ML20086N986
| ML20086N986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1983 |
| From: | Ehasz J, Liu P EBASCO SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19283C096 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-624 NUDOCS 8402240170 | |
| Download: ML20086N986 (56) | |
Text
'
,- COFJ'ATIBILIU 11.RCE MAT DESIGN TO POUNDATIC 70NDITIONS ?
~ . - -
BY J L EHASZ AND P C LIU cvuner--
IIAT V
AEN' r/ O C' be A4 6 g element cor i and cor.
d b0# p A fi 6
@N /> # '# g [od8/ .que for N
lar f5 4 CK - s the in-flu D G 5 6 af ~ ou , g9ooo e, illus-tat- ggG g. hin the fout N8d S T~ ses on dyn: yo C4 gg D
fI Lf- C over and 1 ..... On the west ... ...... .uout 20 miles vest of New Orleans.
It is a t res .%' PWR nuclear unit. The construction per=it was issued by the Atomic Energy Cou=ission in November,1974, and the plant is -
scheduled for comercial operation in early 1980.
The plant is designed to have a Nuclear Plan Island S:ructure, or a Co.bined Strue:ure which vill house all the seismic Class I structures. The seismic Class ' s: uctures include the Reae::: Building, the Reacter Auxiliary 3uilding, the Puel Handling Bui'. ding, and :he Essential Cooling System Structures. The Nuclear Plan: Island Strue:ure is a rectangular box-like structure on a concre:e cat with the Reactor
, building located near :he center, and other buildings located around the reactor building. The Reactor Building is a double containment structure 154 ft. in diameter and 250 ft. above the co=non mat. The lower two stories of the structure vill be below final plant grade.
The Nuclear Plant Island Structure vill be supported on a continuous comen mat 270 ft, vide, 380 f:. long, and 12 f t. thick. The sat is j supported on the Upper Pleistocene clays which underlie the site about D 60 ft. below plant grade.
1
- lyW B402240170 831209 PDR FOIA GARDE 83-624 PDR
- 1. J L Ehas:, Supervising' Soils Engineer, Ebasco Services IncorporafeiG~
. N. L .. N.Y.
- 2. P C Liu, Principal Engineer, Ebasco Services Incorporated, N.Y. N.E -
sus.s n. su ss.s s a w .s m . .ms u s.a . > ., s u e vwsun. u .vousssvaa BY
- f. 'h . .
i '
i e J L DIASZ AND P C LIU' SYNOPSIS This paper describes the foundation conditions and settlement considerations that dictated the coordinated analysis, design and construction sequencing effort. It considers a design technique for large structural nats on compressible foundations; establishes the in-fluence of the chancing subsurface stiffness due to settlement, illus-tates the redistribution of structural shears and moments within the foundation mat and considers the effects of foundation stiffness on dyna =ic response.
INTRODUCTION 4
The Waterford Unit No. 3 power plant owned by Louisiana Power
(- and Light Company is being constructed in St. Charles Parish, on the vest bank of the Mississippi River about 20 miles vest of New Orleans.
It is a 1165 MW FWR nuclear unit. The construction permit was issued by the Atomic Energy Cc__ission in November,1974, and the plant is -
scheduled for commercial operation in early 1980.
The plant is designed to have a Nuclear Plant Island Structure, or a Combined Structure which will house all the seis=ic Class I structures. The seismic Class I structures include the Reactor Building, the Reacter Aus:iliary Building, the Fuel Handling Euilding, and the Essencial Coeling Syste= $tructures. The Nuclear Plant Island Structure is a rectangular bex-like structure on a concrete cat with the Reactor
, building located near the center, and other buildings located around the reactor building. The Reactor Building is a double containment structure 154 ft. in diameter and 250 ft. above the common mat. The lover two stories of the structure vill be below final plant grade.
The Nuclear Plant Island Structure vill be supported on a continuous common rat 270 f t. vide, 380 ft. long, and 12 ft. thick. The mat is supported on the Upper Pleistocene clays which underlie the site about 60 ft. below plant grade, i
1.
J L Ehas:, Supervising Soils Engineer, Ebasco Services Incorporated,N.Y. ,
N.Yr;
- 2. P C Liu, Principal Engineer, Ebasco Services incorporated, N.Y., 3.Y. , .
e
~- - - - - . - . _ _ , . -
- - _ _ _ . . - = . . . _ -_ ~ . . -
Fer the purpose of einimizing differential settlements batvaen a '
buildings as v211 as improving the dynamic structural response of the structures, the combined structure is designed according to the floating foundation principle. It is designed to have sufficient buoyancy within the soil to maintain soil bearing pressures on its commen mat only slight-ly greater than the pressure existing at that level prior to construction of the structure.
This paper describes the criteria used in the foundation design and the structural design of the large concrete foundation nat. It discusses and illustrates the effects of variations in soil stiffness considered ;
to achieve static compatibility of the soil-strue:ure system and also considers the effects of soil stiffness on dynamic response.
FOUNDATION DESIGN CONCEP"3 The foundation conditions at the site were deter =ined through
, an extensive and detailed boring and testing program. The subsurface 4
soil profile is generalized on Figure 1 together with the properties of the various strata. The details of the inves:igation program and evaluation of the g various foundation alternatives considered are described in an earlier paper; however, the final foundation design concep and construction sequencing are significan: to the s:ructural analysis and will therefore
. be further developed in this paper.
The existing soil conditions at the si:e are evaluated in terns of vertical effective stresses. These stresses are now in-the order of i 3,300 lb per sq ft. Figure 2 illustrates the various stress condizions during construction. Upon devatering :he stresses briefly go up to 6,750 lb per sq ft. However, at the end cf the first construction stage upon com-pletion of excavation to the bottom of mat elevation the effective stress i reduces to zero. Next, an intermediate stage of construction is illustrated in which the effective stress at the bottom of the ma: is equal to 4000 lb per sq ft. This is due to the weight of the concre:e structures with the water table held at some level belov the ma:. The final stage illustrated is the comple:ed stage, with the buildings ce=pleted te the final elevatten, the sand backfill'cemple:ed, and the ground va:er :able back :c its initisi
> condition at eleva: ion -5 f:. The final pressures are indicated. I: can be seen that the pressures should be 3100 lb per sq ft. This is 200 lb per sq ft. less than the existing effective soil pressures at the site.
1
- The other significant consideration for this foundation design is the i settlement induced in the deep soil colure of relatively compressible soils. Any considerable increase in effective soil pressure vill eause excessive consolidation of the foundation soils, this consideration has
- led to the adoption of the " floating foundation" design as well as the con-
~ sideration of variable foundation soil stiffness for the structural design of the foundation aat. ,
i Since this " floating foundation" concept involves the balancing of existing site soil pressures, a soil pressure time history diagram j 4 1. Ehasz, J. and Radin, E., " Foundation Design of the Waterford Nuclear 4 Plant,"
t The 2nd Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant -
Facilities, Chicago, December 1973. . - - -
,...........----.v.. - , _ . . . ,-.-,_.~.n-,~.-,-.,n , - , - . - - - , - , . - -
was d2veloped cnd is illustrcted in Figure 3. This figure details the soil pressures at the bottee of the foundation mat. It bsgins with the'cxisting I
anil pressure conditions and develops the pressures during the various phases of the work. After excavation, the pressures are reduced to zero.- This is anelogous to the phase described earlier. During the concrete construction phases, the pressures'begin to increase and continue until a stress of 4000 lb per sq ft. has been applied. This pressure has been determined to be the neximum short term preload pressure that was desirable during reloading. This was based on the reconsolidation characteristics of the soils and was deemed
- o be a prudent value to maintain during the construction phase. In order to keep the soil pressure at this level or belov, the water table will be allowed to rise in accordance with the predeter=ined plan as indicated in Figure 3. This procedure vill reduce the effective soil pressures and maintain the effective pressures below the 4000 lb per sq ft level and en-sure that the final effective pressures are established as described above.
Detailed construction phases have been given particularly close atten-tion. Each construction phase ccrresponds to the phase outlined on the afore-mentioned soil pressure time history diagra=. These phases allow for the various construction features involved during each step of the work including the sand backfilling, saturation of backfill and other construction aspects.
In summary, the detailed foundation design has considered the follow-ing principles, rationale and distinct features:
a) The base of the combined mat foundation vill,be located at elevation -47 ft. resulting in e !!nal average effective soil load-ing condition of 3100 lb per sq rt. as compared to the exist-ing effective overburden pressures of 3300 lb per sq ft.
Minor tendencies of relaxation or rebound will be absorbed within the ce=pacted granular backfill by frictional transfer."
This fill will effectively equalize existing pressures and all future loadings which may vary due to water table fluctuations. A compacted filter blanket of locally avail-able shell vill be installed under the base of the foundation mat to act as a pore pressure equalizer for the Pleistocene cisys, b) Design criteria have established a margin of overload above the existing effective soil pressures which will be applied only during the construction phase of the work.
! This is primarily to maintain a margin of pressure below L the preconsolidation pressure of the materials with the lower over-consolidation ratios.
l c) The excavation of the recent deposits, consisting of sof t clays, siles and sands extending to approximate elevation f -40 ft. and subsequent excavation of the stiff Pleistocene i clays will result in rebounding of the final expeced clay j'
bearing strata during the excavation period. The major portion of the rebound will occur during the final ex-cavation stages of the Pleistocene clays. Control vill s
l l
6 O $ 4M O l .
l
__m . -
- __ . - . =. . _.
crato PAcccme in ctsignatso sections or tne t in a predeter=ined sequence to cinimite haava.
d) By conforming to the" floating foundation" principle, settle-
. ment of the Class I structures vill be confined essentially '
to the recompression range; that is, the range of the amount of movement that the clay surface vill experience due to rebound.
It is desirable to complete the major portion of the re-compression settlement during the construction period. The applied loading sequence has been arranged with this particular aspect in consideration.
By applying a maximum effective loading of 4000 lb per sq f t. the e) major amount of recompression vill take place during the construction phase. The phase leading diagram illustrated graphically in Figure 3 shows that, after a total load of 4000 lb per sq ft. has been applied, the granular backfill which will already have been placed and co=pacted to predetermined elevations, must be saturated in stages in order to achieve buoyancy and permit application of additional total load, f) During the present. construction phase, a devatering system is installed around the perimeter cf the excavation to control underseepage through se=1-continuous silt and sand layers in the excavation slopes. In addition, deep vells have been sunk to the, silty sand stratum extending from appro'ximate elevation
-77 ft to elevation -92 ft to relieve the hydrostatic pressure at- this level and mininize heave of the Pleistocene clays.
i A series of recharge wells will also be located around the perimeter of the mat foundation extending to the filter blanket below the mat. It is concluded that the combination of de-watering and recharge wells will provide additional control, if -
required, in minimizing heave and recompression respectively.
F The construction loading sequence has been designed such that the maxieum dif ferential loading across the mat does not exceed 1000 lb per sq ft. The additien of ec=pacted granular backfill vill surcharge the foundation, thereby increasing bearing capacity, and aise assist in centrol of defor=4tien.
l g) Detailed instrumentation, consisting of electrical extenso-
. meters, mechanical heave points, pore pressure piezemeters and settle =ent markers, are installed to monitor heave and recompression settlement of the mat foundation. Since the
" floating foundation" vill induce smaller soil pressures than
- now exist, and since any recompression vill essentially take l place during the construction period, it can be concluded that very little, if any, long ter= settlements will occur.
Any such settlements vill be less than one inch and would be due to local pore pressure adjustments within the clays.
l s
l l
4 pt em e e e e
_ . . _ _ . , . ,._y. e _
.,,y.._,..y_ , - - . - _ , - , ,.. . _ . . - . , , . _ , , , _ , , ,,.,,._y.,,,,,,,-r,...,, , ,, - - ,
r udMEIRATION STRUCTUP.I MAT DESIGN
( -
As can be realized from the above described foundation design conditions, all of the foundation bearing pressures induced by the structure have been considered to be uniform, that is, the total weight has been averaged across the entire base of the combination structure. There are only a few ways, in reality, tha: this condition can exis: with the unsymetric layout of the various power plant structures.
