w
e z
H H
=
c It
.I s
t I o
e%
18 Ig i
c.
g:
t I ce I 'A.!!
i.
4 A
~
y si c.
x v
is l.e I
8 le 1
s l'
I l I
l I1 I
1 lt l
g.
- ,.W%.., lit.'nc, c t-r i
m
- 1 T
i
."WfM;-W r,
T an g.mtac ::;
=
54:y.y s=,.;,
,j
,g w:...,
...~,c.,....
i I
1 2.1,r.r*:;L.',t. - *,;
e, e
g 8 I M'.bifijI.' 9 g
ll gl c ;:2 a%-
I gt
,e
<1
- Wa a.
-~:
ie
\\
e% _
,s 2
e, y
+
t
,a. -
I i
. 't e
la l
8 8 t
1 ',____
__.______I.
..______c_--
--_.4 3
i._ _ _
z 4
Z \\
=
=:
SE 9 i 6T
- C,..
/
3 SB 13709 e
m--
-_m
--er-
. eye
,.e w.
.,eg.--
e-
o6
~
e t
..A.
.~
.p.4o, 9..;, fag
-. -^
4.... i *i ss
-,,. p..L;;.~.rm s ::, -
.n g.... s, s t..
-- y :.e s-c.f. **.*=a w:s w* h -..:;.
i
<=m**
g e o.
n s. < @'.
a.
.o As G--w.R'..y,W* :. is c4 s
J s
., J, J, ' ' l i.}
- 73 c..-,y
.2
.a
.g g
O.
a hu N
3A, s
.e.
(
H,,
38*
N.
8C
\\
3
\\
gL.
\\
'J g
s e
a
~
~
~
w
. ~
- i. e ~
t."
w
.=
g c
C c
~~
W w
y m
4e t,3. J s;*"_
g-. Z.,,
I t/) - :::
.. I zc_
- i O
Js
-l
- 7. - p, t/)
.. g g e ()
g
.. - -i t
g
==
.'.I p
}.-
...p.......
et
,,...==-~*~~,,,. *..
w
-i s
- s.,...=....
L
[
N C
.3 s
mN
' 'J o@
s LL.
~
~
.,J J Y
ww z
3 p
- C w
J 61g:... C*f -2.c.
~-
Z N
7.
CL-Z
- Q >
..r.;;,.
s o
o
~
3 L.w.
- ;y
}--
D e_C.
E M..s.,.s.s,:.A T,,
i s
ws..q e.a
..~ 4,. '..gi s.
w.
s
. s + e s_
s
=*
s
- g. t w sC'-}... +
~..;
s e
.E]-).*ih7' H e" C
eM-
. g kO s'.'_';
- 1L... ~.
s l
s w.
q.
k L
s
~
Y b.
p O
s J
w i.
SB 13?co
".4 J
b J
J 3
3
~
_ -. - - - - - - - - - -** ~
w m
y--
e
,w i
CW 80 RING LOG mouso amesuuar 7zz o i-i n
....._.... ' E co" /~oo rwG $.0.4 -l.N
.9 o
- APMol. Z AD+1/mSro ts97 ton BLD&.
n 43.S*'
9/z7l17 9/2 9!77 sw&LETo/)$? BEL DRI'.) CME-SSO S"
t
/8 622.o (SEE No TE3 Col.,
/4 o# /8" NON C L/E/24 7' B. Ch/GN$
6 : :.
n,. ri uvio,.
5i. :ji. :.j.i ::, :.
- i
- .i.
"..'.; :.e ' ".*. 1.
t
... ~..
s s
L s
- s :
g
!.. g:: :il:: !.. :.:
e 432 Up,.l l
-v.w r r u o, un, aoos swe ;itty s ~suc.m to l
l l
l c,zo )
csr/ w 3 n
'g go. s er c.
z.s
- cae r c av nu.r c c.#v (cQ i
.s'. z: 1. s *.saue y c.3L./j ec t.
n, c,g g n.a/
2 st) z' l:.s,l -
- D A'L "
6-
~
cae r vi.
casu.s c kt cor'.
- w. 4 r ra cz ro z.irri.c c.n
~"rico'satt Pt A srieury,Han' i.ow
>tA -Q. -/_z tstl%. W 31 ~
~
~
~~
To a (ct)
R L L EA o '*'
i h
'1 5
8#""'" M CY
- 'Y $r#',Tec$$
Q:s)tS'6Lo'l 35 l11 1 /3 l 2 2-c g,s*
@ r/
4 t ss't.s ' \\ t.L' 37 l13 17 l o t
sLI G 64 T WATCA
' " 12 ' 4. AM C c ogSLt(?bEur rdBE)
$ g apA sc o*. 7 k/
' ?t;.s' 1Nenzs c ta snao r :a rsr> r 1, c o p
( z.
l~s~
)y t sr\\ 2, t o,
~
s
. rssis ic.s, z s, to u.<ic R'75/ yis.s' i".s ro a z.
useo ca varr:
,C GL44.rN4 Cc M-Q;
%';'/'
- 7 Povas duo IM54 v), z"s42' l/.o'l -
l-l-
loo k rA P c TO
$tAL ruSLS 2 ':57.s ',0.3
&m
/a~q n 3I
/7 \\ /L" 15 s
,a yga gg 3n.
f f.! (M3 :
'.,z,1.s'.srin: ro r<cuer.: ric r:
,,y g, rp PLLS 10 UAn5
~l~
4 Y,
'l ?,.I~
W Qpt.f,G T.3 f
~
p.C'.pg engs.s c go sAs;g) genytur
/
n s
es.s' r.s* moien pun rac.ory e*, 9P. 4 S r'..
M,: i 't t
. Cs5 t,S'W.s'
/ 3
,G
.9 t/O 1
W S ~ }$.
!! mp M.s* T. F r
3 n.s eis s a n o.s c s n r s.a c s:.?
_3 '
o
-l-
,<r,
.s_.
2 RCCOV2.M" "'" fA = TUS C Q r 4.5+ f ':
, (Pe t' P t.
/3o O'L L)
P UTs1T's oz'u to 4 4S S
S s t.o A LCi, _l P '3 '.'5 A s.' o 1 +.Lt: Y, G n& Y.s rM l
l A
S 62.o 1
.Nc;3t '-3.5 'C ' " * ' *
- M ' IN ')
stjo go.7c2 E
^
n D,
-*h
'. Y T'.
l-
?'s 12
- L.s*
..ki-sv.'T.%'u.siar v :-n n 'ont to s.-* me
.- G 9?' 2.*L 5 7.* F Brorr ttA D*-1 a1 ran wt
%',thsasno.,t z o c,,oa,s,rivo,s.:cosurt }casc carn; eat;wG it.
osn su.a s:
0; l2 f.0 In 9
fR ro ??.?),'S o bit ry ggt.ij.a, c.n z y, irec pgfh
' YssY.2 Y4 E
I S050
.W N MASSo C7.otC.1.C~fB =-
-%$k
+rto w. c.imn10 vsm crusc, w
J qse.:c: r cs p :pnac a *,M'ato da qp. 4.5 rsr
.f_.us us-y.1 m
o
.91. Jh..
pig -
m;.
- o..n. s o~
- S795$.Y S h N
'l fss c::. /oct c1:-
rara ours-se.s, et. eo r7.,i.: -svs.s-a 9p ' I ' ' '.
BII N o Q p - rt>
- Po Itt.b E n s:
~
M :. no qp-no:
t
~_
Eo)CJGil RLCo'JC (Ascar 2 ise:
Yt3*W 8 No &P l
~
cst lH D)
VIA TCP LEVEL S. D ' A F'THIT Q
CA5ftJG PJLL:
1 nota es cui:.
wara saiur Coet?L C ro o r)
.....u..$..
.s.......,...,...
A DelI/)/$ 7",.M 7 jpp) 8:_D G,
- l.,)
s e e n...
A.
- m. r
. * :.tr-
-- n.
~,.,..m..
-~ ~
..n
Figura 4
.. to \\
g,
's BORlNG LOG niow.is "uu.en mur 72zo i-i ius Bo' Z ' NORTH of f.N 3
kiv
/)pntyr$rRA rio d 84DC..
....................a
$~'
S""
lLB 77 BfL2l77 'S/n&:. Errs.)$9ZE! DRl!..) C/1C~S.5O f
(SEE noLE */N")
/
& z 7.
l
....... uen-i!x s. civms t
-"&~)]~~~".~
,yo aa
- <~c = na" 0 ;- : !,.:.
esows a..-
a.--
- : ; ".:l:.
1
- i { l l }i
s L
L i
- 3. ;. :g,:1: :..:.
C r.7.
f"AuGen *ro cyp $ is$pW,j o' z.s' sswo aswius.
~
1 1
u g*i,Toor l
- .s '-s a,ows erro c us y eva.x s m s c a,., -}
% z.s,lz.s,l -
rorsi. oem - s '
,,a c.onpu.ra El.. BorreH= G17 yg, pg,p z.s '- s ' if A'a copeine o IT*
mr8 8 v'l'-
s w isz.e i % w Hot.e Lue
~
HotE BAc.uti.ts WirH $ ciL t^\\
gf7 cit con:w Cl Rsrea ro
^
Bsaujt, Lecr
%, ~,an-e info. coix.sn.-
l.
So/L PADFILC l.
- e i
l 1
SB 13762 I
g
}
i.g y,
- )st..uji
- riu n os.t 3is s.
~
ng-s BORlNG LOG notANo nueten.9 war nw.
i-i ine g
/)DMINISTA/} YI ON BLC6.
2' W E.5 7 0 fc L n,a
.9 0 *
-.................,p..s.,a 9/zsf77 3ltq'7 7 $/N&LS70N(A3?LM.t)
CMC-SSO S
.S*'
422.
(.s t E H o L E */. H ")
l g/A' NON E s) CAR Y B. 4/ v&NS g e' f f
- . l PE NET R ATIO N stows
. r, ;;
.e
.g : : :
a; L
L.
g s:
3 8
6;
=
G z 7. g
.se wo Bua. Hut.
g..g ac gy, 7,-
_ Q')
o '~ z-S '
} W & I *" ' '* S '
l l
\\
S'} Toox autt
- * "w ru c ' n 't
%z.s' zs\\ -
- AM#LE f#8 Tornt. DEP;-hrs'
- ?A' 1~/ 0 "
[L.BorroHu 4/7 FRon Tas. r, S*, A ND
- 2. 5 -
CortS/MSO ' / 7"
}
W S T!/ B U L E-
~
~
$ AMPLE FRtM N o t.C LNA
~
}/oLC Bt.czn %-
W:rd.so iL AFTEA CoMCLt?
REFER To
~
Boe.i.n 4 Lo4
~
Lp Fos 7 Nc?:"
/HFO. concanti-
/MG SC/L
~
~
,Pfief/ L 6-i I
SB 13763 1
i i
..b.
.......t...$
. 8:o;;,.
g,g
/1pt.rintsrn A rter>
.e....
j*
.q.
BORlNG LOG ntouno antwt m"r 7zzo 1-i nr.
so' s r 4 os roo rm, a4 -N r anunsr.vriw etoa.
.................-4.....-2 Y........-.....Ctf E CSOS"
.S o '
9/zS
.9/L 8 3///!.t C ton [A9El. DR/4) 63/
(SCE NorE.5 Cot..)
l to
...a..,....
JERRY 8. 6/VE/./S NaNE j.g o # p g
PC 4ETR ATION L ' I.,*. '.
t.
g=:
slows
.* a..a~...* ~ a* 'a "-
. ~...n....
- . * = = *. = * -
g L
r.
L 0; ;. ;
8;.
g,i ga:.!,:.
3 1
8 65/
o s.ii.S
.s<<.ry(d/'/Sk)raa
!.str CAssNGl s~n s sac.ca ro
'*I-(B/s cxPtt.L )
g,S
' \\'.
ic.tco a 4
l n
'i io.eens Ana.ou rgir sisisc ac-I
.)
A[
e.g.:o rwc he;
)
W/QP e t.S~ rs f
\\ S f*l#* 5 ls-j1 l k, p tst.s',.sw. 'j), etoivok s rorr,Musu z ;
l s,sta rt u co n
sosua r cay
.ks i l. 5,'10.2,s ser to sgo a stst a s ro i,
8 I
~2-Ib t
y to ;5 r t c t,.)
t3 F'
i':sI.S 10.tn S t I i z;5 ts 'to.0:*,c ;,,,,. ;, s
. j/j.il,ic'- z e.s n r i W P > ~ " '.s ~
's 9, = 4.s* ra
S tornt GotHEL, VEftY c ree f
~ J VP" ## I##
? cc*o.')YO
"##'"" #'I'#'
it.,'
I J
t.S
- I.o' 2o E ID l it (v)
.'a r
(/
'i
, :s.t. INC./Wa s E JH ;;rrao con rcnr e(gqpc 3 7 st; p-I /G 1 / Z. i &
Q/
S
- ss.t.G' c.5't t o
_j
/
/ /
~
3 A n o Y c v T/ u di M VP ' W* M MSWn
/ u.. 5% 4 t' CC' 1) vro'sa riot-o n..u /vi-t w Tr:r.'ms
- u*:= TWne,
, a,5' y S..- g 'l 2,~
1g \\Io {
g,-
M- - -
F.e*>s y /c usf:t:n m o o; rtre
+
sser ah r'
1-p.
C o??r*ToDVrhic
.y z s. s '. 5 3.s' S b.
- Qs t.y.Q*l ' *),ff * *
- Y ' 0 ^* *l
' '** '?#P l#l'[*&
re uturaer.ssuo iss ti.S'\\ l.o' So
\\/0 l IS l 15
/4~
/ f.
- 80P
~
35.s"- 47 SitFF s 1 15 71F g
l gy ths I.Sh t.o,'
to 2
S\\S
.. e s s$NoY)
~l AD no op (re:
E's s I.S' o.2.
/E l C
- c. l 3 L s T T k C (4 E C.)
- fj 5 6 4-q,. So - pine sour r c..u cru i
~
~
Denst,TAAtC o!\\ b=!N 'Ck
$jo //o Q (S/N.
&,'('yvgn1 A
curcY sis r t ensss SLN kr Gs I.S' /5
///
- /&
l 't 0 i ~1/
gg[
s a
V.n s u s s vo'i (s +s )
h forstL DEP rrl= So',
yj,q r ciz t.us:
El.. Bo TroM = S B /
gy g i y/MrLE
_~
l
~
DJ1if t.IN 4.* l'G' 9.1*A*:=rE
~.
yo pan.t.sMin CeW
,oLETfC * * " ' "
os an. M-Sg 137g4 R$ sicD.
ifri.s BALU
w s o/L AfE compt.e rwn l.
j)ppy;y;$ 7,3y} ; ;p p.y g g_ p g,
9
- ** =... -
e-8, BORlNG LOG wouao nucce a panr nz.o i-i 7
g DHwlSTM rtoN BLOC =.
l.o' No.9 7H OF //ol.E H
.0 0
- T A
- 7..............
Cu.C.LEro".MELDRIO CME-SSO S
/4.s' '
...............,........._............................".....y//r) f S/ zen,S/2D/77
/
L 3)
(SEC NoLE t/EILA.'( 8. 6 / Van S N/A NoNE
- 'a,;.;.,,.,
- jj i
- j; p, jj j
{
t, 1
1 i
6 31
'.)
O '= //. S *.?AND 8/1CC./;/LL.
,f*,q g(,gtz, yo 14.S's' 7c 0 X.
BVLil SA &tt Ls~=
p;,s. es w m ia.
4,
- q.
. Q'.
Tcsr Friast i II.S'- M.5 '
l conens.reo cu.y pjo c.e Enen.nt.ts.
N'S
, / s il.5 ' - /4.5
- WIT A $ O 'l-H5
- T
., t 3:
b
- l y
Sta.S 4
N PMd WifLC tka 1
TOT /]L D CPTH = / 4.S '
~
&~L.20770M* 6 / 4. S*
REFEtt. To
~
Boatn & Lo6 I
//,. " f o it Pos e tufo.
~
coa /C GirNtrJ &
So!L PRofitt:
SB 13h65 O
i i]si.tunsTP 7nou 8uM.
p/7,
~
- ::e LOCATIO'i: Adr.inistration Buildin;;
COLU:ft: rA-0.4
/
SA!?I.E: K T 290 132 f
Jd3:
722 % 001 m
130.5 l
- .'.- :~ a l
E'd.C.$hiO, 4 w.w.,'if I
4.
r4
- p. " t.'.'
g 129 I
a,41 I
/
2 5.w:
W l
2 l
- u
..c.
I
- a 126
~ *e I
E I(10.4) c I
,u I
- c l
l 123 l
I I
I g
g 120 t
9 11 13 15 L
7 WATER CONIZ:iT ( )
Field Data orie.inal Trou Std. Cenoaction Dz_ts t' sed Calculated Above Data Y (f) 17o f_
': Comeaction
! Comeaccion d
Y (czy.1 I.{0 d
y, 11.8 117.5 17.5 94.0 90.0 B>e 262 123.9 120.5 13.3 97,.0 92.3 w.=ww.
10.0 127.5 13.3
.101.6 97.7 f tc..? ;8f e-m.It
- {Qygs..j]}.?f B}T 269 127.3 11.1 113.7 16.7 95.7 91.0 Y?bS,'y
- ;.u s-Ble 270 124.6 P;g 15.2 103.5 19.5 92.7 c3.1 hid*
3:e 273 117.0 y *"
) " pgum dry density as dater =ined for a particular compactio
.. u..
r..-
...f..,;.
~
yd( m-Wo = Corresponding opti=um vater content Sg Y (f) = Field dry density d
Uof = Correspending field t-oisture. content l
,t
, 5,
- t l i.
.e.
e
. pep W.* em. me mme 6
% es
.6w,
- -6mg
-w--
-9,
,-y-v- - - -.
er--
y w
--w
,,w,w-w w
w
,ww m
g-w,
--m g-
---,-v
=-
v w
w-
rigure 9
~
~
.,. pk.><.i,. ir' w.
l y -p%Nwww u, /1-tuut ---- --.--- -
i;. ;iQyw']-
.u<
l I
fc
- Kb g y.EZ M i
T
'p Il@i@W.t
- q... bk-I
.. 'Vf'U-e:, ]s g
" DW l
131 g
I i
"D 129 I
l.
u
~
I u
l awd e
f%
I h' ul l(S.7)
D I
i l
125 l
l
~
l I
, m i
e 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 '
- DISTU?2 CO
- TITir %
LOCATION: Administration Building CO L C !!:
CT-0.4
, _, A=..
ph S,uTLE: B:T-299 F.a.. @A* g ? W ;*
".f #e,% b.w' -
- L@af37;?:.'.
?a.;d.p %s J03:
7220-001
..w e
..r
}g#?g3,,f.g:
.+
- w. g;g n
- y. :
.w.:2 p w*>--
t SB 13ygy 0
9 e
m...
y
---w
--y.r-
---,m--
- p-- -.. * - -c y.
-~
,-g------r-.---
a--
+, - -
m
.o
,e
~-
.:=
i;4:
e
' ' *;.-....< i t s +;~~LF L
... } '!/T-Ji-fi Ei%r D$r.3 5
t i;ax 4WMw)s n
(13..2 2)
- L4x& -
I
. 1.32 g.: ~ ~;l* fM.i@
- n:
I
- 5. ~ 'J.*
I in -
e :*.:MGG.h:. u r*
- t i
I 130 I
I.
e l
Gudua 123 l
I w
I (9.3)
As I
E 126 e
c I
,D I
l 124 I
I I
I I
l 1
e t
m I
i r
7 S
9 10 11 12
}OISTURE CO...s IT 7, LOCATIOli: ADICTIST".'CIO:7 EUILDING COLU::i: HT-0.4
- c..x.
'A4 69, {J.@i.,.W.-
4' v SA??LE: B72-300 v.4
'y@+,p.p.M O
I J h'd.ft.Y.
JOB: 7220-001
%r...*..r.i?..b.y d...J..:...
nL*.=;n 's p'MC s -.
Nfh? &**$ ;':2$
' ens *)!disI$
y* ?. 4.. **q~ '.
umn mu
't 9
- I y
J
- i
- n. e
- _. - __,__ _.,, _ _. _ ~
- ~
- CO:Tx'.IS7J 07 3 DIFTIP.CII STMDA',DS
(
e-c.
'w --- ;
- ..:.}' 3a4*
b a h" -
' e.=-JV g.
.k e c '?.;.,=;-?.e
,5v~+-
't c
f'I.,;WI@37
. '*.1RiT2.-
~
~
@'II,}h77;rRIC O
M.
t-O~f -}
%>Y 1 o
Ff
_f
,A "
. keh
- 'h
\\
o N
m e.
$ c#
\\.
e%
\\
e, s
-Y I
\\
N 3 p
%duo.
%.e
+ @2[
s
\\
s T
d C U N
o@
\\
ee
\\
r.o y'
v C
e}*<
b c
4 4
W 'h 0
- n ^ N!S.v y
PS}* t,eh..,. 5-eg P='Oe N~ n.
M,+y d'~i
_. qs.
I W eiJu W
.t
- '-.--w P...
. [e 5
l$dY.h.y'/
,/05{.
'i U
U I.
tiater Content
+-
9
,C 4
a j
Opti=um
!!axiewn Load at Unter Centent D:f Density-0.1" Penet.".c'en j
94.5 (psi)
.i A
.12.7(%)
124.5 (pcf) 1' B
14.0(%)
117.0(pcf)_
57.2 (p:SB g i
a
.C
- 15. 0 (".)
112.C(pcf) 5 (psi) 3
. - ~..
.SITY _Td.STS - NUCLj%R METHOD dj.
- i. coufcww--
I
/
MIDLAND.PO'.4ER.?bT '7 220 ' _DATE:.7722/7 71. ' Cr " "-5 Nll[jl{",,["". l'J DENSITY MOISTURE l
__ COUNT ONE i
1 COUNT ONE.
l l
)
i COUNT TdO COUNT TWO COUNT THREE COUNT THREE
/
COUNT FOUR q
COUNT FOUR iTOTAL
/
TOTAL
/
lAVERAGE COUNT l
44 2. (c AVERAGE COUNT 4/0 3 AREA:
I 4D/ hod,
- Q10O, i
i TEST NUMBER DATE OF TEST 9 ff/2L /7 ?I 9/22/n 1
STATION OR LOCATION-D,] $
0,1f-OFFSET FROM CENTERLINE E EDGE L E EDGE a F u a:r. e ; r. e, c<-
ELEVATION
[o /3 b /10
~
DEPTH OF TEST
~ 6" 6"
6" 6"
l 6"
ZONE NUMBER l
l 1
I i
I DENSITY COUNT 4(,D 4 7 'Z,
' C'i '3 CUUNT RATIO (DENSITY)
/nRO ii WET DENSITY
- /FtJ l
I 3R. <
144/.f I l
TOTAL DENSITY DRY
- /Ft>
1 f 19, 7 l
/2751
(
1 l
l l
l MOISTURE COUNT 3 3 Ci l
270 l l
)
COUNT RATIO (MOISTURE)
, f4( 9
,720 l
l 1
MOISTURE FROM MANUAL CHART #/Ft3 6R I 7.6 I
1 (..'/
1 13.3 l
I IMOISTURE
-/
i l
1 I
i l PROCTOR CURVE NUMBER 8&P 27ESAF ~E(A I
l MAXIMUM DENSITY
- /FtJ 12'i.b I 127.3'
)
OPTIMUM MOISTURE 7.
/ /,/
/O. D I
- 7. DENSITY REOUIRED 95*4 W/.
0 5**
I 0 ;*/
0 ; */
MOISTURE TOLERANCE REOUIRED 7, FIELD DENSITY
</.O 10 f.fo l
I i
P= PASS F= FAILURE F-M C' /-t RETEST ll
/>D l
l
- l. AREA OF TEST f(_./OF l ~Pui4>T l I
/u F0 CAUcE NO. 293 Z RKS*
ma twogis normsa or wwTS H2'/77 b '
D U/- Y rf.g.
o3 0 CHEC S C A
&w s
vw bE 13772 APPROVED BY TESTED BY
- RM PET-203 4/18/77
OfS3TY TESTS
,NUCL R METHOD
)!/9/77 '
[_"lf,.sjf*
.;cCT:
- g6LANDTCUERPl.CT7220 DATE:
DENSITY MOISTURE COUS r ONE I
'1 3 2.
COUNT ONE y3O COU:. ! t:.:o 43/
COUNT n:0 1
- 2A COUNT T!REE e.t 3 V i
COUNT 'IliREE l
- 42 COu:;T FOUR 47_9 COUNf FOUR 43/
TO'IAL
/ 7 f(o TOTAL
/. ty g /
AVERACE COUNT t/_q~2.
I AVERAGE COUNT 43.3 AREA:
TEST SUMllER
.I DATE OF TEST 9//9/77) 1 STATION OR LOCATION g.g, kMM
? OM f QN A
c k.er d,<;o u OFFSEI FROM CENTERLINE S. E O C P 'A o uer.
- Rubn, nnv Anp rAl.
2 0,D.
ELEVATION g,.7
$21 62L 42E DEPTH OF TEST 6"
6" 6"
6" 6"
ZONE NIR!BER g
y l
L i
l DENSITY COUNT
_.5 29 9'4 4-/
4 78
'/# 7 l COUNT RATIO
- f. DENSITY) 1.2 26-
/.074
/./0 6
/.cair I WET DENSITY ll /FtJ
/30. 0 <
_i_3 9 o '
i37o
/4/S-i TOTAL DENSITY DRY i!/Ft>
/OR,f f 19. Z l 1/ 7. $~
/ 2 /. *7 ll l
I MOISTURE COUNT l38(
33R l
550 353 l
COUNT RATIO (MOISTURE.)
l
,RRO
, 78 /
l
< 806 l
.R15 i MOISTURE FROM MANUAL CHARTi-/Ft3 12/.E
/8, F, l
/95 l
/9 9 l
/'7.6'
/5~. '7 l
/2. 6 l
/ A., Z !
MOISTURE
- i I
I I
I I
PROCTOR CURVE NUNilER lBMFt/P RiiP.z70'36'P-z& t B.42-ud
~
MAXIMU:! DENSITY n/Ft>
I //7.0 V
/ % t,
/Z3S i234 i OPTIMUM MOISTURE 7.
/.5. 2
//,/
//.R
//. R' 7, DENSIFY REQUIRED 0 ;*/,
C ;'/.
0 ;*/.
0 5't a ;-r MO!STURE TOI.ERANCE REQUIRI'.D i 2 f-1 Z/',
r 293 l
'T' Z Pr-7 F! E!.D DENSITY 92.7 9 4 */
9'9'. 9
'7R. 2.
L P= PASS F= FAILURE F -MD A --M
/E./-l O
- '- M i
RETEST X/O l
4/o l
A./O A/C l
l fLA/A PuWTPtAiul'l PMA>W l AREA OF TEST
- .RRS
CAUCE NO. M '3'Z_.
SN 137;3 1
1
.IN Fo CD.L ]
$O IL REMWW l
. 1 %.\\. m\\
V CIECKEbPb"t VED N l
TESTED BY l
ORM Mr.T ':.01, 4/18/77__
...y..................... T'h C 0 n W'S(* n. S~*E.1
..y.a y
- g., t #
" (g E;
Fior i 8 O T~) A D i> M "/o
.i O V t..t. I t o.r 3 c_ g t. ty_ c, g,
\\ A ~L
,,,,,,,,.n y. og.
T2fL..D-M_\\OL1%1D_ -..
,,,,,..o m, r. e..
e 1.TL L
,uo.bk.. /.Q 9_. _
- o..c __ l...b...I_%
C.. _P__C o.
......, -.2.'.2"l ?;=== :.. :.".':. :E::.*:.E i ',.* 3L = : -.... a..~... -..............
J..,
..... ;ll u'm
'd m
.co
.'" Tl?bt'S!.Tf21_
.m..
c u..+
.t '.15.....mu nin l
.__.___.._...,_(__I iu w.
1 ADM\\M Bl_Db FOBT\\MG 4GN\\DE ime 2.. co'n.
mrt ec min l _
_ _ l,..
_ I
(
]__.
BEhm REPPAR
}
l l.13 l
1.7.5011.tni 5 55E 75;B[0
~
~
~~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
3.100((5F
~ ~[
I I90 IB.50 d 'I;IoD
~
.% FDP.MWORW
'g h,!5!10 1015'to]6
' 'l RtBhk - FABNCRT.lbH _
l IM5ThtLAT10N 14 T
340-fr00 ll.fd
~
~
~ ~.
~~
~
~
L i:i I~
~
.__ _l 0 19.d,~
I.O!0..~
,'t I
EMPib..it.5... AU._...N.5E.I.CA5M 9..'.. _ __ __
..;_. 3. __
r,.
i
' lNST AttlB IDN._...... 3 60 _ LB.. 0. B O.,._ _ _,,.
,,,. 3 0 13.T 3 0.0,
~
I_S 10 0' l
1II 4Ip i
SI.BUU.ll.Bl3I_ t0MCitElE.
Ito5 C'l %.00
._ 450 1155'.
I:
j
_ 59.4 w.BBChBllMMD -
b 10. C1 2.10 510 11.3d
.. t 9 3 1. 0, 15:8bg 33.00)3 gy-
. _ 7.10 R.30._
i I
.co BhCMill. CbNRET.E 585 C1 i
Elfo'0 fI I
~
El~'lI.II iLE0!.
I DlV
- 4!0TO'
s!!!(J to'
$1 T DWC.T-1 3.150 1 _fI. S'1 I
_lhdi
~
-~~
"" DBTNouT AblE5yi r y_< i>Y W "J.E l J.', L aI d h i?. M.T $" ll F
. [-
l~
1--
inid F
-]T l.
.-,c, g
nnuunt.tntoga.?.ob.EEi tna 980 %.s0
~
~
3 i
g
- 9. tnhphntO.isglf_k"_-9"P9 i,i(0- sol.
ll git 6 T~
~
~ -r-
~
~
7- -[
MnTERIAL e,20% DIR.tnB0r, Fhl.g.,.
l
}-' j" if i[ '-l~T-~
~---
]-]--- g m u
_b.OIN-DMk E
__ j.,
.,f kl
,-l,3' 2 C(
,,W, {j3 y gg 1 I i
i
. I..
.i.
.. l lT
.. k.
s/Y t
~
~
~
"~
~
~
~~
~
~
~
II l ab#cf f
o
__.5/L50fLIcs7 80Rn.s
__7 q g'O'
,5
_. _J l l
l l
!nn'OltC-On7CO__.30.sCP n Km.WOINTL
'. "l-~ I)i,[,,'0<3 (-
l'I I
_K515.oN FILL CONC,
.I T
l.01 l
20 o_u 50S$.__._
._ 8 ll i
i
'~l [
C04fbC_T10.N..TES'IS OM ASol/G SAND Fill.
25 l gg g l 'l l
,v i To.Tm l.
l
,_.J.630l_
... 3.
") Q-1 s-muno_oEE..
l
._.9 1.0%
g
, g, y_
7,_ -.. m _.. _.
=_
I l ef r.'n n, I
/
/ -l h
h TABLE NO. I
/
g-Summary of Compacted Fill Density Test Data for Administration Building Original Fill (Tests Grouped by General Area and Date of Test)
DATE TESTED IN-PLACE MAX. LAB.
TAKEN BY LOCATION ELEV.
DRY DDIS.
DRY DDIS.
COMP.
REMARKS 5-23-77 SM 2' N. of N. Steam 614.5 133.1 132.9 100.2 Pass Tunnel Wall - 25' W. of Turb. #1 5-24-77 S11 2' N. of Steam 614.6 125.7 123.9 101.5 Fail - Moisture Tunnel Wall - 50' (Too Dry - 9%)
W. of Turb fl 6-3-77 RS 4' N. of N. Wall
!621.5 111.0 116.~0 95.7 Pass Steam Tunnel - 15' W. of 1.0 6-3-77 RS 5' N. of N. Wall 623.0 115.7 121.0 95.6 Fail - Moisture.
Steam Tunnel - 24' (Too Dry - 10.2%)
W. of 1.0 5-27-77 SM 10' N. of Steam 615.5 114.2 117.0 97.6 Pass Tunnel - 4' E. of E. Side 6-8-77 BS 8' E. of E. Steam 622.0 117.7 123.9 95.0 Pass BT Tunnel - 24' N. of N. Steam Tunnel 6-13-77 BG 8' S. Ek line - 4' 617.0 115.2 127.3 90.5 Fail - Comp.,
E. of E. Steam Tunnel Wall 6-15-77 RS S' S. of Hk line*
617.0 118.2 117.0 101.0 Pass - Rete:r 4' E. of E. Stean Clears 1469, 149S Tunnel Wall 6-15-77 RS 8' S. of Hk line 617.0 112.2 127.3 88.2 Fail - Comp.
8' E. of E. Steam Uall
- 6-15-77 BT 8' E. of E. Steam 618.0 113.0 127.3 88.3 Fail - Comp.