The possibilities reduce to considering the structural uwt as being a ,
completely ' rigid me=ber, which would give uniform bearing pressures on any foundation soil; or by considering the foundation soil as being soft and yielding, which would also give uniform bearing pressures for any structural mat. Obviously, the reality, lies somewhere'between these two extremes and the actual bearing pressures and structural shears and moments are a function of both the stiffness (rigidity) of foundation mat as well as how soft or yielding the foundation soils are. The following discussion describes the details of the study involved in going fro = establishing the s:ructural mat thickness to the final design details of the structure.
THICKNESS DE EP.MINATION In order to proceed with the detailed model, described later, the thickness of the foundation mat was studied with respect to foundation soil and concrete ma: stiffness. A si=plified mat model was developed, and the " EASE" finite elemen: ce=puter program was used. The =a vas analy:ed as a flat plate en elastic foundation, and the rigidity of superstrue: ural sys:e=
vas not included. The finite element model was represented by 64C triangular plate elements, 270 beam elements, and 365 node points. Beam elements were introduced to input loads transmitted dr. rough the structural vall system supported by the ma:. The subsoil flexibility was represented by vertical springs at each node point, and they were calculated based on a constant seil subgrade modulus. Two different soil subgrade meduli were studied each for a thickness of 10,12 and 15 feet.
The representive ma: deflectien curves , through the North-Seuth cross section for different ma: thickness using eve soil subgrade moduli are shevn in Ticure 4 Frc= the =at deflectien curves fer the same soil subgrade modulus, i: vas found that the =a: did not behave as a rigid structure and that increasing the ma: thickness fre= 10 to 15 f t had very
. little effect on the relative rigidity. As the scil subgrade modulus was varied the magnitude of ca: deflection changed accordingly, but the general pattern of deformation remains without significant change. The mat thick-ness optimization was based on the results of the mat designed to the corres-ponding structural loadings. The 12 foot thickness which was finally chosen was an economic ec= promise between the cost of additional concrete to eliminate shear reinforcing and provision of some shear reinforcing in local areas.
E El.ING AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES Once the elastic nature and the thickness of the mat were established the ef fects of the elastic as well as the plastic nature of the foundation sots were considered. Since interactien between the structure and the foundation is sensitive to the structural stif fness, the modeling of the system included the various buildings, valls and other structural components above the mat level. _
e
- y 6 e
Dua to the complexity of the structures which will be supported 1 by the coxnon ma:, the "STAFSYNE" finite element computer pregram was chosen for the ma: stress analysis. The structure was represented by an assembly of 643 beams, 2393 plates and 1067 nodes. The foundation soil was represented by linear springs at every node in the mat. The finite alenent model was designed to closely represen: each part of structure rigidity together with load distribution, in order that the stress and deformation of the ma: could be analyzed rcre accurately.
Model simplification was made where minor carry-over ef fects existed.
- Structure valls which are directly supported by the mat, and floor slab systems which are supported by the column and beam frame systems on the ,
mat were modeled in_ detail with if.ttle or no simplification. ,
The technique of utilizing the effective foundation springs, rather than the actual soil modulus of elasticity, was used to represent the -
structural foundation support since the long term effects of consolida-tion and settlement were considered. The initial subgrade modulus was calculated utilizing the elastic stress-strain characteristics from laboratory tests of the various soils as well as the geometry of the structure. The modulus was then adjusted to lower values in an iterative process based upon the results of bearing pressures and foundation settle-ment characteristics.
The analy:ical procedures were as follows: First the soil bearing
^
pressures and deflections were calculated utilizing the initial subgrade modulus and considering it to be constant over the entire uat area.
-Next, the stresses were plotted and contours of equal stresses were con-structed. These stress plots were utilized to adjust the subgrade modulus to be used in the next iteration. This adjustment was made by ce= paring the induced bearing pressures with present effective stresses at the foundation mat elevation, and then calculating the settlement that would be caused by :
the bearing pressures higher than the present stress conditions, and re-ducing the subgrade modulus accordingly. Thus, the modulus was varied frem place to place over the ra: area and this procedure was used te iterate the modulus until the resulting fcundation bearing pressures were ec=patible with the an:icica:ed settlemen:s. The varia:iens in bearing p:tssure cen-tours from the assumed rigid =c: condition to the initial cons:an: modulus condition and then to the final variable modulus condition can be seen on
. Figure 5.
As illustrated on the above plan of pressure contours as well as on profiles A-A and B-B given on Figure 6, the effects of the yielding foundation soils can be recognized. This effect is one of forcing the combined structure and mat to spread the loadings toward achieving a more uniform pressure distribution that approaches the distribution given by the rigid mat analysis also shown on Figure 6 A ptrticular concern in the design of such a large structural mat is Lthe shear and bending requirements resulting from the redistribution of the soil bearing pressures. As can be realized, frem considering the effects of yielding support ben;ath the cat, the loa dings are. spread to other areas within the foundation, thereby, increasing the induced bending moments. As
" U, .can be seen in Figure 7, the shears and moments within the mat are redistributed as the foundation yields and the bearing pressures become were unifor=. The importance of the redistribution was observed and the stress changes due to -
momen: redistributien within the structural ma vere on the order of..a.20%
g_
. - , . , , . -. . ..- y. g,.,._,,,,,m. _ ,
7 -,, m, _. _ _ _ , , , - , , , , _ , , . _
increase in the more highly strassad ersas when ce= paring the initial subgrade
/
. modulus and structural stiffnses to the final iterated conditions; that is, concrete stresses increased fro = 1200 psi to 1400 psi. As can be realized free the mome.it comparisons there were locations where the stress changes were in ex-cess of 100% but these were in the less stressed areas and of little significance to the design concerns.
In order to establish a conservative design for the structural mat, an envelope of design shears and me=ents was established for the section studied as indicated on Figure 8. This envelope covers all pessible support conditions, ranging fre= the stiffer support indicated in the initial subgrade modulus to the complete yielding case indicated by the rigid mat consideration.
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC li)ADINCS The earthquake intensity ves established for the site through a detailed study of the geology and seismology of the Gulf Coastal Plain in accordance with the Reactor Site Criteria of the U.S. Atomic Energy Coc=1ssion. A synthetic acceleration time history was developed for the site and site soil coluem response analysis were performed to establish the dyna =ic soils modulus and da= ping that are compatible with the strains induced during the postulated seismic event.
These properties to3 ether with the structural characteristics of the buildings were used to perfor= the dyna =ic analysis of the combined structure.
Mathematical Model In order to establish the seismic loads of buildings supported by the ec= mon mat, the Nuclear Plant Island Structure was modeled by a lu=p mass system. The model consisted of five individual cantilevers representing the Fuel Handling Building, Shield Building, the Containment Vessel, the Internal Structure.and the Reactor Auxiliary Building, respectively. The five cant 11evers are founded on the same baso which, in turn is supported by foundation springs. For vertical and hori ental excitations, a two dimensional lu=p-rass spring syste= vas used.
Fcr torsional response analysis, a three dimensional lu=r-mass spring syste:
vas used.
The foundation springs utilized for the dynamic analysis vere calculated from the methods proposed by Whitman e:. al. and incorporated the soil properties obtained from field, laboratory and soil colu=n response studies. Since the soil shear modulus and da= ping are strain dependant parameters the effective values were established fro = the strains induced by both the static and dyna =ic
-considerations. Statistical methods of analysis were utilized to appreciate the participction of the modulus throughout the time history analysis. Conservative ranges of soil moduli were studied to establish the response of the soil-structure system.
Response Analvsis The structural dyna =ic analysis was based on the response spectra developed for 57. g (OBE) and 107.g (DSG). The spectrue, acceleration and displacement time histories for the lu=p-= ass model vere analy:ed using a synthetic acceleration tire history at the foundation base.
Parametric studies were performed to deter =ine the relative effects of structural responses due to structure rigidity, and foundation spring coastants. It was found that the foundation modulus influences a significant, r .-
. pert of the structural re.gense; the relative proportion .. structure daflection due to strue:ure rigidity, translation and rocking vare approximate-ly 5, 40, cnd 55; respectively.
By varying the magnitude of soil shear modulus in the dynamic analysis, the maximum structure loads were established and used in the mat design. The maximum structure and soil displacements resulting from the dynamic analysis were used to calculate the earthquake soil pressures used in the mat stress analysis.
The effects of the foundation stiffness on the seismic induced total shears and moments at the mat levelcan be seen on Figure 9. The effective shear modulus from the above studies was deter =ined to be 1000 KSF. As can be seen, both the total shear and moment increase rapidly with increasing foundation stiffness to approximately C = 3000 KSF. Despite the fact that the soil modulus was stiffer than it could ever be, in reality, this value was conservatively used for .the combined structure design.
Figure 10 shows the variation in response spectra for varying soil stiffness.
The marked shift and change in the acceleration floor response spectru can be seen to be quite significant.
Figure 11 shows the consistent spectral shift and change at other floor levels and strue:ures vi:hin the combined structure. The higher floer levelt indicate higher peak accelerations a: higher levels, but consistent spec:ral shifts with changing foundation stiffness.
In order to maintain the consistent conservative design considerations required by the Regulatory Agencies the parametric studies of foundation stiff-ness were performed and conservative design envelopes for each building and level within the combined structure (Figure 11) were developed for the design floor responses.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION The i=plementatien cf the design-censtruction cendition was studied very carefully :c eli=ina:e any everstress cf the subseil and :c maintain ma:
stabili:y frc= differential se::lement and til:ing. Each construe:ica stage was established to meet the requirements of the ne: and the allevable differential s, oil bearing pressures. The critical path of the construction schedule was factor-ed into the design considerations and step by step coordina: ion was made to satis-fy both design and construction. The excavation, concrete and backfill sequencing as well .as the effects of dewatering and recharging of groundwater, all have been carefully planned as indicated earlier in Figure 3. In addition, the subsurface and structure ' instrumentation have also been designed to ensure that the subsoils, I structure and construction sequencing vill perfor= as planned and designed. !
CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the design of large structural mats on soil foundations are very much influenced by the relative stif fnesses of rat and its foundation. It was shown that the realistic appraisal of the i= posed bearing pressures must con-sider the loading histery of the founda: ion soils and the ce=patibili:y of the foundation settlements as well as the construction sequencing toward co=pletion.
The redistribution of structural shears and moments are significant to the design considerations, and a conservative design envelope should be utilized to appreciate
-the changing conditiens during construction and redistribution phases.of.the_.
foundation seil and structure interaction.
'*G
avtpast SitA1A PitGo*fil 8 5 3_ _ ,__ 7 4 '.64 1
- , oi'. t,! sc't tPit o v l 'l 3 S 43 6 ll S 24 B 4s bipl S 47 84 2
U II W
- , .2 ,g oo ,.,, i s.65 :ul :S to : lit iS io 17.1 5 r? 51 h
~
- Ia O ' -
supe u - c,,
ea . ~ .3 u, , aou e 4rf e. ,u 3 I s. . hj.
2o _x c. s. -g' _.
+ 1. N T s__=
5 .t.u saouct. * *-< 'd'm Lc.<s,a aes O.sp_ enet 1
(tol 75 b J5 c:Soo I .5_
e \soo f-
.ao .'._,N N~
n
/
g -
'~%.-<<
s,v. 4, Va 74
/s
+.
n:. -
1 its r) (tsoo 3,4 ~EO ' r1T D '
' F ,
Y W
4 iJ s[r.,i("'",j' e, a isoj ,Cl*#
ris G5 *<. So I 8o C/ W l[ M ~'
l{h 77 5 ? h' k W. ','l, M'; ,{f,{
! ,'.,'isE'irNc,Eets) 1 50 c 11'o k. - - --
/- < --
~~ .
~
p, ----
!? *,
pse.tprascw weas e) L68 47 &Sn H . \1o ~ ~ [__ ff. $ j .,
4 ^_ G ,.
an .- au n.
et w . .
_~ it y*>p . . e m s . !'_9._
51 C'180 1Ol
'ido J %
lit d.- @ lif if# M Gei to'Se - c4ny ctAf 8Go-- I - v,, 61; f{f. :( p k, [,(; g g '
g); g po seuy ctAy '89 51 C'7ee. l.G .,go._ 'p wis ii 3 5., o te >>s e s / .. ,4 y w E
ist go c 7ooo II.
D ~ ,Y '
""fR .{',,yagr * $ (4?
~d
.no r ii LD etJ s,< w.v . -
il9 51 C7ooo '. l x.ei to , .,g ? '/
'x, ga.o nat esn.y s w a .. 11 5 M N ' '.ro: '._- -140 - : 4: .-.
, ,7
- .. h, , fj. _
1f
- =
t)
. n'
%o ? '
- 'x 'p
- Gr A1 cLA9 attu stil w a 3 stt read.W ot>
gig 51 c.7ooo ,,5 ?go. *i j ,f 9}
'y LEGEND
~
3to .
- CJ CENo1ES SAND c eaf sitty oA*>o its c5 4 50' Y // 6 ,\ -
'T U3 otNotts stLT 3#0 y A J" M,/vy '
s ca ptNotf 6 cLAT 38o a g
' 4* ! l SAT wflGHT P.c.8 47o 7 sub Nt!GH1 P.C I I S.S$R STRHGTH R5 5.
44 o
, .' 4.aucomitam mm %
ACO 006 _
< epo -
- i
. t SCAL E vt RT. i".too'
' """'* 6ENERAU H D SotL PROFIT.E
i
. O
. _, i .
. i l
[
( : oo ,, !
Oil 5 " G*d Mb$
$ =< W z9c-b 1 c *8 *.
0 D
448 #O as N NM ro z
us o u 7 xT b- d C O b e o : . IE 4 6
- o .xene _, w o .:. -
gi - 3 on e Q
55
$ d f E 9 Z u! g{g hg -
E p$ Z ii o 3 di E-t Euc'o=
i) _'s.. 'd E{;; d
.s _8 g Y 7 .s, z
Ch *
- C Om O
WG e-
- w E E J E' 4-O e O
4 yo ( E WS
- =
_a wG 9 EP B
Ed9ev s
l O u;l "o (C J
L' o ;o E
E So - *Esx d -f 2' E .
o o u et ,
.g . 2+1 -
6 g @ ' _ , :g:- cg *>
.- e x >
, Q f _ s,eg (;[e oo,y g p; % i, O ,
W. o2 is:c Z; e . E y ' y. do7 w oc =
- c s r. E e o J .r 3 .-
w ;;- O 6 . -- - -
g I e7=
Em E O " &
- Q 4 e
,5 wag
- , es -
S O #6 tg e m-I z O
- . g N.
. e g,;
,qW" vo 3
( yMb 8
s Ogu wo 8 t.8 V' as s O Q d 7 M "'
Ai . gC , 4B e- m w tu O
>- hc !
O g Ok ' 8 E **
'~
53 tD - Eh; j!O M N 58 #
3 EC N
- z. w* - 8 H uv 9, i ss s o bs P' ; _, *e .: - u .- ,E 4o
.:a o c.
~.
,o ',w
.e Z
,,,s t 6
'4,*Z y fd Y.
"f O c r~
l
('
(
g3 ! J G *** - d -
I 9-l N, l 5 joo l ~ } l s a
.m i i n 5%
- n . e a ,t 2s o 8.o. : $
- m 2
=
.6 .
2 O W J 9l*
ese a' b~ .
g ane m
l 7 w
[- y a
E a
I .s, C e- .<
l 8 ' .*3 hk T* 9 m
- R o aeu E Z
$ u V
o y
soA4s 'ao:t33 ... ba. s. s. w a..s.
k e- 9 gm p M
O
l '
r0 g
I b Q I-E 2 Df t p1 C I
E
- WW 4C!-
i
- a (I C 11 l j$
e g
h4 os I
w t
9 W>v e
8 d kSt h5 5
o 15:
- se ~
o T! bl
-h hv **j o .B
. _ .. k Y. .v.
n .
Ce
{
I s
\ Y, y
e v.
. _ Nc . c E ,
a
$. y 3
% O x~
- c- - - ; 2 2
8 't
.s. s.i. y E 1
g i l bi s g 2,
= --
y
. . E ,.
fI L
4
- t- g!
Ii.! t - rQo g (j
i i x
i 1 o
,, g 0 o o o o o r34e e 4 n s - o (3IN 3Mbb$3dd eM S
, -----w- - - + , - - -
w, - - . - - ---- -- -,g . . ,.,-.,---c. y 7 -----w---- y
I f 6
/
/, i 1
- / I' I
/ /
I .
i /
/ /
/ , I It I
~
/ ! -
) i
/l i
/ l
' f
/ .
j
/ / !
f i i
. . i . i. .
! I S g i ! o o N g : 3 \
% ! \
\
6 9,
\ '
- !- q i \ .
g
\ \ h \ h
. \ $
g \ W '
g i i 2 \ 7 l I D \ D ' '
i \l i \ ! ! t i!
. j
\!g y \
\
lg ! \ b I
i 2 .
i
!I . ! \ l
. o u , .
D
! / f . ,
f i
l /!
/ i -
/
l '
-l
'li. /
- . I 1 M I
- '
..a.
^'
i lo
!LB
\e!
ki M M
1 I
I {.
\
i I
j r .,
\.,,
4 ll ,
., IS l S
- I
! ts f}\( }9 kY l . I \ / . i l ;\ ;\ i
\\
l ig .\ \
l 'g l ,
- \
l\ \
w _ ') ,
8 8 'a 5 t 8 s t to a t t t d O o o o o 6 o' o o o o cu)-*se .m cu)mosvm a cw-m m l ,
/- 2 3
YA (% Lff i
~
Wu d m u m - cueva sm wrea? .
FiGuG 4
es I
(s.is') , j. , .-
,- c3.:c) l/ /
\p
/ \
N
- 9 . ,- s ;
\
/9/P
/ Eg \* .
/ , 6 ; .; s -n e, I.
l' s 40 ,' :f-t%, /r n /. m
\
,4 o
\
\
)
! ? /,' ,
l' ' kov % 8 7
,o/ \ y ,
l j g yo -
l c \ ,
J. , ,* / \ \
\
3
[ /
/
/
/
/
@$ ,rs, 4
o s
s g \ g
/ % <
6 l [ [ i
. 1 I_ .I ' @k p )
2 i
i .)
f i i_.' .
s ,
i l 1 \ hh /
[
I '-
i i 1 \ '- l './ /
f1 i
i
\ I / 3 i
, l
\ l / ;
l \ ~
. /
i N ; / /
\ /
,'</,
\ s ,e
> % ,s' ,s v .
/ ./
,_ 15
-_=o-~
( ,
y N l - -
s___________
i i
! l (5.00 '
- (s.os) l 1
I _
m aese --- - cmstwr mws l AwAL45ts M AstE Mooo w s t
i ggggp My kd D E N Ib M N h M megS (C CC N)- CW WT PEE-SSOCES
. ~ Fl6UZE 5
m - AL W 26 ou g 4
.( . $ $ k N r.
n~
E I a 2L2 -
N 6 -
Ad O dL N 83 9 5
- (iy gk'u i
/ .
t
/ } WI I.
i i
,/ ..
i
=,. DJ <
Df g
i l
f I ,, : ! "Ji S w
l \ ( @ ._
i s
(
e.
d' s,
\
@! \ "
l
- i.
, \q , j l N !
t tJ!
\
- y , .
8 , t i
e o 1
i o
\ ' g!
l g I \ 3 g
g.
g- \n a s- !,!
l 1i ,
i
- o
) s,.
at s 8; 5 s e
- s\
.E 2 ;i NI
, s 8;
' (,
o 'Q I l
fI l 8
" ,,, ! ) I' ", ! k '
! I b
} F
~
l i j ", !$
d;:/
s g L ;f li V
, b !
l l
,ifI s.
/
/
-Yi i e j E
- /
jl! ,
r !
, , a i
o / i /
/ I /' o '
i N /
l l I
h , j
- Jr '! [
i ! I o oEo Q oa o Q
1
% ' l, ,, eJ e69 *9 O 9
oeo O
e 0" Q 9 Q (ss$3snsss21.Lm tu * * -
(d5 A)-3205&S2J .kW . - - - -
S
-,,,..----._.,.-,,,.,----,,..,,,.,.--,---,---+r
? l 0 & 1 b 0
/' if ,d m
. / ,
ad I L.
- / 4 g 22 l ;j r y
OW OI f- 7 i J O E_J4 / $ !O
' l -
'W ~
i f l2 98 h ,
em
/
/ \
wJ
$6 v1 i , d wm
. I -
g a E..
l
,/ . 6 I( \k x ,
i I
i NN s
. \
l i
\
! en ! \
e ! 4 3- I \
g ; i aiI \
o o (
E!
J * !
\
~
5 ;
i
- j g y e J . @
a r,. 2i 4 - :g0 J
i i
3 o f I
O i i - 1 o
r ,
l
@ 2 j 0 /
/
E
)
w 5
V j$
w F /!
L d \,
if i 3 /
<4 u 'li e ,
/
I t
\ 4 j /
> o /
, ! ! N !t U
//
. I y
I l .
I 4
\
3 i ! \ \
.i46 iisi
\ ,
.64 iiisii ...i
\
g g o g g g -o -~ m* u
~ - - ~ ,o . . . _ .
(u/>0 myass mv,4 so .tno -
(u/u Noo.inswes
h? &
2 c g
a 9 3uf 7
o d.
O h y J 30 W
l
/"
O b$
9 2 aa ;
. (>\_ ;a e- gg $2 ;.
>o -
04g 3{
o $V MDN3 -jk 'Z f 3 2 et Q 94
- +m l / $I
/
/
i \
/
kNs
' r N _
s N
\ \
\ \
s \ \
c e-
\.>
- i. > 8 5a
> L
= f
- 0 - - ; o. .- L 2 4
a 3 0 ,
y 0 1
> 0 7 7 l 2 b 7 e \ 3 e!/8
- * / s e# 3 $8 sAy \ $ l 1 )/
l ge- \
s
- s. .
c>
a s2 1 1
/ o
- /
e*
- ,, " a 2
G3 ,
3 4 \ 8
\
e
// !
y- \\
y i
3 ,' ~ O - N e , J
~ ? h
- in am< ,ma w we ( 11/ Lt 1 , e, ) pq 5
e- ., e .. - - - , , - . , - , , . -..,y-- , _ , . , , ~ _ - - , - - , . . ,,--.- ,-w ,,..--.me___-,e,----- s__ , - - - - - - - - -
~
.i 26 y gd 4
k Ej W
h< o 0 Q<.
s l, z d' . -8 O 4 %'
e O !
O Qw 5 I I g.i !
as !
n o
ts !' en. M
(
.- l 02 x I y *4 el 4 I
4 o Gy
- 3. . E . e e _g a
to 5
7n y I g e !
/ w' I - 5 O ! O
/ E -
' *3 '
I o 1 O a < L I
o I e W
8
-g*
9 4 xv e W m l I. e 3.
D!
t \ o 9 o y I \ o 00 C 36'
\
'g e -3 y _
R l
\ 4
- ! \ "r
, "E
=
l y
\N T in SE
- O Ed7 8 +
N
=c S
e -8e o =
(
a NN *t O d **
I.