Tunnel Wall - 46' N. of N. Steam
. Tunnel Wall 6-16-77*
ET 5' E. of E. Steam 620.0 119.7 123.9 96.6 Pass Tunnel '3n11 - 60' N. of N. Wall 6-16-77 BT 8' E. of E. Steam 618.0 124.0 127.3 97.4 Pass - Retest Tunnel Wall - 48' Clears 1491 N. of N. Wall 6-15-77 BT 38' W. of 1.0 - 5' 626.0 116.2 127.3 91.3 Fail - Comp.
N. of N. Steam Tunnel Wall 6-16-77 BT 38' W. of 1.0 - 5' 626.0 122.7 127.3 96.4 Fail - Ibisture N. of N. Wall 6-16-77 BT 3S' W. of 1.0 - S' 626.0 122.7 127.3 96.4 Pass - Retest N of N. Wall Clears 1492, 1518 OB 13??5
~
... ~.-
o
' ~~
/
~
~
O Tints no 2 0
-l : '
Su= mary of Tant Data and Razulto for Fill Below Original Beam at 0.4 Line Administration Building (All Tests by V. S. Testing)
ELEVATION TEST RESULTS TEST RESULTS TEST RESULTS NOTE DESCRIPTION OF TEST OF TEST AT COLUMN Hy AT COLUMN LN AT COLUMN PA CODE Initial Compacted 617' In-Place Dry In-Place Dry In-Place Dry A
Density Fill Density Test Density Density
=
=
=
118 lb./ft.3 119.7 lb./ft.3 114.2 lb./ft.3 Test No.
494 Test No. 1517 Test No. 1362 Fractor Selected by 617' BMP - 278 BMP - 262 BMP - 278 U.S.T. Technician Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry for Item No. 1 Tests Density Density Density
=
=
=
117 lb./ft.3 123.9 lb./ft.3 117 lb./ft.3 IndPlace Proctor 617' BMP - 300 BMP - 299 BMP - 298 Aftsr Beam Removal Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry Density Density Density
=
=
=
132.2 lb./ft.3 133.1 lb./ft.3 130.5 lb./ft.3 R parted %
617' I 101%
96%
97.6%
B C mpaction
% Compaction Using 617' 89.3%
89.9%
87.5%
C In-Place Proctor Compteted Fill Den-617' i
- Dry Density Mp & 0.4 Dry Dry Density D
=
=
city Tested After 119.7 lb./ft.3 Density 108.5 lb./ft.3
=
32am Removal 117.5 lb./ft.3 2 Campaction Using 617' i 90.5%
88.3%
83.17.
In-Place Proctor &
Dry Density Tahen After Bean Removal
Ar:gs of Three Tests at This Location
- o C da:
~
A.
Test Results do not include failing tests which were cleared by rctest B.
Reported % Compaction during initial fill compaction C.
Actual % Ccapaction eniculated using Item No. 1 tests divided by Item No. 3 proctor infornation D.
Tests taken after footing removal were not numbered by U.S.T., and were subnitted for information only to Bechtel.
Copies of reports are included as Attachment No. 1
'ehD
+ N game e e m Oy e ae aw
,e,,,,
t NTw w*
y-- - * -,y w
.,,.,,.,,_.gw-,
w-,
,,w.,-y
,,__m7, w.
g,-_
- eene h ern.ie emSee._ g %
F
~~
- ~~~'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' - ' - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ -
@h
~
h' l ~l d
I,1 3 d'
.,, v m j
o c
w ~..u. ms.
,,m ~ - s r
.p:
6o
+ +,3 b,3 I.
i 2
l
+4
+<e
+5G g 16 g y
8 i
'2, J i
i+
q IC i
?
l,...... LLt CT a g cJ g
y g <g d2 4
I O
I we\\
l 2
2o, n
u 9
j j
~
~~
4 bd' i
2 j
c' 05 p
t
!i o
80l l
_ _l p j
'n ;
3
_~
- h l
o i
l
\\
?
sa l
3 _
- . cd
_1 I
g I
8 0
i I
g i
~
l 3
. - O; ei p
$l
}
%i
~
s 2
y
(
+
2 e
{
s
+
Z i
l OL T'
=
,[..._.f_..____.
_ __ _..... g -
T2/_.
,. I
+i l
)
I I
h C
l
~
(d
+
g a
l WD i
1 l
l
'2 W I
l g
b l
A qj l
/
[
J a
d 8i l
1..l :n n9 e a
.2 "I l'
3
_t_
ON 3 H4
'CN NOIAW'1f131V3 133fSf gg3 p e g g3 [ p a Wr-y o L a l_
ow mos-13nroud C2.Q. QNv9 Q g oN 133Hs As c3W33H6 og[ g 2Ava As mors2 g n gyy3 93 O
O
- ..r' A
_s
.r.ams nor.nnove O
DATE O
o x-I /* O f]CMCKED BY
,,,gE 'cy f~ (3
" T e es.2 (C.
DAT BHEET NO.
vnpoJJCT JOE NO.
mfd viSmnnJO ELO G CALCULATION NO.
FILE NO.
sr.,e cT i.-- t c.,. o I.-
r.
t t
i i
I t
I,
,o w
go.
O r-P O
p 9.-
to e
c
+
+
d e
J C
r n
~
m e
+
b M
e o
w
+
t W
e e
o o
o t.
.. g rn f" uc 'iks T y u m ectr CoMPAcwo x
y M AY, t. A 6. ( Ftaocrora)
OP_y O m sig S t.a.t c rco By T 14-e us.
T v s ri a c.
T cc w iciw O-c wG C")(t.1G:4At
~T13n to C
& CbM Pf-c T"CD 6 't-a Cbrt i a G c
Iv P' Ace dry 002s e ry Ec.cr Ca ~1 P&c.n o o oF om. i c2 a %
r:t t.c SB 137;g h
e O
~
3WW1'
~-,
~.
.~
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation f
Inter-office Memorandum Date 15 November 1977 To s, S, Agigi Subject l'.idland Units 1 & 2-Job 7220-001 From J. O. Wanzeck Trip Report Of Geotechnical Services At Ann Arbor 10(D)5 Copies to S. L. Blue E. H. Burke /U. R. Ferris R. L. Castleberry NOV 171977 J. Newgen e.... ;t. oo'un cow.
7O 1310, 3120 g
g This meno transmits ny trip report to the above site on November 3, 1977.
. O. Uanzeck JOU/ lag Attachnent
,O SB 137;g e
g g
-w f
e
_,g
, cp, _
liidland Units 1 F. 2 Bechtel Job 7220-001 TRIP PIPOPJ DATE:
November 8,1977 LOCATION:
Midland Project Midland, liichigan SUBJECI:
Observe Administration Building Foundation Load Test at PA-09 and PA-06.
ATTE; DEES:
Field Engineers Bechtel Jim Kelleher J. O. Wanzeck,Geotech-Soils Dave Billings OBSERVATIONS:
Load set-up was adequate for the test being conducted. Testing procedure followed ASTM recot:mendations. Very little settlement noted as final load was applied.
I requested the field to transmit final data to the Ann Arbor office for evaluation.
J0W/ lag SB 13760
...s4 6
f t".foo b e casuutas PoER Y#f
,D vggW E 9 Bechtel Power Corporation 7
p'.
g fg<.
g 3 g 3e]
Post Office Box 2167
' 9' c
Midland. Michigan 4as40
. -d g -g[,. M MT PROJECT p.
,g,,'.
M1DM 141DI ANg* talCHIG AN February 1,1978 1
sts
/*
g(
f.f 3 f)I)
- exc.-
/
~~*
,, ;c 3
U. S. Testing Conpany, Inc.
/M
/pGP h
~_I. @.M 1415 Park Avenue
,L-M Hoboken, New Jersey 07030
~~~~ ~ ce!
~ ~~
- 3..
,g.3 Attention:
Mr. D. Edley u s..
o w a.- -- - I
... - 1 Job 7220 Midland Project
- ~ ~~ ~M
~~~~~
ATTACHMENT 3 Subcontract 7220-C-203 Failure of Fill Supporting Ilie'~-- y ~,
l~I
~~
Administration Buildinp,( ra6P '
~
Eeam at Column Line 0.4
. _ ~ ' - g... -
C-208-E-286
- cp Fron J. F. N (,
3e.. -~
Reference:
Telex Number C-208-B-283 Dated December 30, 1977
\\
Dear Mr. Edley:
v.
p Pursuant to the referenced Telex, ve have conducted an evaluation of the sty; failure condition.
Our engineering analysis has deternined that the failur r~
caused by insufficient compaction of the fill which uas placed in May and Jt ne--" vp y.-
cf 1977.
A careful. review of the test data provided by U. S. Testing Conpa dicates that this fill was erroneously reported to be in conformance with ac,hte ?r'. ~in '.
~
Specification requirements by U. S. Testing Conpany. This conclusion is sup.o.tted
~ - 7 by the following facts.
q7 (c,.@
1.
A summary of fifteen (15) compacted fill density tests takcu by U. S. Testing W
to evaluate the subject fill as it was co=pacted is provided in Table f'l.
location of each test is plotted in Figure fl. Although several initial tests The indicate test failure due to insufficicat cor.paction, each failure is properly c1 cared by a passing test at or near the location of the failure.
2 Maximum laboratory dry density values (fro t Ecchtel Modified Proctor Tests) used as the standards for evaluating acceptability of fill compaction vere selected by U. S. Testing Lab Technicians.
In a Jobsite uccting uith F.
Teague and B. Check of Bechtcl, J. Spcitz of U. S. Testing stated that the testing technician uses a visual connarison between soil characteristics (prinarily color) of the in-place sarple and bottled sanples of material ulth knoun naximun laboratory dry density, to select the appropriate stan-dard.
Visual examination by Ecchtel soils engineers of the subject fill during the subscquent nrade bean renoval indicated the material van uniforn in appearance with minimal variation in soil characteristics (color and plasticity) over the full extent of the fill placcrent.
/n. ndley t$echtel Power Lorporohon j[bruary1,1973
[h b
~
raa To s
~
The value of naxieun laboratory dry density selected for comparison of the 3.
in-place dry densitics in the subject fill varies betueen 132.9 lb./f t.3 and 116.0 lb./ft.3 This variation includes nost of the full range of maninum laboratory density standards uhich represent significantly differing soil i
characteristics of the clay soils in use on this project. A graph of the maximun laboratory dry density plotted with the corresponding in-place dry density for cach test is given in Figure f2. Note that for three compacted fill density tests (1469,1494 and 1493) taken within a feu feet of each other and at the same elevation, tuo significantly different maxinum labora-tory densitics were used as the compaction standard by the same U. S. Testing technician.
4.
Testing during removal of the subject fill ucs conducted by U. S. Testing in accordance uith Bechtel direction and Specification 7220-C-200 requirements.
A summary of test data and results is given in Table 62.
The results of com-pacted fill density tests taken during subject fill renoval confins dry den -
sity values taken during initial fill. Bechtel nodified proctor tests taken during fill removal in three locations (one at the north and south edges of the fill and one approxi2ately in the center) confirn that the naxioum labo-ratory dry density was uniform as the appearance of the material indicated.
In addition, the subsequent testing indicates the value of naximum laboratory dry density uns between 130.5 lb./ft.3 and 133.1 lb./ft.3 From these test results it is apparent that the lover naxinun laboratory dry density standards selected during the original fill testing ucre not appropriate. As shotnt in Table #2, this error resulted in actual compaction in the ran'ge of 33.1% to 90.5% of optinun for three areas of the subject fill, a substant,ial deviation from the 95% of optinua co=paction required by Specification 7220"C-203.
~
~
In conclusion, the U. S. Testing' Company failure to report deviations from specified conpaction requirenants uhich was the result ' f repeated erroncous selection of com-o paction standards,by U. S. Testing Conpany c.ployeeg represents a violation of the Specification 7220-C-203,Section II, requirenents/and U. S. Testing Company is therefore liable for con associated with the subsecuent failure of the fill.
Such costs include but are no limited to the cost of renoval and investis;ation of the original beam and its su porting fill in addition to all replacenent costs which amounts to a total of $
4,600.00.
An outline itccizing these costs is provided as Attachment #2 of thi let.tcr.
Uc trust U. S. Testing Conpany, Inc. will fulfill its contractual obligations with respecttothisnatterfinatir.clycanner.
Very truly yours,
.ff f'/
V gy,
.n.5'edgen JFN/Ch'C/JB/djg 4
p Attachacuts
'q cc:
P. A.' Bechtel V
,i
]
T. C. Cooke R. Ucrneston
/
\\
P. A. Martinez
/
. fe "
J. Spnitz u
' }r,
SurhyofCompactedFillDensityT
/
' Data fer Administration Building Original Fill (Tests Crouped by General Area and Date of Test)
TEST DATE TESTED IN-PLACE MAX. LAn.
EO.
TAKEN BY LOCATION ELEV.
DRY DENS.
DRY dells.
C0!!P.
. REMARKS 911 5-23-77 SM 2' N. of N. Steam 614.5 133.1 132.9 100.2 Pass Tunnel 11all - 25' W. of Turb. #1 914 5-24-77 SH 2' N. of Steam 614.6 125.7 123.9-101.5 Fail - Moisture Tunnel Wall - 50' (Too Dry - 9%)
W. of Turb. f1 s.1403 6-3-77 RS 4 ' N. of N.11all 621.5*
111.0 116.0 95.7 Pass Steam Tunnel - 15' U. of 1.0 1404 6-3-77 RS 5' N. of H. Wall 623.0 115.7 121.0 95.6 Fail - Moisture Steam
- Tunnel - 24' (Too Dry - 10.2 U. of 1.0
.1352 5-27-77 SH 10' N. of Steam 615.5 114.2 117.0 97.6 Pass Tunnel - 4' E. of E._ Side
- 1422 6-8-77 BS 8' E. of E. Steam 622.0 117.7 123.9 95.0 Pass BT Tunnel - 24' N. of H. Stcan Tunnel
- 1469 6-13-77 LG 8 ' S. 11 - 11 n e",- 4.'
617.0 l115.2-127.3 90.5 Fail.- Conp.
1
~
E. of E. Steam Tunnel Hall
- 1494 6-15-77 ~
8' S. of 111; ifnc 617.0 110.2 117%0 101.0 Pass - Retest RS 4 ' E. o f E.,Secan Clears 1469, 14!
Tunnel Hall 1498 6-15-77, RS 8 ' S. o f litt line.
617.0 112.2 127.3 88.2 Fail - Comp.
8' E. of E. Stcan 1491 6-15-77_
Uall
~
BT S' E. of E. Steam 618 0 113.0 127.3 08.3 Fail - Conp.
Tunnel Wall - 46' N. of N. Stcan LTunnel Unll 351/
6-16-77 BT 5' E. of E. Steam 620.0 119.7 123.9 96.6 Pass Tunac1 Wall - 60' BlT 6-I6[T ~~EI~
5 ~~
h
~~
6f870-
~~
97.4~ ~
Steam 124.0 127.3 Pass - Retest Tunnel Wall - 48' Clears 1491 N. of W. Wall H492 6-15-77 BT 33 ' W. o f 1. 0 - S '
626.0 116.2 127.3 91.3 Fail - Comp.
M. of N. Stcan Tunnci Hall R518 6-16-77 BT 38' W. of 1.0 - 5' 626.0 ~122.7 127.3 96.4 Fail - Moisturc M. of M. Unll R520 6-16-77 BT I6' W. o f 1. 0 - S '
626.0 122.7 127.3 96.4 Pass - noter.t N. cf N. Wall Clearn 1492, 151:
r L_ _
^
~
. TABLE 50. 2 Summary of Test Data and Resul p
for Fill Below Original Beam at 0.4 Line Adninistration Building (All Tests by U. S. Testing)
ELEVATION TEST RESULTS TEST RESULTS TEST RESULTS NG DESCRIPTION OF TEST OF TEST
' AT COLUIDI1;r AT COLUMN LN AT COLTDT PA CO 1.
Initial Compacted-617' Fill Density Test In-Place Dry In-Place Dry In-Place Dry Density Density Density w
=
=
118 lb./ft.3
/119.7 lb./f t.3 114.2 lb./ft.3
/" Test No..494
/
Test No. 1517 Test No. 1362 2.
Proctor Sciccted by 617'.
EMP - 278 BMP - 262 BMP - 278 U.S.T. Technician for Item tio.1 Tests Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry Ibx. Lab. Dry Density =
Density Density
=
=
117 lb./ft.3 123.9 lb./ft.3 117 lb./ft.3 3.
In-Place Proctor 617' i BMP - 300 BlfP - 299 BMP - 293 After Beam Removal Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry Max. Lab. Dry Density Density
=
Density
=
=
132.2 lb./ft.3 133.1 lb./ft.3 130.5 lb./ft.3 4.