\
5 g
\
\ 5 7 ,
4 N '
o-E
+\ \ -
( N- s 8
O f-i (u sdN c o l) Lutwow 0 e 9 e e e i ! . l lh
- a e e m e n (SdtM p CI) a v3N s .
e # em S
. ~- . , -
O
r M
- o ,
ta.
$. O 1
- \
OW i p2 '
4 cs 0 -
o Z. 3.
" e. d ,
i ) .I -
ta. y1 e i ;*, '
.t .
C1
>. > *ti O 13.
Of
.,,o, *l -2 O V -
e
- p.
h u.b &p c 4.3 .'
c,,
c O m3 M
F , r" 1m %
U y.
h th'
- u. m.
7 O.4 o 5) --
- u. m.
{kmFG
- .Z eo e .' #f a, LA3P -
s o u- .*
- ~ j 9 $ -
g3 - m en . P L '
gra
=
/ :i#[ /
l n e !!l O I 0-
'. t \
C J O
ul .* . sg'd Tl 4
- j o
.J ]
~o ~
\
- '..$ s> /
ff Y " -. .=. *
,,,,R n
' , " * .% *,,b
- o c r=%
'~ O g .. 'f,. I *f.
. \/ // -
30u e
// O ene g *'
'o'..'. / 7 L e U
c' .
f
/
[\ O
%':.* , . . . . .. ~ ' * .,#..) . '/ \
-C Q
\ '.,
- o
-/ / g g .m:::."! ,. - o es
,o .......~.~.......,.......<g y ,
o n.
- N o l *"'"~~
N. . ' c- / ~ . .
}
_ _ _ q' /
6 ...,..~~
e .
e @ e' s- -
o i p H
%s -
._ O
~ ===i. == % s, %, .
m.
t 9aug *
\
\
'N
- o l
,h..)* \ , _ M o
~ .
N 's
- o NAg. ==.
O
)4
(\d s 4 : O d
o d
{*
4...
i i i ; i i i i i i
) I i e i i a i , i o o o o o o o o o oe* o o oaoOoNo o 8o e 1o o gt's $ h e* E an . 4 M e=
$ 5 $ 10 $ $ 45 S S A A A $ O f f o e d w c*
oh l . ... ._ .
~
, , , , _ - - .,,,.---,,e,m, -
.yy__,m_.-,,--...,_,.,~.-.,p.,.._,_,y. - , . , .. _ ,---.,____y 97,,.7 -yy ,- - - ~ y., y--
b 63
~
s
%"t Eg 1
$G o m. as l
_3 .:.
h5-1 m i, ~* t '> lt f lI [ <su 1
a 3 o Em , I _
e- e F- e _a _.s o ,
D
q$E .f "a 9h' 4 <-
IEj /r i g=E.
5o u e o sr.
ro e j i I
s . Du 1
ine , u 4 - et /
eg ,
S-
- I o o 2. 0 2 /'. / G4 '
k*
GO o J
E O
3
' l! ! o 55
"'O l
2 *O * / / -
o /
Q u_
o
) /q /
f o
e ulq o
of <' < \'
o e
__ \
w N / O 8 o
/r' -
c' ,, -
L- < /
ti *% \ -
,, s N / g
\
2u o . \
\
d v5
\
/
\., _'d O.
o s-e
) \
o
=
/ t i
o
~
1_. -
- ~
k(s t
i
_8 4
- (/ .
DI ( o
~~
'h %
d d %*w O s,A % N _&
d T5,,
as ME <
- rN l
cW n-5e-3 O
Z K4 -
D ~* g, \ \
k W I>~ OZw aae O 6- h O
~ e.
$5 ![ i\ f j g y"E *s !
9 II3 a Ml\'es 2
(6) Mc:1vaim:v o i . i .ii.iie i . i i..i 82 3aa8a3aa22 eb h h 5 5 N &S &5$ 4 4 aaaa3aa
.: J 6 f 6 6 -
e ,,
9
.--.m . ., , . . . -
LB SCO S E liVI C L /
IN C U !! P O n A T E D h %
~A s.
r N G:NIE R S - OCNsrRuCTCRS u r f t,t r ? ' O n N s e :. r A :: r s -
TWD RECTun S rnEET .
N EW Y0RN. .N.Y.10006 a a saa.e.. e u .ese-March 15,1977 ,
LW3-452-77 File 14Q-3-5d Mr D L Aswell -
Mancger of Power Production a ~
Lcuisiana Power & Ligh: Co=pany C34SCO e. RVICCS c' IN 142 Delarende S:ree: Q g C t_,, [ y A
New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 O R3: WATERPORD SES UNIT No. 3 2N TRANSMI' TAL CF PSAR CH.CGE REQUEST CH-3 FOR REV!EW AND AP?ROVAL 3 R E!.D e C
f Das Mr Aswell: g s
Enclosed please find PSAP f gp 1 Pr:ssure Prior to Ree' p g 9, W V Tha purpose - h g fx (A / ,&
g/ /g p 95 pD pa /* ,
31,
- comoressie
. sail'Iearing pounds per s; 9 # c,4 I yb
.(9 d h p
( '
wi:hin :he man square foot.
M[p5 @
(<
jf'
/ 1
. efor:ed by Evalua:ica and ap3 QO 6 Ebasco in accordans hb -3.
- t Y . ced in the master copy of Th refore, upon LP&L tha PSAR un:11 the Pi -..C . Ebasco also reew_ ends tha:
- his change be retaine .ne convenience of NRC auditors.
be: K K d:ampley very :ruly your's, ,R L }al ,,
. ..::r
, h [hy .7 -% G J Lambrakos b R W McC2ffrey y _
R K Stampley r_y RKS :JJC:c:m Encl. Project Manager C Seoane
.? V Gvildys cc: D L Aswell H W Ottillio :D N Calligan L V Maurin C G Checem R A Hartne::
A E Henderson T F Gerrets .L T Skoblar D 3 Lester ? X Shaughnessy .J E Moaba _
P V Prasankumar J M Brooks ? E Grossman R Prados J O 3coch' (2) A Wern' ' - -
Power Produe: ion Departmen: - Nuclear (3) .
- ? C .Liu- ._
L J Ehase A /.g 6./.
G Goodhear: >
L U . .S l. U d L li \ l U L i 44WM/Ng
~%
> 1 N C U 11 P O n A T E D
- ** - - U r fl.,t r ? 'C C N 5 0 :. r A ;; r S -
E N GIN E E R S -
'CcNcrRUCTORS A
- TWO UCCTUR S TREET
's. -
NEW YDRN N.Y.10006 u , oo .. . . son-March 15,1977 ,
LW3-452-77 File 14Q-B-5d Mr D L Aswell Manager of Power Production EBASCO sggyICES, JNe Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 ggC$fybD
IS77 Re: WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3
Dear Mr Aswell:
Enclosed please find PSAR change request CH-3, "Allowchle Soil r, caring Pressure Prior to Recharging", for your review and ar roval.
lh The purpose of the subjec PSAR change request is to i: crease the rate of recompression of the foundation soils. Ebasco rece:cends thet the allevable from 4,000 to 4,500 soil' Searing pressure prior to recharging be incres pounds per square foot. This additional effective tssure is still well within th2 =axi=u= allowable soil bearing pressure 15.000 pounds per square foot.
' Evaluation and app:cval of PSAR change request CH-3 cs been perfor:ed b;.
Ebasco in accordance with Nuclear Licensing Procedu . No. L-3.
- .e Therefore, upon LP&L approval CH-3 will be documented in the master copy of the PSAR until the FSAR is submitted to the NRC. Ebasco also recc . ends that this change be retained at the site for the convenience of NRC .be:auditors.
K K stampley Very truly your's, Re .L. Teal . _ , _
' .[ Y[,[ f4 R W McCaffrey M G J Lambrakos R K Stampley -
1y&
RKS:JJC:mm .
Project Manager Encl. C Seoane
!PVGrildys ec: D L Aswell H W Ottillio ;D N Galligan L V Maurin C G Chezem K A Hartnett
-A E Henderson T F Gerrets '
- L T Skoblar
.' D B Lester ? X Shaughnessy .J E Moaba Y P V Prasankumar J M Brooks 'P E Grossman R Prados J 0 Booth (2) A Wern Power Production Department - Nuclear (3) P C-Liu- -
. L J Ehasz
- - G'Goodn'eart M Pavone
- c c 1,. , g t . ,e.
SAR 'ER CHAT:GE REQUE5T s 1 CHANGE NO. CF-3
..'.... s
~. . :. . .
Lead Li:ensing Engineer J J. Noaba .
Lead Dis:ipline Engineer FRom P. C. Liu
'.'A~ re n"? 9 's T M " n , Project Title SUBJECT LOUTSI.C:A PC'?EF f. LTC'7' c0 PSAR/K3:132K CH ANGE RECO't.'.!ENDATION Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure Prior to Recharging
~
The affected area is: .
Line 7 Page 2.n.4 O a ~s-.,- ss.12) Paragraph 3 Recommended c ange an: reas ns Icr recues:mg :.ange:,.
Change: During the concrete construction phases, the pressurcs begin to therease and con:inue until a s:ress of 4500 lb per sq. ft. r has been applied.
Reason: *See page attached. .
Notes: Any reference to Figure 2.D-5 concerning the previous
(, alic:wable stress of 4000 psf will be similarly changed to 4500 psf in the forthcoming TSAR.
~
i m.,iied hm U
........... ..... .a ca1e 51p A .
==fgyed
- * ""
- p h 21,g e
/ O.h; 5.%. /. p E n v so n /
S $E Date YNb)
Reviewed Approved b
. ...g.
1 (. . . . Date
, 1 6 ss=s =s sus.=ssa g i
l !
Disposition l
O Sipature a 6. . .. 6 .~..~ .. .a c s . r. ..
Date
' ~ ~
SignatUfe Date
.c6=..=e s. 66a .. a = 6e w. o. ,
e
[
i j TO BE RETAINED IN Ll EM:!NG EPAR'"VEN: FILES
.s, .2 *.' ' -
PSAR Chante be. C11- 3
(,_ .
Attachment Sh 1/1 Reason:
The recompression of the foundation soils have been progressing at a slower rate than anticipated, primarily due to the long and e):-
. . tended period of partial excavation and finsi exesvation. In order
- to increase'the rate of recompression the allowable bearing pressure prior to recharging should be increased from 4000 to 4500 psf. The .
response of the foundacion soils are being monitored continuously cnd the time and magnitude of loading prior to recharging will be predi- '
cated on the actual recompression being experienced. The objective is to essentially recompress the foundation soils to their precon-sgruction condition; namely, overload the soils until the heave ex-parienced during the exesvation phase has been co=pensated by in-duced settlement.(recompression). ,
e This additional effective stress is still safety within the maximum allowable soil bearing pressures of 15,000 psf. The factor of safety against any bearing failure under the increased loading is still in excess of 3.
4 4
. en og e
4 4
e 3
- h 9 5N 4 b
.l @ MIN G
( - -
LOUISIANA m P O W E R & L1G H T!scx e c. eta.ouci SoOS mm LDUtSIANA 70174 . (504)3664345
. NEW ORLEANS.
maac
~
March 23, 1977 LPL 6635 3-A1.04 3-A1.02 Q-3-A28.14 ESASCO SSRvfCES, INC.
RECElVED Mr. R. K. Stampley Ebasco Services, Inc. .
MAR 25197/
Two Rector Street New York, N. Y. 10006 WATERFORD 3 FIELD
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit No. 3 PSAR - Soil Bearing Pressure Limit ..
C. .. . .
Dear Mr. S*m pley:
Attached, for your information, is a copy of a documentation of a telephone conversation. .
Yours very truly, D. L. Asvell Manager of Power Production DLA:AEH:jh1 1
Attachment ec: Ebasco(2),J.M. Brooks,J.O. Booth (2)[D.L.Aswell,L.V.Maurin, A. E. Henderson, D. B. Lester, P. V. Pransankumar, H. W. Otillio, P. I. Shaughnessy, L. Biondolillo, T. F. Garrets, C. G. Chazem, D. N. Calligan, C. J. Decareaux.
1
[*=
.s* 4h e G
i D0.MATION OF TELEFENE COMMUNICATIWS .
.~'. . :- .
j .. .
s DATE: March 23. 1977 TIME: 2:50 anat,, y,x,
. PARTY CALLING: A. E. Henderson 8.( .,
Louisiana Power & Light Company l (Name) pp (Company)
PARTY ANSWERING: W.C. Rubacek NRC Reactor Inso.
(Name) (Company)
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3 FILE: 3-A1.04 PSAR - Soil Bearing Pressure Limit 3-A1.02 '
Q-3-A28.14
SUMMARY
- (INCLUDING DECISIONS AND Oil COMMEETS)
\
Reported to the NRC that a potential significant deficiency exists at the construction site. "The soil bearing pressure prior to recharging vill .
exceed the 4,000 psf as stated in the PSAR."
Explained that Ebasco Engineering had requested that the limit be raised to 4,500 psf which still gives a safety factor of 3. Hubacek suggesced (could not tell us what to do) that NRC licensing be made aware of this.
~
- ~
- e .
ACTIW REQUIRED:
Keep Mr. Hubacek informed.
r b _
DISTRIBUTION: __
O .
- , - - ---,--wm- -.,,,n r-,.m - --- _ _ _ _,--...-%3 _._ _-,,, -
_,,w., _ . , _ _ ,,-,_--,-,-,,..,-e,__,,..._. . . . . , _ , , _ , ,
.: .1 -E :. ., .
s LO UISI AN A / su oe_,a= smer POWER & LIGHT / p. o. sox soOS
Q-3-A35.02.01
- Response Req'd: Yes By: April 5,1977 Mr. L K. Stampley Project Manager ESASCO SERVICES, INC.
zbasco services, Inc.
Two Rector Street -
RECEIVED New York, N. Y. 10006 MAR 2 S 1977
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Uni: No. 3 NRC Audit - March 2 - 4, 1977 WATERFORD 3 RELD
Dear Mr. Stampley:
Attached is a copy of a letter dated March 21, 1977, from the NRC Office of .
Inspection and Enforcement - Region IV together with a copy of the NRC Inspectors Report conce:ning the audit conducted on March 2 - 4, 1977. .
Please refer to the paragraph in the letter relative to proprietary infor=ation.
According to the letter, LP&L is to notify the NRC within :venty (20) days if any info:mation conrained in the report is considered to be proprietary.
If any infoL=ation in this report is considered proprietary, your written response must be handled in an expeditious manner. Our response to the NRC
-- must ise made before Friday, April 8,1977. If you do no: contac us by April 5,1977, we vill assume that you consider none of the information contained in the report to be proprietary.
1 By copy of this letter to Mr. W. Mawhinney, we are asking CE to respond to this request in like manner.
Your's very truly, ok.
D. L. Asvell Manager of Power Production r DIA/ OPP /jh1 V Attachment cc: Ebasco (2), J. M. Brooks, J. O. 3ooth (2), D. L. Aswell, L. V. Maurin, -
A. E. Henderson, D. 3. Lestar, P. V. Pransankumar, H. W. Otillio, . . _ .
F. X. Shaughnessy, L. Biondolillo, T. F. Gerrets, C. G. Checem, ':-
D. N. Galligan, C. J. Decareaux, W. Mawhinney , O. P. Pipkitis
- 3. Common Foundation Mae Lecdino and Subsurface Fe:harce The common f6cncation mat is founded on Pleistocene clays at an elevation 47 feet below mear, sea level (l'SL). The PSAR, Appendix 2.0 and Ebasco Design Specification LOU 1564.461 505,Section VII, " Foundation Properties," specify maximum allowable net scil bearing pressure is 4.0 kips per scuare foot (ksf). The maximum allowable pressure dif-ferential across the mat is 1 ksf. (For periods of less than 2 months, maximum differential loading is 2 ksf.)
Review of the Ebasco conputer print-out, " Accumulative Summary of Placerent Stress," indicated that the current Loil bearing stresses of the mat, as of February le,1977, (week #70) were 3.921 ksf maximum (Northwest corner) ard 2.895 ksf minimum. The predicted bearing stresses for weeks #72 and #74 were 3.947 ksf maximum, 2.958 ksi minimum, and 4.001 ksf maximum with 3.114 ksf minimum, respectively.
Redesign of the non-safety related turbine building foundation recuires the placement of structural backfill (Class B) from the Pleistocene layer to an elevation 14.5 feet above MSL, in lieu of pilings. The excavation and backfill activities in the area of the turbine building may delay the schedule for recharge of ground water to effectively main-tain the net maximum foundation mat bearing pressure at or below 4.0 ksf.
Ebasco representatives indicate that conside ation is being given to increasing the maximum allowable net soil pressure from 4.0 to 4.3 or 4.5 ksf.
No discrepancies were noted during this portion of the inspection.
- 4. Structural Backfill - Class A The backfill around the common foundation mat and safety related structures is divided into seven (7) fill areas (#1 through #7).
Records dated from October 4,1975, to January 25, 1977, for inspe:-
tion and testing cf ba:k#ill were reviewed #cr the following areas:
Fili Areas rio. Days Reviewec 1 2 3 3 5 3 6 5 7 3 The following records were reviewed for each of the days listed above:
i J. A. Jones Daily Backfill Inspection Report Ebasco Borrow Material Inspection Report Ebasco Excavation and Stripping Inspection Report Ebasco Daily Backfill Inspe: tion Report Ebasco Backfill Acceptance Report 1
III-2 g@ D 4M S wepw m a
- gp M #
wm
~ . . .. .
j gs
- r. '
- s. '1 L6 UIS t AN A f $42 owoes smen .
POWER & LIG H7/ p c. BOX 6006
- New 08teANS. LOUTS 1ANA 70174
= [504) 386 2345 MIDDLE Soutm uTu.na sysm' March 25, 1977 LPL 6644 --
Q-3-A28.14 7.BASCO SERVICES, INE Mr. R. K. S tampley Ebasco Services, Inc. RECEIVED Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006 ,g g 6 1977 SUEJECT: Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Soil 3ea' ring Pressure WATERFORD 3 RELD
Dear Mr. Stampley:
Attached is a copy of a Documentation of Telephone C-m4 cation for your
(' -infomation.
Yours very truly, D. L. Asvell Manager of Power Production ,, .
DLA:LVM:g:w
-- Attachment ec: Ebasco (2), J. M. Brooks, J. O. Booth (2), D. L. Aswell, L. V. Maurin, A. E. Henderson, D. 3. Lester, C. G. Chazem, F. X. Shaughnessy, H. W. Otillio, P.V. Prasankumar, T. F. Gerrets, L. Biondolillo, D. N. Galligan, C. J. Decarent l -
( F. J. Drunmond
\ . . . _ . .
.. DOCUMENTATION OF
. TELEEHONE COMMLTICATIONS
~.. .. . .
- DATE: March 23, 1977 ;rgg. 3:45 m p,g, PARTY CALI.ING: L. V. Maurin
- LP&L (Name) (Company)
PARTY ANSWERING: Rober: Benedict NRC (Name) (Company)
SUBJECI: Soil Bearing Pressure PILE: 3-A1.04 3-A1.02 Q-3-A28.14 .
SUMMARY
- (INCLUDING DECISIONS AND OR COMMENTS)
\
I called Mr. Benefic: to inform him tha: the Soil Bearing Pressure,specified not to exceed 4000 lbs. per souare foo: in the PSAR, would actually exceed 4000 psf but not 4500 psf. I informed Mr. Benedict that Region IV Inspec: ion and Enforcement had been notified of this fact and it had classified :his situation as being a " Potential Significant Incident". If it develops that this incident is not significan:, Region IV I&E will be so notified by phone.
. b. . -Should it develop tha: this incident is significant then Region IV I&E will be given a written justification within thirty days. -
4 I' pointed out to Mr. Benedict tha: the increased effective stress is still safely within the maxim:m allowable soil bearing pressure of 15000 ps f, and that the factor of safety against any bearing . failure under the increased loading is still in execss of 3.
Mr. Benedict expressed sa:isfaction vich this report and fel: that, since Region IV I&E was aware of the situatioc., everything was in order.
l .- 4 i
i i ACT1W REQUIRED:
d l
%.J _
! DISTRIBUTION: , ..
9 v- > - - - - ,,- , - , , - - ,.r, - -- ,y-,, --,....,,,.-.,wv -,,,,-.,e ,, -,--..-.--,,,,-,------_,,-,_n_,,,n:,.,,,,,-,.,--,_.
9 M
- .i -
C -
EdUISIANA ,o oc-sonas smcrr .
POWER & L1GHT P Q. sox Soo8
- NEW OREANS. LDutSIANA 70174 ~ . L5041386-2345 reRam .
March 25, 1977 LPL 6639 Q-3-A28.14
/ Response Reg'd: Yes
- By: April 11, 1977 Mr. R. K. Stampley Ebasco Services, Inc.
Two Rector Street ,
New York, New York 10006 EBASCO SERVICES, INC.
SUBJEC : Waterford SES Unit No. 3 RECE!VED Allowable Soil 3 earing Pressure Limit M 2 S 19H REFERINCE: (1) Letter 1743-452-77 dated March "
(2) Letter LPL 6635 dated Ma* * -WATERFORD 3 RELD -
(3) Letter LPL 6640 dar - 5
~~
DearSr.Stampley:
M j#
We have reviev * ,p 'ation that the soil
- 6f g i fron 4,000 of sa:,:etv to 4,. g ~
agains f/
Jl gO ( in excess of 3,bt 5 10 pounds per squ.
(( g c,bg [ (, . fIp sd in-cluded i Reference d stween ceported as LP&L and t, a Potential .. essure prior to recharging s ,oc as stated in the Waterford 3 . . This information was also communicated ing Branch by LP&L. In this re-gard we ask Eh . c detailing the reason why the Soil Bearing Pressut , pounds per square foot will be exceeded and justifying . nded change in the Soil Bearing Pressure Limit to 4,500 pounds ,quare foot. This report should be provided in a suit-able format for submission to the NRC.
,r-D d e # e& @
I
. . . ..Mr. P.. K. Stampley , l
. , . - - Page 2 :- .. .
{ March 25, 1977 l We request that you advise LP&L of Ebasco's recomendations for handling this potential deficiency. Should it be treated as a reportable deficiency or should the NRC be provided a written report for information only.
IE Inspection Report No. 50-382/77-03 which was forwarded to you by reference
-- 3 addresses the Turbine Building Foundation Design Change as an item of con-cern. We recomend that Ebasco consult this reference prior to responding to the above requests.
Please note that LP&L must respond to the Potentially Reportable Deficiency with thirry (30) days.
\
Yours very truly, ,
D. L. Asvell Manager of Power Production ,
(,.- -- ..DLA/FJD/dd -- . - .... . _ .. . . . . .
cc: Ebasco (2), J. M. Brooks, J. O. Booth (2), D. L. Asvell, L. V. Maurin, '
A. E. Henderson,'D. B. Lester, P. V. Prasan h ==*, H. W. Otillio, F. I. Shaughnessy, L. Biondolillo, C. G. Che em, T. F. Garrets, D. N. Galligan, C. J. Decareaux, F. J. Drummond
.. 4 .
i
[
i i
I
- y. .
O % 4 .M b
- r- -
-=-w'-- -- --a-w--- - . - -- ,s-- - - . - --, .
e- , -,i. -- ----v ,- -v--+------ - --+---m ,--+w-, - w-, - - , -
- - - ,-,.- -+ .e, ----w.
. m 6
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS 4
I. Enforcement Action A. Items of Noncompliance None B. Deviations None II. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters A. Items of Noncompliance
- 1. Violations hone
- 2. Infractions 76-11/I.A.2 Certification of OC Insoector
. This item remains open pending review of the licensee's corrective action. (Details I, paragraph 4.)