Reported %
617',
101%
96%
97.6%
B Compaction 5.
% Co::paction Using 617' 89.3%
89.9%
87.5%
C In-Place Proctor 6.
Compacted Fill Den-617'
- Dry Density city Tested After Ifp & O.4 Dry Dry Density
=
D
=
119.7 lb./ft.3 Density Dean Removal 108.5 lb./ft.3
=
-117.5 lb./ft.3 7.
% Conpaction Using 617' i 90.5%
In-Place Proctor &
88.3%
83.1%
Dry Density Taken Af ter Bean Renoval
- Avera: c of Three Tests at This Location 1
Nota Code:
A.
Test Resylts do not include failing tests which were cleared by rctest B.
Reported % Compaction during initial fill conpaction C.
Actual % Compaction calculated using Iten No. 1 tents divided by' Item No proctor infornation
.3 D.
Tests taken af ter footing removal were not numbered by U.S.T., and were subnitted for information only to Bechtcl.
Copics of reports are included as Attachment No.1
' ig;j.,..
yevi nei ruvven wi put cou
.=hv. ::. ~,
55ii '
- 0004191 2f:.EE.
ATTACHMENT 4 Nst Me) Box 2167
.i "Fr.:~~-
Midland. Michigan 4864o hn-2=:.=
September 4,1979
~~
U. S. Testing Company, Inc.
~~~~
1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030
.u._...
Attention:
M. Anselmo Job 7220 Midland P t
' Subcontract 722
-0 Geotech Review of U. S.
Test'ing Field and Laboratory Tests on Soils 1
C-208-B-405
~.
Dear Mr. Anselmo:
Attached we are transmitting a copy of a Bechtel report, " Review of U. S. Testing Field and Laboratory Tests on Soils" dated July,1979 for your review and comments.
We are requesting that U. S. Testing respond to the findings; namely those summarized in Section 8.
~
Your response and coments are requested by September 24, 1979.
Very truly yours.
Q-l i ? O - J 4 :.-
f
...... _. [
/
. F. New jen Site Mana er
=
.. - r.d....i. :. -JFN/JWL/DLP/km
=w
"~_-~~T~8""'~~
Attachnents
- ?-
.. '.~~
L' ~ "
-_7
_..{f - ' f '
~__
ki,
.'- = -
$g,,,,,
)
O h6"
.z P= ::':-
k^
.g.
Q
- i.~id=.. *.
- Q
=
'.~:~:..=.7 :~.
e e e
00o41m
... -.... =
MIDIAND UNITS 1 & 2 JOB NO. 7220 REVIEW OF U.S. TESTING FIELD AND IJ.BORATORY CONSTRUCTION TEST DATA ON SOILS USED AS FILL
.(
Y=
.BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIOKAL CORPORATION July 1979 t
,. = ;..
- s.. s...
z.,_...
r..r.<.
=
S R.{Sgg,97
= - - - - -
o
.~e....
.>.64
~.J...C.*
. =. =
.7..**.".~~.
W 0004193 h5*.
w===...
2.
PAGE x
=--:.....
~"
- 1.
Use of Laboratory Test Cor:paction Curves 1
]_l.'.~[~'
2.
Questionable Retests 2
.. _... l ~~;
3.
Theoretically Itapossible Test Results 2
I.2.'..__. _.
4 '.
Repeated use of Ques'tionable Laboratory Test Data 3
5.
Llziits of Accuracy and Acceptability for Test Data 3
~
6.
Accuracy of Test Equipment 5
7.
Relative Density Tests 5
- - - - ~ _
6 8.
Summary TABLE A - Listing of all clas,sifications' referenced in Plant Area Fill Soil Test Records which were used for 20 or more
~ ~ " ~
Field Density Tests.
~~~~~~
TABLE B - Notes on Quesi:ionable Clearing of failed Tests, TABLE C - Notes Relative to Questionable Test Data FIGURE 1 - Moisture Density for 31T 278 - All Tests FIGURE 2 - Moisture Density for B}T 278 - Passing Tests Only IIGURE 3 - Moisture Density 'for B}T 278 - Nuclear Densemeter FIGURE 4 - Moisture Density for 312 278 - Se:d Cone Tests FIGURE 5 - Moist;ure Density for Bl? 278 - Nuclear Density Passing Test -
TIGURE 6 - Noisture Density for B12 278 - Sand Cone Passing Tests
--~~-
FIGURE 7 - Window of Acceptability for Test Results
[-[
TICURE 8 - U. S. Testing Co. Procter 1:ethod Corparisons
_._.T.
TIGURE 9 - Moisture Density for Bl? 27' - Adjusted Moisture Content 6.
~_~_~~ T ~. _ '
TIGURE 10 - Comparison of Wet and Dry Relative Density
_-:-===
..r
.r
. =.=.T; SR13S239
Dilly 4,
0004194
..r...
~~~"
This review of the quality control tests of the earth fill at the Midland Sit
'~~_'. _. _..
was made as a result of settlement of the fill supported diesel generator building in excess of that predicted.
Soil samples obtained in borings indic that soil conditions beneath the plant structures are not compatible with the r......
quality of fill that could be expected based on the results of the control te made by U. S. Testing Company.
All fill was accepted as it was being placed based on the results of the field tests pe::iforned by U. S. Tasting Company.
The review showed many discrepancies in the test results as outlined in the following. paragraphs.
Review comments are based on the requirements of the technical specifications for fill placement and to subcontract entered into by U. S. Testing Company.
~
~~
1.
Use of Laboratory Test compaction Curves
'. [.;
Table 9-1 of specification 7220-C-208, Page 14B required one field densit I
~-
and noisture content test be taken for each 500 cubic yards of fill place It also required one compaction; grain size, and specific gravity for eae
._,.g 10,000 cubic yards of naterial.
This gives a ratio of 20 field density tests to 1 laboratory compaction test. Although 20:1 is not a strict upp limit, it is'a guideline; should density tests be taken more frequently than one per 500 cubic yards of fill the ratio could be higher.
The actual ratio is shown in Table A attached.
In fact, some of the laborate compaction tests were used to determine percent compaction for several hundred field density tests taken over a period exceeding two years.
Eve though no time requirements for the period of use of laboratory tests are specified, it is unlikely that any borrow source in this area would be of such uniform character that such extended use of a compaction curve, tru3 representative of a large quantity of material, would be applicable. Lis below are selected laboratory test data results indicating the vide range soil properties that werereported.
Such a vide range is typical for soi3 of the kind used in the fill 3naking prediction of maximum density; based on visual inspection, extremely difficult if not impossible without testir
~
MIN. DENSITY HAX. DENSITY OPT. PDISTURE TEST (1bs/Ft3)
(Ibs/ft3)
(percent)
- BIE269 127.3 10 l_
- BMP278 117.0 15.2
- BMP279 140.8 5.7 3
- ?
- RD24 100.9 119.2
?-
- RD55 90.2-109.7
_ t
- RD61 109.3 125.3
.._,____.2
- BMP refers to proctor type test.
f
- RD refers to relative density test run by dry method.
- =...
SRt3S239
...y. -
S g,-+y w----
y.w--w, vr--
wy---p www-+p-vy-r
-tW1"T*
""'v8*
' = -
- T-""W
"*4--
" ' ' ~ * " "
- fy-i-Y C
0004195
~
~~
~
2.
Quastienable Ratests s.
-2..:.
A field density test that fails to meet requirenents of the specifi-cation should have been reported to Bechtel who then would have requ p--. :.-'
reworking of the area and ratesting.
of the 668 "failing" tests which were marked " cleared" by another te in over 10% (72 tests) of the results, the clearing of the " failed" density test was apparently resolved by merely using another laborst compaction curve with either lower maximum density, which resulted 1 in the percent compaction being increased sufficiently, or different optimum moisture content which caused the fill to meet the requirene "of the specification.
The possibility exists that soil was removed l
~
after a "failing" test and replaced by different material, but the records do not indicate this and it is not possible from the record r
to determine if a new density test was made.
In other cases, tests labeled " failed" were incorrectly cleared though the same laboratory standard was referenced.
For example, in some cases retests to clea a " failed" test were not taken in the same area or at the approximat same elevation.
More than 40 retests were over 20 feet from the "fa '
~
test location (as recorded in the test reports) and some were over 2 i feet -from the original test, location.
In' general, if after a "failil test the whole area is reworked, the density test location is. not to l critical' assuming that the correct laboratory compaction curve' is us '
for comparison.
However, in the plant fill, work areas were relative '
small, and soil characteristics showed considerable variation necess '
ting ratesting in the immediate vicinity of the "failing" test.
Ret
__should. be taken in the lif t or soil layer that has been reworked.
J. !
most 50 Tetests were taken at different elevations, some up to 10 ft' from the " failed" test.
It should be noted that Bechtel field perse,
.. _..... -. ~ ~ "
gave the locations for ratesting.
This was not a U. S. Testing repp j
= " - -
~~"
sibility.
Two retests were dated prior to the time the original tes i
" tailed".
Over 130 "failing" tests were marked a's ("non Q") and nes l recorded. cleared, as they were outside the saftey relate 8 area.
Table B is a compilation of notes relative to questionable clearing failed tests.
3.
Theoretically Imnossible Test Results Soils cannot be more than 100 percent saturated; therefore, all fie3 density test data points, when plotted as dry density versus moistu:
content, must be below the zero air voids-curve as defined by the sy,
t-eravity of the material.
Specifications do not require examination !
the zero air voids curve, but it is considered common practice rela: l
-to compaction plots.
There are numerous cases in the U. S. Testing l Company data where points plot above the zero air voids curve.
Figt' attached shows a typical laboratory compaction test curve with fiele test results plotted on it.
Many of the field test results are to
-- ~ ~
determine percent compaction plot above the zero air voids curve.
tr-~--"
Provided the specific gravity is correct this is not possible so thz
_Z all such points must represent erroneous data.
=
].j.........
.=.=- _
SR.t36300
, ;.. =..:
.=..:..:......
t y--
==
y-y-w um w-g-e-*y-ww w--yr yp.pw--
p-f-.g-,
y ye
--g.gy-meg-<-99w-m--,
---o5-.--.gg.y,y,,wr
---p,
,myg-,,smiesyw.--
.wmw,y.mm ew-vme-9i.,--a-g
<nye,
,,,,p---.ee w-c--.-
.@.fty.
The inEthat a inrga numbar of test rElts plot abova the zero air v.
j g._m.3.:.
curva tends to naka all test results quastionable.
.Z..~Z ~~..'3 Alco, referring to Figure 1 it would appear that soil density varied 3
widely.
Specifications called for compactive effort results as definet
... _ _.)d.
~
3 energy.
This was modified to by ASTM D 1557 which is 56,255 ft-lb/f t laboratory test compactive effort of about 20,000 ft-lbs/ft3 energy, o-referred to as Bechtel Modified Proctor (BMP).
Laboratory compaction
.......... g test curves should be related to the same effort as that called for in
..._.. - 5 the field for use in comparing with field density tests to determine
~~
3 percent compaction'. According to plots of field data shown on Figure :
5 density varied from about 108 lb/ft3 to about 130 lb/ft.
It is doubt:
3 E
that the soil classification or other properties would be similar for E
a vide variat' ion in density.
It is noted that 100 percent of modified
~
Proctor (ASTM D 1557) which is difficult to obtain, is rated at 56,255 ;
~5
.ft-lb/ft3 energy.
The curve plotted on Figure 1 is at about. 20,000 ft- !
t L
energy.
For comparative purposes it was determined bg U. S. Testing iz ;
5 that 100 percent of specified effort (20,000 'ft-lb/f t ) is approximate:
- ~~l equal to 15 percent of de maxh density as deteMned by Am D 15E 3
3 ft-lb/ft )'Referance Figure 8.
p 2-4.
Repeated use of Questionable Laboratory Test Data
... __.. ~g Some laboratory compaction te'st data were used repeatedly even though t
...__..._i continued to show suspect field test results.
This could be indicatis 1E of questionable laboratory data or the fact that soil we.s not being pl:
-g or compacted according to specifications.
Either case,is a caust for p
concern.
~=
=.
2
=.
3 Several specific gravity calculations are in error, such as for BMP 27:
=
=
and 274.
In the case of BMP 273, the zero air voids curve passes throt
~
the laboratory compaction curve.
In another example, BMP 297, the labc i
compaction curve is invalid due to calculation errors, yet was referent i
by field density tests 22 times.
I_3 Table C is a compilation of notes relative to cuestionable test data.
+
- 5. ' Limits of Accuracy and Acceptability for Test Data a
.i j~
Figures 1 through 7 attached will be referenced in discussing limits of 3
accuracy of acceptability for field test results as compared to laborst test date.
The figures show plots of compaction data for BMP 278 whicFr
-i are typical of all test results.
... _ _. _.... j.
Specified laboratory compactive effort was 20,000 ft-lbs/ft agdfield E
compaction effort was originally specified at 56,255 ft-lbs/ft but was E-
-p; changed by Revision 5, dated 7/8/75, specification 7220-210 Section
. -_ - =;
13.7, Page 57 to also be equal to about 20,000 f t-lbs/ft
,.=,;- ~ ;_3 c._
Mir S R.15S301
=u.- *
\\*
,w.---v ww.r-w y-i.-rewriw-w-wi v--w-r-v
+y-&33,--
oeie.--y T.-g-..wne-%
ew, m y--m-----ee.w re,*-qw--e...--
-.--.w.--<..y
-,--ye---cw-
,-w-
,--,.p----vevw,
.d..e..._ _
W 0
3 Tha opacified 20,000 ft-lbs/ft effort establishns a coepection curva
. _.. =.
" ^ ~ ~ "
relating noisture and dcasity for a sp2cific coil.
Moisture was ep2cifie
- = = =
for field placed fill to be within i 2 percent of opticum moisture as determined by this effort.
Density was specified to be greater than 95 E~~~
~ ~ "
percent of the maximum density.
As cocpactive effort is increased in the laboratory test, maxd=un density vill be increased and opti=un 5.r;;__.
moisture content vill decrease.
This change can only occur in the field
" = = " ~ ~
to the extent that the field moisture content vill permit it.
Once fiels cocpsetion is such that the fill density is cignificantly higher than about 105 percent of maxinr.nf,the specified tolerance from optimun
~ ~ ~ "
~~~~"-"
moisture content in the laboratory compaction test may no longer be app ~licable for field control. A + 2 percent numerica1'value of noisture content acceptable at th'e specified compactive effort would be too wet at a higher effort since the zero air voids curve defines the absolute
~ _......
maximum that can be achieved, indicating that higher densities for that soil are impossible.
Therefore, if the record shows high densities for such material, the data are in error.
This was apparently overlooked.
P, lots of field data for compaction test 3MP 278 are shown on Figures 1 through 6.
The title of each figure gives the assunptions made in plotting data for the figure.
In co= paring figures 3 and 4 it is s'een 7-that a majority of field tests yere made using the nue; Lear device.
The two test results shown on Figure 4 for the sand cone method indicates on-test result on each side of the zero air voids curve.
The ene falling
- - ~ ~ ~ ~
above the aero air voids curve (shown on Figure 4) is designated by
~~"""'
U. S. Testing Co=pany as the only passing sand cone test,fshown on Figur.
~~
For a field test result to be valid as well as " Passing" it must fall vi-in a well defined-area on the plot containing the laboratory compaction
_-f curve.
Thic area or vindow of acceptability is shown for a hypothetical compaction curve on Figure 7a that would meet requirements of Specificat-7220-C-210.
It is defined by horizontal lines at 95. percent and 105 per of specified density, vertical lines through i 2 percent of, optimum noisture content, and a line parallel to the zero voids line indicating saturation about half way between the co=paction curve and 100 percent saturation (zero air voids curve).
The practical upper limit of 105 percent of specified density is not defined in the specifications.
It
._vas arbitrarily chosen as nu=bers greater than this give increasingly invalid comparisons between field test results and the specified laborat-co=paction test curve.
Therefore, if all data points fall within the defined vindow there would be no reason to assu=e that they are vrong..
o l--.
Bowever, when many data points fall outside the designated area there is E---"~~
something.vrong with the information and then all data points become sus-A review of all data indicates that about 25 percent of the cohesive.soi test results fall within this area.
i?
Figure 73 shows an area where field test results would be acceptable,
=~~,
in theory even though not in strict accordance with the specifications.
Figure 7B was arrived at by expanding Figure 7a to include test rgsults E ~~ ~~- ~
up to a co=pactive effort related to ASTM D 1557 (55,255 ft-lb/f t ) whic'
]_,,
is considered to be a practical upper 13
't.
About 40 percent of all G. _..._.
cohesive soil test results would plot in this area.
, <=..=. h. :
... = _......
5 H.t::S302
~~7=2=-
%=... g O.
h; 000419s I
~~-
Pcge 5 k...._.2pgg,
4
~~;
6.
Accureer of Test Equipment Almost all (over 95%) field density tests on cohesive soils we're mai
~~~".
using the Nuclear Density device. Specification 7220-C-210 section 12.4.2 page 42 indicates this to be acceptable for moisture content determination provided that the results are compatible with those obtained by ASTM D 2216.
Similarly, section 12.4.4 says density det mined by the nuclear device is acceptable when results are compatiba with density as determined by AS'Di D 1556.
\\
.In a. letter from U. S. Testing to Bechtel (dated May 30, 1974), the' average deviation of the nuclear device from oven-dry noistures was
+.12% for a set of 30 tests.
Bowever,'the standard error of estinat 1.8% for the data with the range of differences being from - 3.2% te
+3.9%.
Thus, accuracy of the nuclear device is questionable, and cc translate into errors of about i 4 pef in the dry density calculatic (It should be noted that errors in the moisture content tend to shif the position of test results on a moisture density plot approximatel parallel to the zero air voids curve, assuming the in-place wet dens is correct, and thus do not explain the large nunbar of points which plot outside the zero air voids.
Compare Figures 1 and 9).
~"~
No reliable correlation between sand cone and nuclear density tests were carried out therefore there is no basis for determining if U. S Testing would have performed better using the sand cone procedure.
However,it is clear that a large number of the nuclear density tests are wrong.
This can be explained by considering the wet unit weight may have been wrong or both the noisture content and unit weight may have been wrong. A reliable correlation with properly conducted san
,rone tests should have revealed this, but it was not apparently done.
7.
P. elative Density Tests Cases were noted where densities in material classified on the data sheet as zone 3 (sand) were compared to the nazinum densities in pro type tests and other cases where densities in clay soils were compar the Mnza density in relative density tests. An error must exist the record in such cases either in the classification of the soil on data sheet or in comparing field test results to inappropriate labor test data.
In general, it appears that relative density tests were in controlling density of sand fill.
There were a significent nunbe
"--~
~
aritketic' errors on calculation sheets even though there are signat on the sheets indicating they had been checked.
Over 100 errors ver found in calculations, of relative density from S/15/79 through 12/7
?
(not all of these errors change the acceptability of the test result
=
=,
=.EE SB15S303
- =...
9--m.---
p-9-ppm-y.--wwe rw-.-.
.g.--m
--g-e-
,.-g..g,-g-r.ym-we-,m-v.-
--.e-
m.w---
- e.. ----.w.
=w m--w y
e-
'Q-C 000419d ASTM D 2049 'ecction 7.1.2 W2t Fathod etates:
" Note 2 - Ynile tha dry 1;
methed is preferrad frem th2 stcndpoint of securing results in a shorter period of time, the highest maximum density is obtained for some soils it.
a saturated state.
At the beginning cf a laboratory test program, or m --
when a radical change of materials occurs, the maximum density test shoul: )
be performed on both wet and dry soil to determine which method results in the higher maximum density.
If the wet method produces higher maxinun densities (in excess of one percent) it shall be followed in succeeding
= _.
Fr = :
tests." An example of wet and dry relative density is shown on Figure 10.
U. S. Testing Company apparently did not do this frequently enough, or on a broad enough range of non-cohesive soil types.
As a consequence many field density test results exceed 100 percent of =v4==
dry laboratory relative density.
As an example, for laboratory test RD55 a total of 566 field tests were made.
Of this total, 364 tests were greater than
--~
100 percent compcetion.
The highest relative density found was 142.2 percent with the majority of tests over 100 percent' falling in the range Z.~ T."
of 100 percent to about 130 percent.
Since the difference in maximum
_i _ _...
density between wet and dry methods is about 4 to 5 lbs/c. ft. (based on
__._~
recent data) any test result greater than about 115 percent (based on the dry method) is suspect.
Even if the wet laboratory test ' ethod data were available for all sands, m
it appears an unacceptably high nunber of field test results would-greatly exceed 105 percent relative. density even based on the wet ev4~-
8.
Su==ary In su==ary, there are five major faults contained in the liidland Co=pacte-Fill Density Test Reports as follows:
~
1.
crroneous field density test data.
2.
incorrect soil identification
=
3.
incorrect (or questionable) laboratory test data.
4.
calculation errors 5.
improper or inco=plete clearing of " failed" tests.
Items 4 and 5 represent existing faults in the data which could be corrected. However, as a result of itets 1 through 3, there is no rational means of determining which test' results are valid and which are not.
Since more than one half of the test results for relative densi and percent compaction fall outside the possible theoretical comparison limits, it,nust be concluded that these test results are suspect and should not be used alone for acceptance of plant area fill.
Therefore.
other means of testing have been established and employed to determine
=
?g if-the fill in any given area is acceptable.
~
Also in item 4 it should be noted that on cany occassions the inplac'e
--,='
density was divided by the maximu= density fron the relative density test to get percent compaction, these tests were also used to clear
= - - -
other pricing tests.
==
=.c SRtSS304
=:::: : :.~.=:.
~~y.e T =i..
n
/*3 ig, U.
W mui 0004200
=. =..
Listing of All Classifications Referenced in Plant Area Fill Soil Test Records Which vere Used for 20 or More Field Density Tests Classification
- No. of Tests w.=--:-
3200 90 B251 31 3252 22 3254 42 3255 57 B260 68 3261 36, B262 165 B269 227
~
3270 226 B271 141 B274 37 3276
(
21 3277 158 B278 82 B297 22
~
RD15 20 R0l6 61
'M
=
R035 59 R038 39 R039 28 R040 35 R041 69 R042 103 R043 48 R044 71 R045 43 RD49 63 R054 118 R055 566 RD59 65 R061 589 R063 42
}
R065 59 note:
Spec. 7220-C-208 gives a ratio of approvi=ately 20 field C
tests to each laboratory test.
=. _. _.. -
=
=--
- ===..E jigE sn.tys30s
acn.
o" o
TO5:GE TABLE B 0004201 Gat:
]_* ~"{
Notes on Questionable Clearing of Failed Tests 1.
Test number MD 245 fails due to high moisture.
Clesred by MD which references a proctor with higher optimum moisture content T-(OMC) such that the 12% of optimum requirement is met.
I.1...._
2.
HD 205 fails with moisture content 6% above the OMC.
Cleared b
~ ~ '
MD.' 215, which references a relative density lab standard, and 1
=::
itself still 6% away from the OMC of the proctor referenced by 1:
- 3.
MD. 223 fails because of high moisture.
Cleared by MD 228 whic has actually a higher moisture content and lower density, but re a different proctor; the retest passes and clears the failure.
4.
Both MD. 844 and 886 fail because of high moisture and low densi They are cleared by ED. 888 which references a new proctor with
--~-
Iower maximum density and higher OMC than the first.
5.
MD. 251 fails due to moisture being too high.
C1' eared by MD. 25
" - ~ ~
which uses a higher OMC proctor.
(
~~'
6.
MD 668 clears MDR 634, but the two tests show no correspondence
"~
location, moisture, density, or lab standard.
~
7.
MD 771 failed, being too dry.
Cleared by MD 782, which has' a:
identical moisture content and dry density but uses a new BMP wi lower optimum moisture.
8.
MD. 2384 clears MD 2342, referencing.a different proctor with :
~
OMC which fits the in-situ conditions. However, the dry densit:
of MD. 2384 is way too high to fit the original soil classificat and in addition, it falls outside of the zero air veids curve fc the classification which it has been changed to.
9.
MD 556 clears MD 554 by using a BMP with lower moisture requi:
~ ~ ~ -
The field densities differ by 24 pcf and would seem to be diffe:
material.
10.
MD'.558 clears MD 555 but has too high a density to be the sa:m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
]
as MD: 555.
It also uses a different proctor.
11.
MD 566 and 568, classified as BMP 262 cohesive soils, are clea by MD. 569 which is classified as P3 33 and has totally differe
' k_. __ _ __
soil properties than the two f ailures.
12.
MD 1317,18,19 and 20 fail and are all cleared by MD 1477 ta' I'
over 5 weeks later.
There is poor correspondence in the soil p and the proctor is different from failing to passing test.
-;. 7~~~._ :~~
= ~
13.
MD 2965 clears MD 2963 with a different proctor through the t'
+=~ ?.;2 results would have been passing with the criginal BM?.
. _ :: :- =. -
13S8, classified as BMP 278, is cleared by 1m 1461, class.<
- -}~5&"~
14.
- ~ 5t.
as RD 55.
SR158:mR
.3.k=.
W E~.3 '
15.
MD 170, cicssifisd as RD 24 is clacred by MIT 173, classifitd cs a==-
BMP 234.
16.
MDR 287 fails with a relative density of 77%.
Cleared by MDR 291 which has.1 pcf lower density but arbitrarily rounds up the relat
=r-
[2~~ =
density to 80%; it passes and clears the failure.
_==~
17.
In all of the following field density tests on sand, the passing test has approximately the same or lover density then the failure:
~ "~~~
but references a lower 'maximu= density P.D lab standard:
MDR 343 clears MDR 339 MDR 514 clears MDR 507 MDR 513 clears MDR 508 MDR 515 clears MDR 509 MDR 516 clears MDR 510 MDR 522A clears MDR 521 MDR 558 clears MDR 556, 557
~ ~~i-MDR 480 clears MDR 473 MDR 555 clears MDR 525, 527, 534 MDR 533 clears MDR 526, 530, 53f
~~
18.
MD.2384 clears MD 2342, but is at 7' lower elevation.
,,__._ {
19.
MD 123 clears MD. 122, but is at 10.5' lower elevation.
20.
MD. 149 clears MD 142, but is at 10' higher elevation.
~
21.
MD', 1694 clears MD. 1693 but is 43' away fron the site of the fir 1
~
test.
=........
22.
MD 3114 clears MD 3102, but the two tests are 68' apart.
23, MD 186 clears MD 183 though it is 110' away.
l 24.
HD 1209 clears MD' 1207 and MD 1205, yet is 183 ft. away from t 1 l
- failures, 25.
MD 1097, dated August 4,1977, cleared by HD 1048 dated July 16 -
Note: This table gives typical obs'ervations and is not meant to be a inclusive.
SR13S307
=
,we
'*T*~.".4.".".
.J**~C..
% =_\\
.;.p..
N
S$=E:.Nb N.
Ij 000020:
.........t',.,
_ TABLE C Notes on Questionnble Tant Data i
E ~~~~
1.
The first field density test to reference RD 24 (5/75) has a rel: !
density of 170.6%. The standard continued to be used, however, s relative densities greater than 100% occuring repeatedly.
2.
Similarly for RD 30, the first two tests (9/75) have 114% and 12:
.=
relative densities, yet the sta=dard was used for 10 months, 54 tests, with 52% of the results over 100%.
-3.
During the first two weeks of use (7/76), RD 41 was referenced 2* {
times with 12 tests over 100% relative density (6 tests over 110; and 3 over 120%). The standard was used for 5 months, however, s over 40% of the results over 100%.
4.
The first test using RD 55 (8/76) has a relative density of 119%, '
"~~~
with the field test being made the same day as the standard and, thus, assumedly the same material. These results vould throw doubt on the lab standard, yet it was used for two full years anc 566 tests, with 64% of the results over 100% relative density.
t 5.
Even high density structural backfill standards such as RD 61 (m=w = density of 125.3 pcf), used 593 times, show over 25%,of the tests having greater than 100% relative density.
6.
The first seven tests referencing EMP 269 (scattered over a two I
=
period around 7/76) all fall outside the zero air voids curve. :
classification was used for 11/2 years, referenced 227 times.
7.
~~~
The first two tests referencing BMP 270 (7/76) fall 6 pef above 1 zero air voids curve.
Continued use of this proctor'for over 2 :
resulted in 226 tests with S2 outside.the theoretical naHaun.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For the first month (4/77) all BMP 278 tests fell on or outside :
8.
zero air voids curve.
For the next month, over half the tests d:
"~
the same, or have greater than 105% compaction. The standard va:
"~ ""~~ 7],1 used over half a year, with 43 out of a total of 82 tests outside the zero air voids curve.
Note: This table gives typical observations and is not meant to be 4 4.,nclusive.
^
c=:
. ~. ~... ~
SR.11:S308
...... s as -
.?.......
~
- y. -.m
?!!$(
+ i" [
!,[
l j
!l l.I l!h o
vZ_R
. _1 9 ~
NE_
Y r Z! R LP 3
2 7 B' SPECIFIC GRRVITY = 2.65 RLL TESTS o-o e
nn-p E.
Ze.ro air voids hurve for this ma.terial o
E~
Zero air voids curve for 5.G. - 2.75, shown for reference.
M k
U O_ o.
o u
o
> m.
X F
X m
H 0
L1 X
'N.
Zo e
W R ru-X X o
X X
X g
x x
x x
g x
x y
v U E-95% of maximum BMP X
W X
xa 1
r, o
o.
t1 Za X
oa o
Ha O
2' A
~
A S
- 3...
O O
i 1
- ~
mm c rmg l
m 0004205 ri d c.
vu n
.d i
m 4
4.
r.
c 9
c
.?
.=
m n
n.L L
=
[
t a.
n c
tij e
c
.a.
s w
n
,. I e
'a f.
lt!
4
]
hm.
cc
+
)
c llB X
- b U
- E i
k
=
f i
slIl
_c W
[p
-u g
1.D
?
Ir LD X%
X i
U.yZ
/ H,H X
.X c
n 4 (&JI c
p~~
I,[I *
-T'.
~
[
- {
F o D.
W
-i i..
'l Lil 5
c c
- y -
'3,
.e 3
k.': b
- 5.c.
. _I.J '. UI.y7 F7....-l SR15S310 m....
5..
g e
'l, DD D$1 DD'Dhl DD'U$1 00'D51 D D'D'll DD'Ddi DD*DI b
5_
E3]d]
A1IEN3[ AME 3]S7d NI 5-
.3,
e
'I FIGUFI 2
~
,5
~
.e
~,w,--
+-
n
.-e
,e-w-
,,e.
-e--
- r. -.. -
e w--
~v
- s;.e.e.
L)
(v. ')
.:s.:s u u v-
. ' ~ '........
000420S W
N g:c.
Z X
c]
=..
Til.7.
/. Ifl I
tnt-
@LO s
gi W g
~
11 g
sw
(
~
_3 E X
EU girl ye ez
- 9 x, y!
w yy
'UR X
X X X
.X
&HK
. _ _...... _.. =:.
HE-XX X X XX X
yW X
X LTl]
Z
^
X
]
'~
[
?~ f SR.tSq313 r
9....-J
~/
00'D 51 DD'Dhl GD'UEl GD'D$1 0 D'0'11 DD'D$1 Cd]d]
A. LIEN EE A hie 5-;S ld NI
====-
- 7.e-FIGUFI 3 id_"-
~
~
n t
sJ V
.=i c2..
t!
.. :.r..n..==
0004207
"' i
.a=.--
DC s.m==
...p
..: ~'.'.'...
- N E
~
[
[/y x.
N bllQ
~
l-ym c
f
/
S g-b.L rv Z
@U D
X f
~
Z[9 atjs
~
X m
b g.
f SR.159312
.d
[
DD'D$1 DD'Dhl DD'U$1 DD'D$1 DD'Dil DD'Ddi E
= = - - -
E.dJ d] A.I.I E N 3 E AME 3]S7d NI
-~ ~ ~
8 E55 FIGUEE 4
==;.
is "
=::..
-big.=x..,.
Q
~
.=y.-_..
0004203
......._ ;~
Q b
l
=.
. = =........
g 2
7 a
[
i u
o rr.<-
E L_Mm 0
'0 -
1
~
l2l 4
1-- IIF-X pg N._l-Z
/
/ 99 y
3g EW X
EE
/
X M/ m D. X X f W X X X H gL.zg, ..L R d m] .Z ] = j G. ..~ [_Z.T.: 313 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ DD*D$1 DD Dhl DD*D$1 00'D$1 0 D'D'11 DD*Ddi """~ z:~ E.d J d] A.I.I 5 N 3 E Ah:!E 3]S 1d NI ~ i =a..==.=..._. j TIGUPS 5 ' :....=i:. =.- kC? ~ - -.
y g -. =. 0004209 n.. =2sg7.. t, ..3....._. Y ~ h t 40 p m ---- g c] =. Ji ~ y
- v..,.
b1m GF f pjm U Ilh W ( >Z _1W gm lZE G1 ~ X Ju w Zti ' ku"s =U D.Z WEm _d ] ~ ~..,.,] d bN.15S314 [ GD'U$1 DD'Dh! DD'D$1 00'0$1 D D* D'll DD'Ddi E.dJ d] A.LI5N3m Ahi[ 3]W7d NI TIGURE 6 ~
~ ~ g, g 000421G a.== c: s
- .x::r.
g p g %+,P , 105 % DATA POINTS THAT PLOT IN SHA f o WOULD BE GENERALLY ACCEPT I y,P
- r-i;i C,% o ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATION! !