- 3. Deficiencies None
-S. Deviations None
. III. New Unresolved Items 77-04/III Potential. Sionificant Construction Deficiency Related to Soil Bearing Pressures On March 23, 1977, the licensee reported to RIV a potential significant construction deficiency related to the possibility of exceeding the maximum soil bearing pressures under the common foundation mat allowed by the PSAR and specifications. The licensee is currently evaluating this matter. (Details I, paragraph 6.)
IV. Status of Previously Reoorted Unresolved Items None 9 sp9 W GH W 2- -
E l
q-5.. Status of 50.55(e) Incidents
\
. Initial ' pressure grouting of foundation mat section 499503-19 has been completed. Additional cores will be taken to explore areas of excess grout "take" on the north boundary of the affected area.
The licensee anticipates that repairs will be completed on schedule and the final report will be submitted by July 22, 1977.
t Repairs to wall G-570S03-51B are essentially complete. The licensee is preparing the final report of this incident and plans to submit
.it to NRC by April 22, 1977.
- 6. Potential Sianificant Construction Deficiency Related to Soil Bearino Pressures ,
On March 23, 1977, the licensee informed RIV of a potential significant construction deficiency related to the possibility of exceeding the maximum allowed soil bearing pressure under the common foundation mat.
'The PSAR and Ebasco Specification LOU 1564.401 505 both state that the maximum allowed soil bearing pressure under the mat is 4000 pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). At the time of the inspection, the maximum soil pressures had not yet exceeded the allowed 4000 p.s.f. Further, a licensee representative informed the inspector that NRR had been con-F tacted with regard to changing the maximum allowed soil bearing pressure from 4000 p.s.f. to 4500 p.s.f. as recommended by Ebasco. Documenta-tion supporting the recommended change from 4000 p.s.f. to 4500 p.s.f.
was available for review by .the inspector. (See Details III, para-graph 3.)
The inspector informed the licensee that this ca:ter will be considered unresolved pending tholicensee's evaluation of its significance in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
~ '
( . . , . . - .
I-2 - :.-
l c ~ l 50,352/77-04 , !
l DETAILS III l
V .
Acccmpanying Inspector: [ /# ,
J.1. Tapia /peactar Inspector Intern Engineering (5 pport Section) r Reviewed by: # [
R. E. Maii, Cnief. Enfineering Support Section
- 1. persons Contacted
- a. Louisiana Power and Li;ht Comoany (LP&L)
O. P. Pipkins, QA Engineer
- b. Ebasco Services Incoroorated (Ebasco)
G. F. Goodhart, Site Soils Engineer 2.- Scoce of Insoection The scope of this inspection was limited to a review of the licensee approved increase in soil bearing pressure and to the review of quality assurance records relative to Category I Structural Backfill. Tnis inspection was performed under the supervision of the principal in-
.spector.
- 3. Soil Bearing Pressure Limit Increase Ebas:0 PSA?, change recuest Ch-2 " Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure Pricr te P,echarging," was reviewed by the inscector. This report justifies an increase in allowable bearing pressure on tne casi! that an increase to C00 pounds per square foot would actually be favorable in recom-pressing the foundation clay to its preconstruction condition. LP&L letter of concurrence number LPL 6639, dated March 25, 1977, documents licensee approval of the change request and requires a report detailing the recommended change.
No discrepancies were noted during this portion of the inspection.
III-l ge .M S
. . . . -. _ _ . .. . - - -~, '
(Closed) Unresolved Item (382/77-04): Potential significant con-struction deficiency related to soil bearing pressures. The
. inspector was informed .tnat this matter has been determined by the licensee to be not. reportable in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e). Design change No. CH-3 has been approved which documents changing the pSAR limit for soil bearing pressure under the common foundation mat from 4000 pounds per square foot (PSF) to 4500 PSF.
- 3. Site Tour The inspectors walked through various areas of the site to coserve construction activities in progress and to inspect housekeeping, equipment protection and adherence to fire protection requirements.
The inspectors noted that protection for installed mechanical equip-l
' ment in the auxiliary and reactor buildings, while adequate, appeared
! to be deteriorating and maintenance appeared necessary to prevent further deterioration.
While the inspector was observing concrete batch plant coerations for concrete production for placements 556S01-11 and 593502-10, an equip-ment malfunction occurred that necessitated switching concrete pro-duction from the main batch plant to the backup plant. It was observed that the backup plant cculd not be put into operation in a timely manner because its associated ground hopper contained untested aggregate which remained from production for a previous placement.
The necessity for emptying the hopper of aggregate prior to recharge with acceptable material and problems encountered with an admix dispenser contributed to delays in resuming concrete production This delay caused the above placements to be terminated short of completion. The inspector noted that QA Corporation procedure 1.36.1, Section 6.2.2 requires that the ground hopper of the backup plant is to be empcy except while in use.
This finding represents noncompliance with the requirements for adherence to procedures in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and QA Corporation procedure 1.36.1.
- 4. Significant Construction Deficiencies Reported by the Licensee The inspector reviewed licensee action related to items which were previously reported as significant or potentially significant construc-tion deficiencies in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
- a. Foundation Mat Placement 499503-19 Twelve verification cores have been drilled in the mat 19 placement after grouting. Two of the 12 cores had indications g 40 96 9
.- . , . _ . ..~. ~ 1-b' - -
- - - - - - ' - - ~ - - - - ^ ' ~ -
The inspector selectively witnessed the stress relief activities for conformance witn the CB&I Procedure and ASME B&PV Code, Sections III and VIII,1971 edition including Code Case 1493 requirements.
The in3pector and Licensea's QA Technician prepared a time-tempera-ture plot of the vessel stress relief cycle to assess conformance with the following requirements as specified in the ASME B&PV Code and the CB&I Procadure:
(1) Heating rate above 600*F - 100*F/hr (2) Maximum gradient in 15' on vessel, heating and cooling - 250*F (3) Holding period - 1150*F (*75 - 50*F) - 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> maximum temperature gradient - 125'?
(4) Maximum allowed temperature - 1225'F (5) Cooling rate above 600*F - less than 125'/hr A segment of the plot, Figure 1, is included showing the data recorded for heating, hold and cooling of the vessel. The inspector observed CB&I personnel monitoring instrut.entation, burner operation, supcort equipment, thermai expansion and ir.sulation integrity on a regular basis. A maximum temperature of 140*F was measured at the inner surface of the concrete shield wall.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 12. Foundation Interaction The inspector reviewed the results of twenty-three In-Place Density Tests, five Farticle Size Analyses, and thirteen Daily Backfill Inspection Reports fcr the randomly selected dates of April 11 and 12, 1977. All records reviewed were representative of the area beneath the Turbine Gene ator Evilding anc were found to be in accordance with Ebasco Specificaticn LOU 1554.482, " Filter and Eackfill," Rev. 3 and Ebasco Quality Control Instruction QCIP-2, " Soils Control," Issue G.
The inspector reviewed the Ebasco computer print-out entitled, "Accumu-lative Sunnary of Placement Stress," which indicated that the common mat bearing stress as of June 22, 1977, was 4,117 pounds per square foot. The allowable soil bearing pressure prior to recharging, which is now 4,500 pounds per square foot, was increased by 500 pounds per square foot in accordance with the recommendations in the Ebasco report which was reviewed by the inspector entitief, " Allowable Mat Bearing Pressure," April 1977.
9
- D4p 5
~
~. ~' '. . ~
m The inspector discussed the redesign of the Turbine Generator Building
, foundation from piles to spread footings with the cognizant Ebasco design engineer. He stated that the redesign does not affect the translational spring constant representing the compressibility of the soil on the south wall of the Reactor Auxiliary Building. The projected final design bearing pressures are 6,000 pounds per square foot for the Turbine Generator Building and 3,200 pounds per square foot for the ccamon foundation ma; of tne Containment and Auxiliary Buildings. The !
design engineer informed the inspector that, due to a fifty-cne foot difference in elevation and an eighty-five foot lateral separation of the foundations, there would be no amalgamation of the respective Boussinesq stress distributions.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
- 13. Unresolved items Unresolved iters are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of nonccmpliance or deviaticns. The following two unresolved items were disclosed during tnis inspection regarding the piping erection centractor's
) QA program and centrol of personnel access to warehouses:
Identi fier Tit 1e _
Reference 77-06-1 QA Prograr; Inadequacies Paragraph 4 77-06-2 Personnel Access Control Paragraph 10
- 14. Exit Interview _
The inspectors met with licensee representatives (dencted in paragraoh
- 1) at tne conclusion of the inspecti:n :n June 10,17 and 23,1977.
Tne inspectors summarizec - e purpose and tne sco e of the inspection fi ndi ngs . A licensee representative acknowledged the statements of the inspectors concerning the unresolved items (paragraphs 4 and 10).
i
, , USES- FSA R-UNII- 3 a) Sta:ic Earth Pressurs The combined structure was designed for at-rest pressure and nydros:a:ic loading. The a:-res: earth pressure coe f ficien:
(K,) of 0.5 and a buoyan: uni: we ight of 65.5 pounds per cubic f:. ( pcf) were used for :he backfill matetial. Two hydrostatic loading condi: ions were used. The water levet was taken a: +8 ft .
MSL for normal conditions and +30 ft. MSL for flood conditions.
The pressure distribution used to design the below grade structure walls is shown on Figure 2.5-100. Re fer :o Subsection 2.5.4.6 for a discussion of the groundva:er conditions a: the site. For a complete description of ear:h pressure load combinations used in conjunction with otner foundation loads refer to Section 3.8.
b) Dynamic Ear:h Pressure A dynamic lateral ear:n pressure analysis was performed for all seismic Category I structures using :he following critetia:
- 1) Effec:ive displacemen: of s: rue: ural wall relative :o :he soil was :ne ari:nme:ic sum of :he movement of the wall ob:ained from :ne dynamic analysis and the maximum rela:ive soil displacemen: in :ne free field as deter =ined by :ne SRAKI computer analysis.
- 2) The strain was computed from :he wall movement at a particular depen divided by the horicontal component of length of the Rankine failure surface at that de pt h .
l
- 3) The lateral pressures were obtained by a relarionship between coe f ficient of ear:h pressure vs. s::ain, as de: ermined from laooratory :es:s (Figure 2.5-37) discussed in Subsection 2.5.4,5.3.
Tne cynamic ear:n pressure dis:ribution usec for design of :ne below grade structure walls is presen:ed in Figure 2.5-101. Hydrosta:ic pressure _under SSE loading was taken as +5 f:. MSL, i.e. low wa:er level condition.
2.5.4.11 Design Criteria The existence of the slightly overconsolida:ed Pleistocene clays at elevation -92 ft. MSL, indica:ed : hat signi ficant long term and dif fer-ential settlements could be expected for heavily loaded s:ructures founded on inId ividual s pread foc:ings. To eliminate differential and long term settlement considerations the heavy loads were compensated by a comoined foundation strue:ure with the Reactor Building, Reactor Auxiliary Building, and Fuel Handling Building (seismic Ca:egory I s:ructures) located on a common ma: foundat ion. The floating founda: ion principle was utiliced and the comoined foundation will apply an effective load to tne bearing stratum clays unich is approximately equal to the existing overburden pressure.