I ,D* 0 100 % NOTE: ABOUT 25% OF ALL FI g PLOTS IN THE SHADED AREA 5e5% j' i i
- :== :::-- :
a. l i I g g g SMP g 3 g \\ I \\ g 2 OPT +2 - - - - - - - ~ MOISTURE CONTENT PERCENT FIGURE 7 A-( N DATA POINTS THAT PLOT IN SH u.' \\ WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE REGAF 100 % 2 ASTM
- e,o EXACT SPECIFICATION WORDih 1557
'+ NOTE: ABOUT40% OF ALL F POINTS PLOT IN THE SHADED A o a O 100 % E BMP e f+., j e5% s, i i i s 3 I \\ 8 I i t s \\ BMP 3 g I l l I s i i 2 OPT 42 MOISTURE CONTENT -PERCENT i__ riGUR E 7.B. Sn.t5g315 i-? FIGURE 7: WINDOWS OF. ACCEPTABILITY (A) BASED ON BMP - }( SPECIFICATION (B) REGARDLESS OF EXACT WORDING OF SPECIFICATION
==e: c ,=a:c+....... . y-m.. y. v =- D304211 -.r.:=. :-m. .= = u.::: . /. .- =;;;... UNITED STATES TESTING CO..INC. 1 Graph Representation of Three. ' 6-o /Z8 g. Proctor Method Comparisons 9 June 13, 1974 s%. By: Peter Wang y./c 4 ._. _.c "..{ g.g N. Note: ( ) added b f j 3echtel \\ /ZO 4 + n s 1s s .'.n.. Mi,Q ! f.. 9- - < l 2-s@y.; - . Yif.- p. s .s p.
- p
~. =. -hN ' * ~ *' .... -..... pg. .. 5, <. . 3.. , Q.,. f _ l, t;,g. . i.i., . l R .~ f... Q - v ;; w. .,.,. p - c a ..4.\\~ /e .w - .. ~. ,y.s.,- p.p. c, ffg ' ,,4 M A y' p.6'jge p. - ---- -- 1 z -- j
- tr.
o g /03 .y .g2 ~ ~ ,N s g 79,4 = 1 .. = l g /o /t /4 /6 /8 40 ..'.' ? ?~~=- 50/57dn* COOfeuC W ~ =i. -.u. : --- / s - -2:....... n curz 8 sn.t.se:u sJ =
i:<<usiaiiati w+nwoutuioma eo mem s a , o..mo nnu nananm nn nn m an unnunnoung.pnai ui snaiw n i. o n n t.w. c. - M 7 I t5 T LJ R E N R _L I Y l-E R Eb M P 2 7 6 GPECIF IC. GRRVITY := 2.6 '.I-j RLL TESTS N 3.5% Subtracted from Holsture Content, Dry Density Recalculated r-i NOTEt Not only does a 3.5% shift in moisture content f ail to'. bring tests inside } the zero-air-voids-curve, j d it results in impossibly i E-high dry densities. i / n Lt. ~U X an u o. n Xg 3 0-X i F X X 'X m-H gX X j g in X X* i si Zg X X X i in W.: X r e R ni. XX .x x N X X x g X X R X g X S X yX X b Ci. X t tr. g-
- 5
) a J t r.1 Q. 1 in Z S. C3 C 2 g o q H g, c ANM N J ~ 2.7 5 n n. 2.5 'i n nn . inn n' n n th nn IN.nu 60.00 i 51. 0 0 2'O.00 12.00
- ~ yi=
7 / --SUS? f ///,l ,/ REG ?* 122 / . Ei.TL.:..r.:. ~~~ tr 00042r o n,, 117 t!) g w O m O m . O. WET 5 METHOD o. I s Z DRY METHOD ~_ = c E= =.;== I"."...... 93
= ' =
0 100 116 ~~~3 RELATIVE DENSITY, (%) b- ."~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NOTE: VALUES FOR DRY DENSITY ARE TYPICAL OF A RANDOM FILLSAND. T ANY TESTS SHOWING MORE THAN 117% RELATIVE DENSITY WOULD ""~ 2.7'.' BE SUSPECT IN THIS EXAMPLE. STR'UCTURALSANDS TEND TO SHOW' --~~5 ONLY 2 OR 3 PCF INCREASE IN MAXIMUM ' DENSITY AND THUS RESULTS xi MUCH LOWER RELATIVE DENSITY WOULD BE SUSPECT, SAY 105 -110 PERCENT l:_._... 2.. _... g - =. - -~ SRic.931g T .lT' '- FIGURE 10 Ibk CHANGE IN RELATIVE DENSITY SCALE FROM DRY TO WET METHODS 'S- = OF OBTAINING MAXIMUM DENSITY, BASED ON RECENT LAB RESULTS . :c,..;... .d e ,~.,,,--...-n,.- ..,,,n .,--,,,c .-.._.n..
N { {' 2 ~ f vendor su veillance .T ','%' itod Statoa Tooting Company, Inc. - - h= - e= crete tesun: n nower conoranon services oivision 000421 l k environmen,al evoluttit A 1415 PARK AVENUE ~ 3 i HODOKELN, NEW JERSEY 07030 (201) 792-2400 (212) 9434488 training programs y File: C-208-222/1015.900 October 1,1979 ATTACHMENT 5
- .2N T i @,' 3.J ? IF."- }
1. :. Bechtel P.ower Corporation .i 3-3 P. O. Box 2167 C -1 i t.ll Midland, Michigan 48640 C-307o Attention: Mr. J. F. Newgen e,, j.7, - - ~,.
Subject:
Midland Project Job 7220 Ni e '21.jg,c Subcontract 7220-C-208 U.S. Testing's Response to "Geotech Review of U.S. Testing Field and Laboratory Tests on Soils (
Dear Mr. Newgen:
Please find attached United. States Testing's response to the Bechtel report " Review of U. S. Testing Field and Labora-tory Tests on Soils" dated July 1979. You requested that we respond solely to the sumary con-tained in Section 8, however, we feel it is necessary to re-spond to all the sections, which in itself details Section 8. Our response appendices the Bechtel report in so far that it closely follows its logic, answering questions or making statements on each particular point. This U. S. Testing report is not meant to point fingers in any direction but only to indicate, to Bechtel, some of the problems and concerns we faced. If pu have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC. ~// M. Anselmo Project Engineer SB15S134 gg Attachments L A%* QS l $$ 1 % D h$ fa API QT T W D LhCtp Ah Cl C U W 51
- s E$ % AC ENT 5t G TO TMt Cthtt A. Put C AND w Y. of SCO i Ah9 (* mat ar a gh g a n ;* p;;' ;te PRICE m#if f(% APPROV Ai S AWPLES hC' DESTROttC th itsi:hr, ARE @CT At%EC A N Anteagu CF TMIRTY DAYS
F ' ~ g-p. O ooo421s 4 UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY'S Response to the Bechtel Report t " Review of U. S. Testing Field and Laboratory Construction Test Data on Soils Uses as Fill" Midland Units 1 & 2 Job No. 7220 Note: This U. S. Testing report must be read in connection with the Bechtel report in so far that it will provide clarification and rebut statements contained therein. SB15S135 e
@qs4RRAe v 1. Use of Laboratory Test Compaction Curves This section of the Bechtel report is concerned with the implied ratio of Field Density Tests to Laboratory Compaction Tests (Ratio 20:1) given in Table 9-1 of Shcification 7220-C-208 and the period of time lapse between Laboratory Tests vs. Field Tests. It is the position of U. S. Testing that Bechtel was then and is now responsible for the monitoring, determining and communicating with U. 5. TestingonthefillyardageforuseinperfopingLabDensityTests.~In fact, there were more Lab Density Tests performed by U. S. Testing Tech-nicians (who were double checking results) than directed by Bechtel. It should also be noted that, in most cases, our only Bechtel interface in the field was a labor foreman. The testing of soil will yield the same densities no matter what time lapse has expired between original testing and subsequent re-tests as long as the material re-tested is representative of the original tests and the test method has not changed. The actual volume of soil-that may be represented by any one compaction curve has not been nor can it now be determined. In addition, Bechtel did not control excavated material as required by their specifications and drawings (documented in report on Admin. Bldg.) and it would be likely that any given cubic yard of soil was not only placed several times but tested several times, i.e., tile same proctor values would be employed each time a yard of that particular soil was placed. SB15S136 U 0004217 Visual proctor selection was many times backed-up by pounding a new proctor, in fact, most proctors on the job were generated in this manner as opposed to Bechtel maintaining a frequency list. During the original submittal of U. S. Testing QA Manual, Bechtel (Project Engineering & Subcontracts) removed the provisions for performing one-point proctor tests for each Field Density Test. 2. Questionable Retests t The statement "A Field Density Test that fails to meet requirements of the specification should have been reported to Bechtel..." is incorrect. All failing test results were reported to either Q.C. or our field interface. However, it has become apparent that.our field interface may not have been responsible for making these decisions. Any test U. S. Testing dispositioned as " clearing" was done so at the direction of Bechtel. The clearing of fai. ling tests still is a Bechtel responsibility and on the occasions where U. S. Testing noted clearing tests, the report was a mode of conveying information from our interface. Tha Bechtel Report mentions three (3) cases where failing tests were cleared, one was "apparently resolved by merely using another Laboratory Compaction Curve...", another " tests labeled ' failed' were incorrectly cleared though the same laboratory standard was referenced.", and the third "two retests were dated prior to the time the original test failure." In fact, SB15S137 e
~ W U 000421o these ' clearings' were the action of Bechtel employees who were also in the habit of marking up U. S. Testing reports. It appears that the standard Bechtel procedure for the dispositioning of failures was to scan reports looking for pass'ing results in the same general area. The direction of U. S. Testing to a test area and provisions for test locations is the responsibility of ~Bechtel, on those occasions where the Bechtel interface could not relate specific locations the suggestion may have been made by U. S. Testing personnel. ( We agree witt, the Bechtel assumption that it was possible to encounter different soil in the same iocation, however, it is more likely that the different soils were encountered as a result of the non-control of excavated materials as opposed to the removal and replacement subsequent to a test failure. U. S. Testing responsibility on this project is to perform testing not control its placement, and in fact, U. S. Testing was excluded from being involved in placement control. 3. Theoretically Impossible Test Results Any given soil has individual components that cover a broad spectrum of specific gravity values. The major factor contributing to specific gravity values detennined by the test method Bechtel requested (ASTM-D854) results from a 25 gram sample and thus the specific gravity values resulting there from should be interpreted with that in mind. The application of the likely . SBibS138 1
v 0004219 band of specific gravity values represented in the Bechtel report figure 1 results in a 49 percent reduction of theoretically impossible results. The remainder of these test points falling above zero-voids line will be discussed in Section 6. H~owever, specific gravity values from 2.57 to 2.82 for soil fractions are documented for material on this project. The comment regarding the doubtfullness of the variation of soil properties is likely to be discounted by an examination of the data of the current soils evaluation program. t 4. Repeated use of Questionable Laboratory Test Data Although"...the fact that soil was not being placed or compacted according to specifications" was a major cause for concern. It is evident that another area of concern existed. Errors in calculations went unnoticed thru a good checking system. It is untortunate that Bechtel's' checking system simultaneously experienced difficulty. 5. Limits of Accuracy and Acceptability for Test Data Although Bechtel.*ot.ements conclude that only 25 to 40 percent of all clay tests represent compliance to specification, it should not be construed to represent the percentage of valid test data. The envelop of reasonably encountered test values would encompass the vast majority of test data. It has been demonstrated that the nominal scattering of data that may not have been anticipated was well within the statical variance that would be applied to this data. SB158133
,C - 0004P:?O 6. Accuracy of Test Equipment The average deviation of the nuclear device from oven-dry moistures was +.12 % for a set of 30 tests. The range of differences was approximately from -3 % to + 4 %. It was the assumption of U. S. Testing that Bechtel ~ Engineering was appropriately applying this data to placement tests. Contrary to the assumption regarding figure 9 with its " impossibly high dry densities" current test data closely resembles this graphical repre-sentation. The use of the nuclear device was employed at the consent of Bechtel to c facilitate production. 7. Relative Density Tests Some of the specification 7220-C-210 zone numbers are an area of concern because of the overlapping soil classifications, i.e., clay could be either zone 1 or 2. The inherent nomenclatural difficulties that plagued the Bechtel Organization in providing data was not addressed in the limited potential problem areas. A re-evaluation of test data, with this third concern in mind, would probably change Bechtel conclusions. Regarding calculation errors of relative densities and assuming the validity of these errcrs, it is again unfortunate that our checking systems broke-down. SB158140, ~
C f'T s' + 00d4221 The re-evaluation of maximum density by the wet method was in response to a relatively recent innovation of Eechtel assigning a geotechnical engineer to oversee the soils operation, here-to-fore there have been no " radical changes" or Bechtel material controls that would serve to flag the need for maximum density method re-determinations. Subsequent to this, the comparison of maximum density methods have been done routinely by U. S. Testing in response to material changes that were identifiable by newly instituted material controls and routine comunication with assigned geotechnical representatives. These current comparisons have yielded maximum density variations that result in relative density changec from minimal to 20 %. The acceptability of high relatiYe density results should have been evaluated as part of Bechtel process control that did not exist. Summary The Bechtel request that U. S. Testing respond to items 1 thru 5 has been detailed in this report. The closing remarks of the Bechtel report makes the statement that"...on many occasions the inplace density was divided by the maximum density from the relative density test to get percent compaction..." is true. However, the report fails to mention that this method of calculation was a specific Bechtel directive. 1 SB158141 l. l l l
i
- r 000d!T--
In conclusion, the problems and concerns attributed to U. S. Testing results from a lack of* proper soil identification and material quantities normally covered in inspection and placement responsibilities, none of which are contractually the responsibility of the U. S. Testings scope of operations. We are the testing arm of Bechtel. Our function is the reporting of. data not its evaluation. ( SB15S142 7-
rg M! ".., -; ;.1 i. r 6 w.s e ~ y +-...,W n wr 1. 4-
- a - ss
. o c, up q 2r .w. w .,.... i. ,'sg ),i (,N...... 7-i 3 a. Or. j% ~,.. w~[ 1 ' ' ' ^ y y .f O s q as=*= Mas eussasse emessewehes toes ausse ownse mesa. asshman, amanesse assee. esen sesesse Augest 10, 1979 1 1 I skm-a18-79 [4 l i l ATTACHMENT C 3 1 5 5 -= ? ? W J G Ehyplar, magianal Direeter I cetice or raspectica & W t a n=*1-Reguistory th=1aa1am magion III l 199 noosevelt moed t' 4 Slas Ellyn, IL 60137 t MDIAm EUC12AR F1JJIT - WinT 301, socc!:T E 50-329 I I tuGT E 2, DOCE22 2 50-330 2 i attrumet? or 91m cema tzt t a m L;c; =: :1m-l rnz *es.e 1395 n meterene e: 1. a a aowell letta.s to J G Espplar; Edimed Belam Plant; j amit zo 1, poetet no 50-329; nait no 2, Dockat so 50-330; W Settisment of Diesel Generator Foeradstions and Building: serial Bowe-183-78; dated september 29,17T8 M e. g b. Serial Bowe-230-78; estad Bovember 7, 17T8 h c. Serial nome-267-78; sated % r 21, 1978 d. serial Eowe-1-79; dated Jaanary 5,19T9 serial aose-58-79; dated m-, 23,19T9 i e. a f. serial Rose-132 79; dated April 3,1979 L g. Serial I we-174-79; dated June 25, 19T9 o 2. G S Keeley lottar to J G Eepplar; Maland Freject hM t L ?-3's ani 50-330; Besponse to lo cra 50.9 - nequest om Plant Fill; Serial 6925; dated April 24, 1779 i; Et 3 8 N How-11 letten to E I Dentca; Midland Project; Dockst zo 50-329 med 50-330; mespcase to lo cra 50.9 - Aequest pj l a en Plant Fill: de Seriel Nove-162-79; Bev 1, dated May 31, 1979 with a. copies to J G Ieppler b. Serial Hova-199-79; Rev 2, dsted July 9, 1979 with M copies to J G Keppler q.3 { w 8IYr l'O $s i I 6y \\ ("#~~m;M;;M23*. u.: ~."n.=:r~ rnw=--vw w -7908170390k. V
Y ..t n ~ O s-y Nowe-218-79 1 9 ? g This letter, as were Asteremoes 1.s. throuda s., is an Interim $0 55(e) repart en the set *1a===* et the dismal asserater foundatizzas sad Wilding. The ~1 % docussens the presentatian mese to m t. ore of the Raff and 2hspectics and Beforoommet on Jtsly 18, ISPf9 in Bethesda, kryland. The presentation provia.d an upante of the statue of the actione peevionnay i ai---a is naturemoe 1, a and 3; the r===at=1 west in progress or t'===d; 1 the schedule et activities; the results of the cause investigatim; the ES/13: aspects; and the 11amansing activities ama abangas to the FtkW. Ftture 50 55(e) reposta will disease the twng s, more detail: 1 Roselta af 1Nrther s.T4--U.ca of the tanHne air line in the E, a. tank form area, amt est*1a==r* criteria for the borated instar storege 3 p
- amka and the lines into the M14=y w1A1=.