O G4W O g >
2.5-87
3
'4SES- FSA R-UNII- 3
' All' seismic Category 1 structures are founded in the Pleistocene formation on a common sat wit h a bot t om el evat ion o f -47 f t . MSL. At this level the sat bears in the upper stiff, tan and gray clays of :he Pleistocene fo rma: ion. The objective of :he common ma: foundation is illustrated in Figure 2.5-102. This figure illustrates the various soil conditions and pressures during four stages of construction ~ shodn, beginning wi:h initial soil' conditions and finishing wi:h the completed structures and backfill in place. '
The ~ soil condit ions at :he site were evaluated in terms of vertical ef fective stresses a: :he mat bearing level (-47 ft. MSL). These stresses initially were 3300 ps f prior to construction. The first const ruct ion stage illustrates the pressure upon completion of excava: ion t the bo:t om of mat elevations thereby reducirg the stress to zero. Next, an inter-mediate st_ce of construction is illustrated in which the ef fective stress at the bot:om of the mat approaches 4500 ps f. This is due to the 3_
' weight of tne concrete structures with :he water :able lowered below the mat. The final stage illustrated is with the buildings completed, the sand backfill completed, and the groundwater table back to its initial condit ion of *e ft . MSL. The ma: level bearing pressures for the ce=pleted stage will be 3100 ps f. This is 200 psf less than the initial soil pressures at the si:e. For this reason, settlement s will not be a concern
. vich this type of foundation. .
i Since this foundat ion co' n cept involves the balancing of existing soil pressures, a time history diagram of soil pressure was developed and is illustrated on Figure 2.5-103. This figure details the soil pressures at the bott re of the foundation mat. It begins with the ir ;tial soil
. pressure coaditions and develops the pressures during the progressing pnases of construction. After excavation the pressures were reduced to zero. Inis is analogous :o the phase described earlier in Figure 2.5-102. Daring :he concre:e construction stages, the pre s sures in-creased and continued until a. pressure of nearly ?!00 ps f was applied.
This press ure was predet ermined t o be a maximu= pressure that is desirable with :his :ype of foundation concept. This is based on the reconsolida-tion ct.aracteristics of the soils sad was deemed to be a prudent value to' maintain during the construction phase. In order to keep the soil pressure at this level or below, the water table will be allowed to rise thus compensating for fur:her pressure increases, as shown on Figure 2.5-103. This procedure reduces the eff'ective soil pressure and maintains the effective pressures below the 4500 psf level and establishes final e f fect ive pressures as described above. De: ailed construction stages are given on Figure 2.5-104 :hru 2.5-111. Each diagram corresponds :o :he phase outlined on the aforementioned bearing pressure time history diagram.
These figures' illustrate the vari 2us construction features involved during each phase of the work including the sand backfilling, saturation of backfill, and other const ruct ion as pect s.
In particular, the detailed foundation design considers the following princi ple s , rationale and distinct feat ures :
a) The base of the combined mat foundation is located at elevation
-47 ft.- MSL resulting in a final effective soil loading condition '
.A ,p,- -,,,t.e--r-e-- --'9v- 1r w $ "- C "-"T#T'" * *
- ~_ . _ . . . . . .- .- . . - - --. ..
- f. WSES- FSAR-UNIT- 3 '
i, 4.
} - s, of 3100.ps f as compared to the initial effective overburden pressure of 3300 ps f.
b) Design cri:eria have established a 1200 psf overload above the existing effec:ive soil. pressures which may be applied only during the construction pnase of the work. Thisi is primarily to maintain
'a margin of pressure below the preconsolidation pressure of :he materials with the lower OCR's.
c) The excavation of :he Recent deposi:s, consis:ing of soft clays, silts and sands extending to approxima:e eleva: ion -40 ft. MSL t
and subsequent excavation'of the stiff Pleistocene clays results
'in an elas:ic rebound and heave of the final exposed clay bearing strata. Refer :o Subsec: ion 2.5.4.13 for a discussion of measured foundation heave and settlemen:. Heave is minimized by excavating in incremen:s and by rapid concrete placement in designated sections of the ma: in a predetermined sequence to optimize recompression.
d) By conforming with the floating foundation principle, construction set:lemen: of :he seismic Ca:egory I strue:ures is confined essen-tially to :ne recompression of the rebound and heave experienced oy the Pleistocene ma:erials with an additional preconsolidation for :he nigher backfill imposed loading. I: is desirable to complete the major por: ion of this settlement during the construction period there-fore the applied loading sequence is arranged with :his par:icular
, as pect in considera:lon, i a) By applying a maximum effective loading of nearly 4500 psf :he major 4 amount of recompression takes place during the construction phase. -
f) During ':ne construe: ion pnase a dewa:ering sys:em is ins:alled around :ne perize:er and wi:hin :ne excava: ion :o control under-seepage tn:cugn sil: and sand layers in and belov :ne encavation 1 . s l o pe s . Re fer : Subsee: ion 2.5.4.5.2 for a discussion of the dewatering sys:em used at the si:e. A series of twelve recharge wells are also located around the perime:er of :he ma: foundation ex:ending in:o :ne compacted shell filter blanket under :he mat.
I The locations of these wells are shown in Figure 2.5-83. These
- rechstge welle assist in introducing hydrostatie uplift forces to compensate for additional constr6ction-imposed foundation loads beyond the 4500 psf allowable pressure.
In order to ensure meeting the design objectives, de: ailed excavation s pecifications and drawings were prepared. Figures 2.5-81 and 2.5-82 detail configuration of the excavation. The slopes presented on these drawings were ' established based on the soil properties determined from laboratory and field tests. The excavation specification detailed the conscruction of the concrete mat foundation such that it minimized the exposure of :he stiff clays at :he base of the foundat ion. In order to
. assure uniform pore 'p-essure distribution in the clays benes:h the ma:
upon relieving tne dewatering system, a fil:er media consisting of
' compacted shell was u:ilized. De: ailed ins:rumentation, consisting of elec:rical extensometers, mechanical heave points, pore pressure -
piezome:ers and se: lemen:. plates, were installed to monitor heave .and .
2.5-89
, ., WSES- FSAR-UNIT- 3 recompression set:lement of :he mat foundat ion. Refer to Subsection -
2.5.4.13 for a complete discussion of :he instrumenta:lon system. A plot plan showing :ne ins:rumen:ation systems which monitor foundation res ponses is presen:ed en Figure 2.5-112.
The criteria for selection of design parameters and the design methods and associated fac: ors of safe:y are based upon established soil mechanics procedures and have been noted in the relevant sections. References have been cited where applicable.
2.5.4.12 Tecnniques to Improve Subsurface conditions In order to i= prove conditions within :he plant area and to preven: lique-faction around tne NPIS all Recent ma:erial (initial plant grade to -40 ft .
MSL) was excavated and replaced wi:n compacted sand backfill. Further, to preven excessive long-term consolida: ion settlement and differential l set:lemen: a floa:ing foundation principle was utilized including a care-fully monitored construe: ion dewa:ering system to maintain foundation I pressures as close as possible to their in situ state. Re fer to Subsections l 2.5.4.5 and 2.5.a.l! for discussions of the excava: ion-backfill program I and :ne floa:ing foundation principle res pectively.
No greuting, vibroflotation rock bolting etc. beneath the NPIS was required.
g . D EM G l
2.5-90
.. _ _- )
- < ,s 1
I V
Ilaen-
~
//J626 A tt i 77d o ideso d or.s e p- cdArca ig t.sarotag nitzeag e ru e com m e s n n. r*
I~*J e pa n.s r sa n s 12 '977 Awo ulns op ivs~c6sssr>-
R.GPAt/2dol564c.ca Stodc6 t r~ s.v a .s t.</trwte /7*6*
(Z ta f tJ A t t LJ oJG t2 e* co pe.g cr5 c.,d n.s ro 26 ft4.cas TO 3 LL P Po r2 T* 7"ZJ E CON YM s ot) M Ea r V'2 C S E L .
Yt4G S GceN o < dA s tU / 9 /.3 s.J s.L 5 d russ 2 c a & rt. Z t o GoJ re c< G o eA 7 74.c & gs $ c.Lef e Ye~ ao ic. /2eom, lASA sr*G G m / ta d 15 o A Son /5 4 /0 .So.w e o r is E A- .s 4f ~$ Y 6~L- (TD P o f ryd com m ad m e. r~.
T*io o NCRL ccoea<as re<5se e rz 2 4 r-rn a: s o.
7~i16 ru tt.de A gaiA.L cp CcNcG R ^) r:J e r- wG /JA o 4J226'
/, $ rau.c.rt.r.e 4<- t N Y G q rz. r Y c c rudEi M A T',
ri,as eu+s a ootes s e o ay E~ . G n u.4 s ce a. i N pu "a vw.a ru e a op u c tz (S u-n.L 13 ) fl2Cl?7
! 2.. Co La.osa ou op gA t a Goa c. a g $ reEc. A d D .cc smisvnED l
vmssgr . A o a Mss e o o'% 't fenreo* A,ao Cuv e ren.
Cca.n.cseea eF A.Beseencoaj f 75 & < , b P/5/' 27, J, $reeu lo e en s a m e,a r- $ en a u <.r 't sa-a .r. , w e Pc. La u. 5fm/f.3 I
'Tke c e.ae< a r u.>< w ,o ru e a :a r eua tt ea a s '-ere oa.rs-c prs " P o ru,o re A u v $2Pca.rnas L E a d A cco A.o Ad c G . t.Jeva .
/b
e' 2/1, Co.sT@ as L P4L Co.a s rwa o.a To e., o ear do. 2.
5 w as e a ven- osm aso aor ro ae ,r_esoa.caaue wo we e-o .a w a ,ue o.
l
~
6 4 Yb , t,,s) G R 6 4 fG% $~C T5J & CC R A2 GiY C]~i J C a <-c o a uo e e e o a reo <a rE Qo o a-r .s sv - 3 s 2 / 77- o 7 n-a o 77-oP.c/%ses wrn w e * ),
A* om O
,, -4filiteif.n f,
) '
.- E sas: senv.:Es i~cemete. t: , 3, , ,,,e,,, ,,
- '3-535 .,,g/*,2 :uau v Assu u Nec '""' ":#Ea 3-+0' - -
et.3 . ,c, u /
NONCONFORMANCE REPORT ' ' " * * , .
INS.RUC,410NS:
f 5ee .%:4 et form 8
=
- p. s . u . .., .o uca c i. ~ : . . . e x. c v si
'Jaterferd SES 1.' nit #3 i
} . . .., : ./ 5. E C =c.'3' i.... s.
.:2 r . c :~ sc :. :: ..c a....
C:nstructicn . o. sc. ... -
PSAR Section 5.2.2.10
- t.o . : : su.: t,... ... . ....t cc: :en .r cundation Mat ..
- wam,, ree.ch ,( 4,= nes6 e> as.c f re s Oe *.o. = i .,
The too of the eat beneath the centainment
.:hich were discovered to be weeping watar. structure centains a nu-ber of cracks The rate of weeping'is generally enough to si the crack and to :soisten the surrcunding concrete. ?-
_:. .... ::: '/ -* -b ---- :: 0.1 ...oe
--.:- : S.1, : z - ' '- -k: ::::-irl *::
.M._'. c:As
'. ~ . h C .4 E .
sr
- ;. _.d- :' n .. _ZZ . ...: M 4
. / /
- s -se ></ c r : .3/:r.t.s:% .t.:n s.r%::%r:. .=ct as Ti- c
_,7,. 'h# R. A. n ar not:
- .Tc a I I.
RICO*=IND EO OISPOSITION 88 O. A. Site Surer--iser 7-23-77 (Iwf m.f !;erch if Appt.cobiel
~See A,iAcdEh sps e '7~.
l -
\ _ .SEE PC'tG:,8 t- i I ,REF3RT
.s_.
- , ! hs---
.; c .
1.a .u
. .e50.:.
n .g. -) y, {<:
- s. c. s w.
- 1XFF21 p enie.92T..2 ,1,r' J,- :;<.*q
. b f
..t = r t . s e ., . t : c . t : . s. s. i o ~ o u n ruc j!G. 0RIGG;5- ~ $ . $ S & -.