3 b. Desias baans to comply with the intent af w druft standard nevise A . Plast on Doestering. i.g A Saality Assurance Flam for 4=p1- - f n-the W site deostaring j o. gystem. .n Another interim vt will be oest on or before Septandper 7,1979 2 m h b =-- ?* r p e N n=ein-are: Prosestetica Mede at July 18, 1979 beting Vith IEC at Bethesia. 4 8 CC: Director, Office of Inspectics & *:aforcement Yi Att: Etr ).'eter Stallo, USMBC (15) 6,. 4 Director, Office of Marsgement Inforustics sed Program Control, m (1) L Director of 3k: clear Besetor Regulaticut ['t; Att 3tr Dcarenic Yaman11n, Acting Director Divisim of Pro. bet Management, US IBC wa=M W, DC M 55 gy i* WN zm M Ny bU WJ 6hM m3 ur:n , y :t I yxy.y
- a
....,.m.,,,,- 7_
' *N,,5 l ) + .1 1] POSSIBLE CAUSES (Cont.) posaltde DisikEMon or Chance _CJHE Centmente 4. SPECIFICA710NS NO 5. SOfLSTESTW4G YES %ttee in prosese ~ Methods f Equipment l Resultaineports , ' ~ l Roleses Rev6postEvelmeHorm 1 Personnel 1, 6. TEST FREOUENCY FOR SISALL 96 0 Peeldom not Confined to Sene5 AREAS Areae
- 7. DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS I
Personnel OuetINesalone NO See #16 ) Difforent iwilan Methods YES See fis ( Ptaam Methods YES See it .7 ~ l O sassoas ~ 45s tt W g
1 6 4 e \\ p q t., j n,g 7.0 CA:7TE DN3STDATIDE 2.. The investigation isto the cause of insufficiatt epice af plaat (f. eram till saa maA, my Bechtal catag a probles scalysis ww - dpj knous as the Kepler.Tregoe (E-T) method. This oppssch invol wd taas $[{qt following steps and is shows as Figures 61 throudi 71.
- srm, i c i.
u.v. (1) Idestify deviation, in this case insufficiectly kN qq caspected plaat area fill. j (2) Develop criteria for detarenig in which plant area fill the devistica exista.
- p (3) Identify distinctiona and changas 21ch taight g
have consed the deviation considering tas subjoet of the deviation, where it occurred, time factors, and the artent. (b) Develan list of possibis ess.s noing all i
- istir.ctions and changes.
(5) Tesc possible causes far seat probabla causes. It abould be noted that although all areas were included in the k investigation *.ere deviaticca were identified by the soils in-vestigation, scme deviat1== were thought to be insufficient to require corrective a:tions. Two examples of sr.ch areas are the d borated water tank area and the aur411ary building railroad bay, a In th. arssa too compacted fill is adequate despite some W ,/ l indications of Ic:ndized insufficiently cau;.:ted antarial. J. E. Seventeen distiations or changes vers found to have xcurred whleh ~, could h : S:n pcasibis causes and these have all been evaluated. .Y[, i Specifications, first idectified 4s a possible cause, were not included s..r.2 -f 4 in the sost probable cause list because it us felt upon evauluation .M that variances fra the PSAR and FSAE and the various relatively w-mier inconsistencies eculd not have been a cause of the problem + l under investigation. The investigation is still under way into soils testing methods, equips.cnt, results, retests, revieve, and -;;T.
- h. g usa k@
i_5.f4 .~ NGA ,W t
~ 1G '7 d If. 'h j M i ( CE i 1.0 & f g t t, 1 e'elastices, since thcoe were feasd to have ocatributed to the esase. - ) 'A The fire sost protshle asuses reunising after evel.asting the pessible esuses are.not necessarily la cater et importammes Y (1) Lift t2:1et:ess/ocagective effort. Recent teste a have steso that lift thicknessee is some aseos etc.eded the onpability of egalpasst being.aoed, 4x verifying that equipsest oss act adequately 7, qualifi'ad in all cases. (2) Cespection eqaipmeet/qualificatica. asan commenta cs for (1) s; ply. p;:: (3) feet ;medarse and resalta, l'his !-i d :: repre-j sectativeness of testa, procetarse for artaos with } e' stauiani proctor specimena, procedures far taking soil y, testa withia a lift, calculatice of rsistivt density, W se oz euclear denstaeter. .) r,5 (k) Inspection procedures. This tet W the ese et e 9 6Mio.l.kaaCe t7pe progreS is the power bloc 1 ares al l% Qh for e & least part of the time. k (5) Raliance ca test results. This ' wi W coc.s truc tice 's fc J reliance er. test results for guslificatim af equipmect 7,L.. daring the vert and for acceptance af the wort by Coc- ~ l strueticc eod Quality Control personnal .[.. Fersonnel ver not inclaSed as a wet probable conse becease a review l cf gaalifiestions and erMrience of both 3ecatel and U. S. fastime Eh c: peescc:m hao atevc preseoce of sufficient edcest1cc, expertonce, N; and training to carry. mat the ta s ks a s s ig;.ed. i# - ;'X.f nF.. ',,MA$ h l tud M $e% w t [ i5M~ f l q:;s l $'dv) l f I { j - i. s- #8 -mw n risn ,,.... m ++d I r-h[v NI 1 n r' cit 4.e :h l s- -h Is. e e m i i.
l-: =. v \\ -?:^y n , Y.,.M..l }.d,i { a 'f .0 ~ d.*1f.lI nf"1=f' iib,,
- sp
-a - 1 t,b,lik i N I it, i _p=i,{1{ >I 3 ~ i f1 8h, I i=1,83 l nI _lall il3 I 2 1 !=ic=.tlll.31: i g - j li,1 ilaji, l l-ia 1 ai -a I.a * .2,i 1 ,3 il 6 g 1I l23,]E 11 i i-12 i 3 1-j1. ]Es I}.T.ll,2I =. I z ir 2,1 i =-ly 1;J_1 j'l23'g1:i.j 5} dt3]!! i I: iji: fig l 3 i 2 i I. 8l-8}2 E li s f :g s! 1.:ijis 4 3 --.1 E fi."..* s.'Els: Il 512l ?: ~ 11 24.l 3 5 c" ={ ~ _ = = 2 i 4 3 I lis 133'311gail:} ! E:3j1.! i 5.- 3 2,IIggs-j e og hv. c1 t y lii:1911
- t. cc 1
- I ii i i
a J.s :; } e e. _D ::ry 51. ] e li '- I :,2s t i rI. [3 l 2 .2-8s 2: ..g.se._1.2_ p ___.g!. jg i 4:+.3..r = s 3 1 1, ? e m
- 3:
5 j "E E I; a e f 52 e _[ [". t &l$ U }' of i E e 8 .I. i. 3 e :o e3 5 2 g 8' h 'l 'o a g
- g g
db$. W ig.v $h NYby$ $lkh! m s%1?S ?$$bY gf@M4:4 e'
b _= ^ 9 p;1p r \\ q 1/18/79 ~ ,3 Iten g, '\\ b -[ _EL Poestble Causes Per E-T Amelysis Corrective Actim 1 A 3. d. Rateste [ All meterial represented by faillag toets le te be re-worked until the specifled density owJ/or ooisture is obtelsed. 3 material will be placed on any known fe111mg material unti! No 1 estiefectory teste are obtelmed. ?; 4 y l e. Revisee/tvelustione See item e ebeve. a j$ f. Personiel At snette gouv. chnical soil s oogineer and a part-time Cap-Tesh.- l' so.'s engineer hade been added at, the este, The onette geo-l, g technloal solle engineer ocordinates with eraft superinten-dente and rutifies QC of selected arose to be backfilled, i m>nitore subgrad? quality and preparatios, calling (br testing. as required. He evaluates else of fill area to determine ,t,[ J 3 testing frequency. annitore material and lift thieknees j plac emen t. Onlla for teste in borrow areas for oohoolve fill.. Monitore compaction process including susisture opetrol for, $l[;' .i slay. Calle for teste at proper frequeeg sad designetes 1 ~ locettoa. Works with c =rt superintendente sad @ to obtata y v.
- 6. j effective remedial action on faillng testa.-
The gestoebeleal solle engineer providea overview and inputs technical assia. l tance se required. 7 7 r.I 4. Inspection Procedures and 3. Ret tence on Test Resulta o = . g.. e. Different Inspection Methods The Project Quality Control Instructica hee been revised to 4 i include a delly soll placement report which is used for seek eroe where solle work to being performed. This report inesudee, k sketch showing areas of soit placement. identification of equips. meet being used. identificetts.a of suppesttag personnel records j leg laft thicknees measurements which are representative of the s fill being pieced. compactive effort emed. Encation by grid coordinates and elevation of all tests taksm and teettag frequencies, types of meterial pieced (cohesive /coheeloalese). { A Quality Ccatrol 2ngineer will be easigned 2002 of his time to ? eo11 pleeement. Consumere Feuer coepeny will perform ever-Inspection as a sempting beats of the soit placements. +. Also see Item 2.f. above. b. P lacemen t Me t hods See Itee 1 abooe. / H G_QQ[jg n1- - myagg w m M W1 [? p s,'5 4$. 6 m
.. e m.u : a.a =. -==r " w - ic ? 7/ista 4 ,k U.%4[ff i j Slocussine itene (j 1m eted en l Item Deficiency Description page se I l 50 (Items of Concera) (Item) Acitos Status ( i L, 10. focorrect soil test results. I 20 e,
- .h' v
The Freject Quality Centret Teetracties C-1.88 e C & D (3), 3 (5) hee been revised from servet11ance to inepestica gf of the testing operettee. ??p h. The so-depth review of soil teet roomite is ett11 to process. I Generie Corrective Aettae - The ie-depth medit of c. g US Testseg hee been esopleted. Ihwe findings este a result of this sedit. One, ansteistrative yj Prohtem by US TeetSag, the other by Bechtal See-
- h castracts. These endig fladsage trill be eleoed ~
erior to sett p1mesmoot. d. ComerieCorrectiveAetism-Pect'sbevebasea[ I reviewed for + ;_n y of documentacles eslients l .s end are being resolved. e-re Feuer Caspesy will implasset me ever. e. inepectism of es Testies setivitsee is the medle stee. Jl f. sechtet has directed SS Testics te check all 1 field deneity tests fee cohesive entertal esseest ] e sere-air-vetale cerve. Amy field test reemits 30 which plate em er to the right of the sero-eitw er J! volde cerve obell be regarded as esopoet and cease for re-teet. g. Sechtel Geo-Tech has r:- ." rised to 55 Testieg () N the toportsace of teking seemrate teste. d 11. Inadepte embcontractor test I 20 e. Cenerle Carrective Actism - As so-depth audit of S p r ocedur e s. C & D (4). D (5) US Teettog hoe heem completed eriti se prehleme j): faved le the atos of the tast procedures. If 12. Inadequate corrective action I - 22 e. As in-depth review of the Bechtel Traed Progree f or repet itive condit f one. C & D (I) Data bee been performed by Sechte! QA an .g Oa with no iteme sedicattat trende feesd. !i l 4 cm wum----------- -- -
,4 k% .e'.' l
- r5..
t, *, f.. ,.1:/ a. .._r- . _. _:r. ..,t4 c;,- - - - - - --- q
- .E n E r'? ~;-S 3
- C.
.5, t*! E *.* &~ 5: S l s. _=.r - - ~~- 67.-- ::;7. R -T;.. ATTACHMENT 7
- i r
a a c:,.....,. 7.- e l /. r ,, A ' =., - &
- sd..;. :s,'. /:." E.'...- il. ;
- e.. > : < -
- c. 2 : ~.
-",L,)l l " -... e. e *. e, r. " -- " $*r ... s " -. .**-e.- g................. & 2. 3. 4-($ 5 i s.,,--E S c : l 2. c....-..... -...- ~* <.. ~ *= .a".* ........-.r..4...... j sf/1'/ r] 6 /Vc'>'. S / <d..p.=/.t. i. // C/J E I i I PEmetTas.TeO.e { j .g ....)......! ..n. .......n ,, c,,, e s.. =. c v... ". ' g ', g d ;'.. :. ; *,*. i* I is ' 6
- "e
--*- ~
- s
. s l. ', i 3
- e t
z::. ss p.= ~,.... .!*e:. j
- s e.
e. .. : n - - l. . sz3.4 i i t' J f f ** P a r. g>.,,, T o a C; .J. E ' r is - r.'e : t*u sW
- ! : n =
f.Q L)l' ;. .!s t { l l '~ 5 L : " l . Co / E f.TL'S - ? \\ c,:g1 3 (.,,,, ,w. s m o. l$2.4.$ : +-j 5_3,i g, ,,.,,, p g3,,,., g,,,3 g 3,,, g,,j 3, or t ypJ f: 1,5 ' C. ' 1'. 1
- 17, /C
(! l.e' 7pt.:.au c
- ,~~ ~.. y. 3
- os ~r
- .;' t.*: s : 'tsc. ;ria.) f.
~ ',,' to z. 2.
- 7- - - -
4) r c: w - in , p. a. L on ,$ i,~ 'G '= r :s. c!- ,* 2 I A - -,..,' O, 'd.' :$.; ? " S= 5 ' :'- n'. ~/ 'f.E L 0 5 ' C Y # ' Y, t)s;p pggi,s:yy :n [ $~','c oS..- l c.c =f
- i j
~ a 60 av 14er:7/ V// 7 Et' - *,u
- C,p i Y s. o T-'s G G et s
e r' ---,3,Q, ; g (t' :,~! C t !-]', VEra7' $7'i.* E 7 :' QpMj s A,7g y:: 4 L & n! PL g ty s ja l ' t ~.* 2,3 '. r ' a, e s c g,,,) &: If C,:> *' 2 *- b'/*1~'O ) /l* /C t' :,:; f.5 ,4. ',o'. 2 lo /C e 5
- s. :es-
- ' 2 : 'l /
- m#22
- e c:,5,25 y :.s v ps J,,p g,
- SS.'.S c.C's + 7 l / u.
ph ::' S T3 C ( s e C' s !s' ; ; :. Lo 5 /5 E-$ 8 G l~'$-l g4 hggaf't_'p's S7 l l '.s I Z I" 13 ~- &}I.$ Qp Sf : :/*t.rpt g' .--., '- z.q,, !.5 ce, e >: c L + 1ev '* ~ c e.e w s ugs'C t o,y qg.. g;$.,~N r , l" *','fl.fff f,#' 'G MCtSTU:R Sii!$1/:.? 5 3 : ~~.' C D 8 2 '~ h*.-;t.c',cw,io7, s a wm.T 0 5.* - ~=w::.D. 2:. :'-si.r = wi =7 ~.e, uo "~, @w 4.sr=i= G f 1EDiWo t l,f.*3 o ns 0
- w E ; ' ?!!.,~71 D eir;Zf Cp P 7. 5. P k o*Si C4'e f
i . : : *.a,., ~I'l y*) 13 & '. + 2' l l* *(~ l ~ s. ' ' Cp
- 5 :4.qT:o F t
//3
- =
- i G
'- ~.'
- . : : s,. o ', a -, : z -
, n * --- S 9 7.9
- w' >' -' ^-
~ ..su, * ) * 't * ~:: + -- 7C Tf l p 5 P] tf =.S /. S 's ? _~ ? EL. O C.T0 /'? " Sit 7, D ) QpN ja (:, r:p; l Qp;8ll(car./b) 4 I;c: c cs. e,,a s, w c02.B' so a:r.c I '/ a-SAG Q UI C%.- GtL V/d TCl? LE/sii~1 ~ AT 10.4 stFrE'?? "J ON/LLI Al G g Het.C 8/utF/U.ED l I l ~ l'.'I I"il C & /f. ~ 8 ETEff CC /*!" J ff lk 77 9 /J -k i J I J 8 J \\ \\ l .4 .9 i i J .h. I. j I 's 1. l { q a,, _ p,g3 gf. G s,,33,q, y_ g74 (, g ....... ~... .a ..v.
MC_. ) cd -20 , ATTACHFH24T 8 NI 4.auance of tne noncomformance report, No. 1482, on August 18, . 6n 6ue 1978, CPCo was also informed of this condition. On or about August 21, 1978, the NRC Resident Inspector was orally informed of the matter by CPCo. It was indicated at that time that although CPCo regarded the matter as serious, they did not consider it to be reportable under 10 CTR 50.55(e). Construction on the DGB was placed on hold on August 23, 1978 and a test boring program was initiated on August 25, 1978. After prelir-inary evaluatien of soil boring data, a Manage =ent Cerrective A:tien Report (MCAR), No. 24, was issued by Bechtel on Septecher 7, 197E. The MCAR stated that based en a preliminary evaluation cf the data, the =atter was reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e), 1, iii and Regien !!! vas so notified by telephone on that date. The telephone notification was subsequently followed up by a letter dated September 29, 1978, from CPCo enclosing a copy of MCA.:. 24 and 6 Interir ?.eport I prepared by Bechtel. On the basis of the above, it is concluded that in this instance the licensee complied with the reporting require ents of 10 CTR 50.55(e). I Review of PS AR/ TSAR Cerritrents en Compacted Till Material In a previous NRC Inspection Repert, No. 329/78-12; 339 75-12,.: apparent inconsistency was identified between TSAR Table 2.5-14 4 (Surrary of Toundations Supporting Seismic Category I and II Structures), Table 2.5-9 (Minieur Compaction Criteria) and the site construction drawing C-45 (Class I Till Material Areas) regarding the type cf fcun-dation caterial to be used for plant area fill. Table 0.5-14 identifies the supporting soil materials for the Auxiliary Building D, E, T, and G. Radvaste Building, Diesel Generater Building and Berated k'ater Storage Tanks to be " controlled compacted cohesive fill." Table 2.5-F also indicate's the soil type for " support of structures" to be clay. Contrary to these TSAR coc=itments, drawing C-45 indicates Zone 2 (random fill) material, defined in Table 2.5-10 as "any raterial free of humus, organic or other deleterious material," is to be used with "ne restrictions on gradation." Bering samples substantiated that Zene 2 (random fill) caterial was in fact used. During this investigation a feview of documentation showed that the co==itment to use cohesive soils was also made in response to PSAR question 5.1.11 and submitted in PSAR Amendment 6, dated December 12, 1969, which states, " Soils above Elevation 605 vill be cohesive soils in an engineered backfill." This response also indicated that certain class I components such as, erergency diesel generators, berated water storage tanks and associated piping and electrical conduit would be founded on this naterial. ( ' s O e 7 9.- s.-
'( CPCe cuality assurance issued a nonconformance report QF-66, dated October 10, 1975, which stated that contrary to the PSAR statement ( (queted above) Specification C-211 being implerented at the site required cehesionles's (sand) caterial to be used within 3 feet of the walls of the plant area structures. The corrective action taken was for Bechtel to issue SAR Change Notice No. 0097 which stated, "The TSA: vill clarify the ure of cehesive and cohesionless soils for support of Class I structures." As noted above, the FSAR tables 2.5-14 and 2.5-9 once again stated that cohesive (clay) naterial was used for support of structures while the construction drawing continued to pereft the use of rando fill caterial. This investigstien included efforts to ascertain whether procedures were established and it;1emented for the preparation, control and review of the technical criteria set forth in the safety analysis report (SAR). This included the role of both Bechtel and CPCo in the review of the SAR. Bechtel had established control of the SAR in procedure MED ) 4.22 (Preparation and Centro) of Safety Analysis. Report Revision 1, dated June 20,197-). The SAR preparation and review flow chart requires the Engineering Grou-Supervisor (EGS) to review the originator's draft for technical accuracy and compliance with the standard for=at guide. Records indicated that Section 2.5.4 was originated by the hechtel Gettech greup en January 3, 1977. It was reviewed and approved for technical ~ accuracy by an engineer in the civil project group en April 29, 1977. i Ne technical inaccuracies were noted in the docueentation. The Civil EGS advised that he did net personally review Section 2.5.4 7 The designated engineer stated that in his revie. of the section he was primarily concerned with the Auxiliary Building not the Diesel l Generater Suilding. He said the review cf TSAR caterial was perferred e' by me:bers of a group set up for this purpose. Not all of the conter:t wat checked since they relied to sere extent on the originator. The auther of Section 2.5.4 said he was not aware that changes regarding fill caterial had occurred since the' preparation of the PSAR. It was ascertained that Field Engineering did not review the FSAR prior to its subrittal. l A partial review cf the TSAR revealed that although Tigure 2.5-48 indicates anticipated settlement of the Diesel Generator Euilding during the life of the plant to be on the order of 3 inches. Section 3.8.5.5 (Structural Acceptance Criteria) contains the following state-ment: " Settlements on shallow spread footings founded on compacted fills are estimated to be on the order of 1/2" or less." Section 3.8 was prepared by Project Engineering. Geotech, who prepared Section 2.5, said they were unavsre of the presence of the statement regarding 1/2" settie=ent in Section 3.8. The originator of Section 3.8 7-e --~=----t
v-*M-e
e --m-=i vem--v-p--- w-w-- ry--w' --=t
t nva-p-
' - + - - - 7- -
- v=-"
t /* said that the above statement was taken from the Dames and Moore report submitted as part of the PSAR. Since the PSAR did not show any change in this regard, he assured the statement was valid for inclusion in the FSAR. He said there was no other basis to support this statement. CP.CQ also has an established procedure for the review and final appreval of the SAR by procedure MPPM-13 dated June 23, 1976. Section 5.6 states that "CPCe shall approve all final draft sections of the FSAR prier to final printing." Discussion yith the respensible licensee representa-tives fer review of Section 2.5.4 indicated that a limited amount cf cross-reference verification of technical centent of the TSAR is perforced by CPCo. fkeCPCeProject Engineer in Jackson stated that the review of drawings ~ and specifications was an owner's preference kind of thing. Ne atter;t fvasmadetoreviewalldrawingsandspecificationssincetheydidnot have the ranpower or expertise for that type of review. The staff lengineers of the various disciolines were asked to indicate the drawings ka,d specifications they wanted to review. Regarding the review cf the FSAR, he said that he had prepared a resorandur to the staff engineers statinF the procedure that would be fe' lowed in perferrin: the review. An examination of this =ere, dated y July 28, 1976, showed that prime reviewers would perform a technical 7 review, resolve comments made by other reviewers and perfore the CPCe licensing review te assure compliance with required FSAR format and 4 ( centent. s. As portions of the FSAR vere received from Bechtel, CPCo sent com=ents te Be:htel. Following this review, meetings between Bechtel and CPCe were held to clearup any unresolved natters before each section was released for printing. A review of the files at CPCo relating to 7Secticn 2.5 and 3.8 showed that no co=ments were made concerning the above inconsistent and incorrect content. The apparent inconsistent and incorrect statements were not identified during the review of the FSAR prior to submittal and the review procedures did not provide any mechanist to identify apparent inconsistencies between sections of the iF5AK. Based on the above, neasures did not assure that design basis included in design drawings and specifications were translated into the license applicatien which resulted as an inconsistency between the design drawings and tne FSAR. This is considered an item of nonco:pliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III as identified in Appendix A. (329/78-20-C1; 330/78-20-01) ~ .s. O e
ATTACHMENT 9 / 219 i 1 Q What was it? 2 A Fased on that document, it was the selection of 3 proctors. 4 MR. ZAMAPINa That document is referrin; to 5 Exhibit 3. 6 SY %3. PATONs (Resuming) 7 C The selecticn cf erroneous p ceters. 8 A Yes. S O Ey U.S. Testing? 10 A Yes. 11 C And sonecne at Eechtel thoucht that this probier. 12 var e. ore videspread than,ust at the adm2.:istration building? 13 A Yes. 14 C Whc was that? 15 A I don't recall. ! :<now Eechtel took action on 16 that. ! don't know who within Bechtel took the action. 17 C " hat action did ?echtel take? 18 A They took borings in other locations. 19 C What was the purpose of that? 20 A Te deter ine if there was a proble: vith 21 insufficient compaction of material. 22 L Did they get a result? 23 Yes.
- ' h a t was that result?
24 0 a 25 A Adequate results. ALDEASON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 200:4 2021554 2345 ......,.no,
220 r 1 C Adequate results.
- ' hat does that m ean ?
a 2 A That there wasn't a problee with insufficient 3 compaction of backfill in those areas where they took 4 borings. 5 0 '4here did they take borin;s? 6 1 They tock some around the administration 7 building. They took one south of the diesel generator .O 8 building, and ! believe they tcok one by the chlorination 9 b uild in g. 10 0 So, other than around the adxinistration building, 11 they took two horings. 12 A To the best of =y recollection, that is correct. 13 0 You cay one is south of the diesel cenerator 14 building. 15 A yes. 16 C Mcv far south? 17 A Apprcxi ately 2C feet. 18 7 The other one, where was the other hering teken? 19 A The chierination building. 20 Do ycu in your professional judgment believe the 21 taking of these tvc borings there, veuld that have satisfied 22 ycu as to whether this problem wa s an isola ted ;roblem? 23 dE. 1AMAEIN: You mean his OA as opposed to a 24 gectechnical engineer, which he is not? ~ .ATON: In his expertise. 2c you want te go 25 22. a ALDERSON REpCRTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIR G:N:1. AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (2021554 2345 ~.
o 221 1 back? We have spent a lot cf time on what his expertise is. 2 ME. 2A%A?IN: You are asking hin what appears to 3 call for the expertise of an geotechnical engineer, which he 1 4 is not. 5 MR. PATON: 'de spent a lot of time en his 6 expertise. We vill do it again. Oo you want to de it again? 7 ER. IAY.ARIN: I don 't know whether you are asking C 8 h it. for a lay opinion or -- 9 MR. PATON: I a: asking him for an opinien by his 10 expertise. 11 MP. IA%ARIN: I object to the form of the questien. 12 MR. PATON: Do you want me to go back and ask him 13 what his expertise is again? 14 5R. CAMARIN: No. I kncv what it is. 15 ME. PATON: What is the objection, then? 16 MF. 2AXARINs The question that you asked would 17 appear to go toward ge technical engineering expertise. 18 XR. PATON: I didn't ask his that. I said within 19 your expertise. He is either en expert in seme area or he 20 is not. I asked him within ycur expertise. I assume he 21 knows his own expertise. 22 XR. ;Ar.AFIN: He can answer it. I have an 23 ohjection to the fers of the question. ~ 24 P.R. PATCN: I have no idea what the question is at 25 this peint. ALDERSON REPORT NG COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGIN:A AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20 24 !2C2) 554 2345 T'*** - - - ~ ~
s '6 222 o 1 Would you please reread the questien? 2' (The pending questien was read by the reporter.) 3 M?. 2AMARIN: You can answer subject to the 4 objection, if you can. 5 THE g:TNESS: I am not a gectechnical scils 6 engineer. ! rely on their expertise and project engineers' 7 expertise in that area. I can't answer that questior. O 8 BY ME. PATON: (3esuming) 9 C Did you ever hear anyone at Consumers discuss, to 10 your knowledge, the adequacy of those two tests to determine 11 whether the prehlem at the administration buildine was an 12 isclated problem? 1 A Could ! have that read back, please? 14 (The pending question was read by the reporter.) i 15
- v. p., : A M A P IN :
I object to the form. I think he 16 talked about r. ore than two tests. You were talkin; about 17 the one by the chlorination and one by the diersi generator 18 building? 19 5E. PATON: I was specifically referring to 20 vncther all the tests were taken. If you want me to repeat 21 the question, I will. I will state for the record that my 22 question is couched in terms of whether all the tests that 23 you mentioned or all the borings that you nenticted were ~ 24 adequate. 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. O ALDEDSON REDOPTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIPGWIA AVE. S.W., WAShlNGTON, D.C. 20024 t202: S!4 2345
- e. 9...
t* 1 I Y J' F.. P A TCh a (Fesuming) 2 C ~4ho fid ycu hear discuss this suhdect? 3 A 1 dor't re:all specific people. 4 C %as t.'ere discussion by more than one person ? 5 A ! believa there were various discussions. 6 C Can ycu tell us what these discussions were? 7 A These would have been after the diesel generator 8 huilding probier, when we ;c back and lock at the validity 9 cf the tvc tests that were taken. Evidently they were net 10 enough. 11 0 So you v?re indicating that new we are in a 12 hindsight. Is that wha *: you are sayinc? a A Yes. 14 C. Tell us what these state:ents were, unless you 15 have cer;1s ted your answe r. 16 A
- is cer;1eted.
17 C The sts.terents were that the tests were not enough. 18 A
- t appears evident fror. the results of the diesel 19 generater building settlement that they were not enouch.
20 You ?cn't have any ar;usent with that conclusion, 21 h: you? 1 22 A '* c. l t 23 ?o you have an opinien as te whether there is any 24 connection between the settlen.ent pr:blem at the 25 adrinistratier de you have an opinion now, based on i I l AL:EPSDN PEpoor:NG 03YPANY 1%. i 40: viaGIN!A AVE. C.'A. WASMNGT ( : : :.::e.200 554 2345 j e s t
127 i 1 Pcver that has so:te responsibility for that area? In other 2 words, Consumers doesn't just turn this over to Pechtel and 3 say they don't want to hear any more. Ther e r.ust be some 4 con tact man or liaisen man or somebody that Eechtel reports 5 to for this~information. 6 A
- Yes, 7
0 'n' h o is th a t ? 8 A They would report it to Tom Ccoke, or they might 9 have reported it to Don Sibbald. 10 0 Okay. Did you ever hear -- what is the other 11 gentleman's name? 12 A Don Sibbald. 13 g rid you ever hear Tor Oceke or Don Sibbald make 14 any cc::.m e n t about the result that Eechtei obtained fror. 15 making the borings? 16 A yes. 17 C '.' h a t comment was that? 18 A That they were adequate. Don Sibbald told me that 19 they were adequate, the results were adequate. 20 C Old ne express to you any misgivings or difficulty 21 about Eechtel's conclusion? e 22 A No, not that I can recall. 23 C "r. Horn, I want to ask a question atcut Criter:.on 24 16 of 10 CFI., Part 50, Appendix E, and I wa nt te -- can'I 25 have the book, please? I want to ask you this question e o ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VloGINTA AVE. S.W., WASHiWTON D.C. 200:4 32021554 2345 ..,.. ~ . =
r i i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-329-OL ) 50-330-OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) 50-329-OM ) 50-330-OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Second Supplemental. Me_morandum in Support _of Intervenor Barbara Stamiris' Motion to were Litigate Dow Issues mailed, proper postage prepaid, this 5th_ day of October,__ 1983, to:
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Frank J. Felley Administrative Judge Attorney General State of Michigan Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Steward H. Freeman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ctmnission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20555 Envircnmental Protection Division 525 W. Ottawa Street, 720 Iaw Building
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Lansing, Michigan 48913 Administrative Judge Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. Mary Sinclair U.S. Nuclear Ibgulatory Cmmission 5711 Sumerset Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Midland, Michigan 48640 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Ms. Barbara Stamiris Administrative Judge 5795 N. River 6152 N. Verde Tra11, Apt. B-125 Freeland, Michigan 48623 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Wendell H. Marshall, President Janes E. Brunner, Esq.
Mapleten Intervenors Consumers Pcwer Capany RFD 10 212 West Michigan Avenue Midland, Michigan 48640 Jackson, Michigan 49201
- Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Ccruission Washington, D. C. 20555
e 's Myron M. Cherry, P.C. Peter Flynn, P.C. Cherry & Flynn Three First National Plaza Suite 3700 Chicago, Illinois 60602
- Atanic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccruission Washington, D. C.
20555
- Atanic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccomissicn Washington, D. C. 20555 Steve J. Gadler, P.C.
2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Mi 55108 Frcderick C. Will.iams, Esq. Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
- William D. Paton, Esquire Office of Dcecutive Legal Director U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Ormissicn Washington, D. C.
20555 Q f.A L i e
- Delivered through the NRC internal mails.
F p- ~. - _ nvm -a - >}}