- :, x. t aa> . : : . . w .'.'
l i t. > 2ES. $UG 'l - EtECb _ '7sb3l';'1-EVALU ATION OF DISPOSITICH E*.f54 ASCO. RE ASON FOR Dt1PC$1 TION 8888 f 3./"
M MW O*4 45-s N o 4 -
% 12 htm.-tazs' a & . A h2- ev4/A%K CL
+ LQM L ~ .-Jl. a ~. aL t .114 L 'M -
_. 411 WL k a#, aan -t. J.uk
~
- 0
~ (I,,gf rmnUW -'
--y
['# E NGIN EE *1NG 1 2 9. n
.e......m [ CU ALITY ASSU 2. A NCE l -
C O N S~m u C:: 0 N
,. . t ....sm.m ~. t ..:.u.m O T- E.: ?-U -0 ' EC:E:- w E.-
d s. t s. o - . . . o a
N ..n .,-
= a , s t,j Q :.vt n... - . .
- Y* U =7 -* l=*tt !:. t
~
.c:Ep?t: et;tett ac:Ep?t: .r?=
- wwtwTs
-- .c:t.?t: ~ atsre?t: -~ .c:t.it: ~ .tss:?t: ~
~~ .c:E m t: .!?w c:vut*e s
._'~ .c:E* E: .r.t:?t:
~ .0:c. t: .s= : wwt% s t .c:t. E: .. - e - s s V. VE RIFIC ATICN OF CISPOSITION # ~
cutet:
.sc ? arct.at: e v .s . . . .
em .
a . u..u. u . . .. .. -
S y
, W W
<p, j3
s
. l .W % ^
-s . .
roasc= samviers i=ce=*omatr= / _, o , ,,,, w, ,,m
=u.u ,..,v.ANc,
.- ~ e - s.- m--
ed., ,,C,. " W3-535 - Suop #3 NONCONFORMANCE REPORT **"*-C*"**"***"*'""'
aN sse s etesa s
INSTRUCTIONS: 'See 6.c6 et (e,m. # '"" *'"*"'"C"
- wi. - o. . . o. . c - a .......-o.,...e.o. 2, Waterferd SF.S - Unit No 3
.w.... c o- -.w c e .o o c o. o ~ . . c r o. .. . o. so i-PSAR Section 5.2.2.10 Construction I
. . . . . . . . . . o , co... ... r. ... , o. ... ,. ...
Commen Foundation Mat Within the RC3 Wall I. D ESCRIP TION OF NON COM PO RM ANC E 'f rems lavel eo. Isee:I.c e',on. Cooe or Ironooro e.
$womet $lnerth el Aeolocables
- heen f rems Do No. Comair. "
This sunplemant crovides 4dditienal infor:natien en the crack pattern and dec unents the crack pactarns on the attached Field Sketch No 1564-4.1-G-28.
RFMINTARt F tee un 10CFR5455(d M Ml w M Ml ammes tyng_ mjg
^
w.4*=osi.=.tv..oe. ~ o. p s?Sdc8"""**c5 " ''E tt
- R A Hartneer 4// -
lQ A Site Super riser I I. "8' l**8-25W7 7 REComuENDED Di$PC$1TICN (Ivome, Ikerc.s ,( Apolicable) ecoce. T. cm Ce,a. cvata n u d"D.s.&n.T.oo
,.E- o 7 .. . .M. w . . o ..1- . c o. _ . c .- . = , - . . . . o - - ,l-..W.c4 6CAA sa. D%.c s'/zch7 I I I. EVAL.U ATION OF O!5PQ53T10N BY EB ASCO, REASON FOR Ot3PO$tT10N mae o et 3.s~ N A> w W _L 'D L 8 Y A/0/2. 10 3 - 533 Je0K \i_
I y O ENoiNe RiNo O ouAuTY ASSURANCE C CCNSTRUCTION [OTHER AUTHCR1:ED PERSONN E*,,
n ,.i ,o . . . . . . . . . . = . . , .... .........., .............
{
.... g g, u,,p o-.
- ... .~.
_-tectatum gaccretts wir=,_,, arste.tro rats i_gac=ceven - ar;reven r acerm?co ac:rette arsrette ec== a c er =+ r= . = e=== rw ts erarctr=
acer.-ro it= e=== ruts - acera se itw ce==r=,s IV. VERIPicAttoN oP Di$PO$1 TION a usarc NOT arCU4REO H.a L cA _..4'
"**V.;P.!/;.t* ** "/ p A ,,,_ /
a u A /..t. We 7
/
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . % %a
. m ^
~. * '
- . J
- .{. . ' ,
NONCON70RMANCI RIPCRT l CLostraI vrRITICATICN NCR No. W 3 - S"3 $'
M So*
- z,
~
Rapair or reverit to be vi:=assed by Ibasco's Q.C. != spec:cr Mas C No Corree:1ve Action Taken (Use sketch if secessaM
. l
/ b w Yaes a m Y w Y ' Mr k A Y b- k &
BtL JL_d.L)M nJi_ a aA
_ %m a o e, J a_ ,M A u , ,,,3. uns
)b c L Am d ~r,ad l- _ Y , m d Of A a J n ~ " L ,.1 L tL J '
I V G I 40 I O L' i-d zd, dw f L .z L , -d- u n
% W00d *" MeY: A 8ll9l73 O ! !
() . I Q ,
0a. L $0Sm
_ 'M9 5 4A
, ebs/,, ma 1L w &
Q $h & )) c/2 a> 7 ygs f) xkk'A Luz.9l13h,f"A A b Y
/ 0 C .
Con:rac:or"s Q.C. !=rp c:=r A-- Da:a - - - - - - .-
3 ,
E5asco's Q.C. Inspec:or . 04:e -
e l -
p
+
form.No. ASP- C 4 (3-16-76) '
m -.
s 4 .
EVALUATION OF DISPOSITION TO NCR SUPPL. 43 u) 3- 5 3.:$ .
The newly identified cracks which are indica:ed by the dashed line on the at: ached ska:ch, are to be sealed and repaired according :o the Supplemen
- #2 attached to N01 W3-535. All such cracks beneath a specific concrete placanen: must be sealed and dry prior :o concrete placement. These cracks ,
af:ar being repaired, irill not cause.any further effect on the structural.
capabilities of the foundation mat. If any of the construction joints indicate leakage, the entire construction joint is :o be sealed until all leakage ceases.
Quality Control should carefully inspec: he cracks prier :o place =en:
- o verify that no cracks have been issed due :o surface dus or placenen:
equipmen and tha: the cracks tha: have been repaired are no: con:inuing
- o leak.
t 0 ct_8ao
. E. allagher 8-26-77 Site Ccucrece-Hydraulics Engineer 9
4 e
GO e
=
.M @
4 e
-- - - - - -p 4 7 , .-
..I)li% ei. 01t. 51oR M G I' g .. .--
. :.. . S.' ' '-N h' Y "
,i;I .
- p. ,, . . < . _ - . ,.
(l ,,. .
, pin grotj qsioisol(4tQ i .l. F 9 .,r & 4, .t e L. If
- , ,/
- 3
"{
. , . . ' g... ' . . , . ... .
.d , /' cfap'/cWs .
I.
'j
., ' , ^ ' , -
i.
< . . Q'Q'9,7 i ; , b
,/ All, A90ljND- - ,
['"
i ..a.?
%, } %
l -
..- e .
, , 1
.v '
,4 .
- n. :..u t.a c. .
- im .'. .i.,
.r. .,,,c(.:.pdg.y', g
- g. x i 4 i .
4' - T ,rf. 15 .' '.
j p N S .. . - . ., Yb' i,it . : Uli? / ^
J ' ."'. .j/' 'rb.;,'8 617)
,1 '):' ,l.- 14.IO, .
et'f29l@l, . .;,e y jiQ h'.h.' j
%;,.F,. ,m.$m:
1 ll. - b.M,g.0 sM,.oM. >. .. ,' - (bf di.3 I$ik;
-y .s -
J;8 J
.:l .
j }
tn;yl[ripgi3.3:$..,.,:m.,y,a .- . .. 3 d. .
)
V
. d
..m s.$
- w JrA
- ,W, p- {.. c4t /.<.,'4 .a s trir.'iiii :1.,0iPI. !
o, ,
--.s _
...+
v ,nrxp9 a nuy ; ,
.J. :>,.p.fg. m4 ,.,e. t . b
'. , y
.y'
-- x- -s p kr, M.
gt-.t. l .- &
'il - -
g,r . c .3 , f ,' ,.,,...,-.3.-"~~~~ . :
gy ,. t
- .ity.4. e . g.,,, q g
. .e
.1 f
p;i.,y.kI.) [.. i ':($,y,.) ,g,5 3[--.q, ,1 g,_ k* 1 3 -
- 4 g " - -
-, ,t.g.J;gpG@a..,.
,4 % v- r .'".,.; .g.gy'q
( i e q:. 5s-u ,
- .fl.;.,,.;.f . -. - - .. 86 ' '
~ ~ ~~
~,
g .
.y2. . 6 2 t. . .
$,g , . . _ . . . , ..._m..y
--.-.-.7.9; y..:,,,.;. .-7 H'M e.9 ,;
p,g .2 . .mc_ . . . .. . : . . . . . _ . ... g -p.- -- ,9 .
LOUISIANA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY- '
- 'l WATERFORD:S. E S.4 UNIT NO. 3 a,;
- ..- W. , .. '
1980-11'65 'MW INSTALLATION l,.
.,,,._. . . t h.a,,. - .. .
.p,g ..y. g g.
. g.p 'l i, l .,.M.. ~. i c y . K . C .'..'. hMK.
~
p, ,.. .,
~
.. .:.:2: .
EDASCO' SERVfCES M0kPORATED 'FIELQ ' .y q$55
/.19 /4t 11DIV.L JI'NI til' - '. ?' '
.... r MC. . , . SCALE ![ )b , l ',", ,8. ... NEfA0 e.! ', ;' ; .
OATE 8-} 7 TT' Ij 37/ ,'-
I tW (W g (pocTio#{
'- i'"'
f
, , F1 (D SMETCH No. . !'
= . _ . . _ .
y ,
SK 1564 - ' :4 '
-BATE REVislotl BY CH. RELEASED cH._vfhie.
- . ] i , a .
M.l'-G2f . ' .' 9'.;
g .
.h'
'q.
I .1
} .,
i , e ' l'
.. .iti e . , ,
- _ ,.,.y --
u.4 ac. p .19 . . L W ^***
- g . . . . . . - .
f I
f, i
i n .
L
? c;).a.
EBASCO SERVICES -
3= e ] l INCORPORATED -
m U T I :. I T Y CCNSULTANTS -
3 N GINE E R S T
'~
l l
TWO RECTOR STREET N EW YO RK. N.Y.10006 m1 w .
August.'24, 1977 1 LW3-1617-77 1
~14Q-R'-12 l i ,
/ '
Mr D L Aswell /
1 Vice President-Power Production Louisiana Power & Light Company 142 Delaronde Street O 4 \ l New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 s
Re: J' A ""1 SIS _i.5!!_ NG.4 / C' ~ 2 MU.UCTION 2;C'DECw._ P '
CONC?I~I 70CCACON MAT CEACK2iG <
BENEA H i=. CCN A20:E""
As requested by Mr A I Eenderson, we are forwarding one copy of our file on Construction Incident No. 8. This conta_ns the bases for our opinion that this incident is considered to be of the non-reportable type.
If you have any questions or require additional infornation, please advise us.
Very truly yours,
. - O R'-Ar/g R K Stampley RKS:PG:ej Project Manager 77 Act:
cc: D L Aswell L V Maurin A I Henderson (w/ enc 1)
D B Lester P V Prasankumar C J Decareaux Tower Production Dept-Nuclear (3)
E W Otillio C G Che em T F Gerre F I Shaughnessy J M Brooks -
J O Booth (2) . . ._ .
4
. , , - - - - - - - y , , ., ---~r - - -
b.
Wall 499508-il A4 and Shield Wall Reinforcine Steel The inspector observed the repaired .. on or 1 11A4 which still had the forms in place. ~.I e info .d the inspector p . d wall had been that the reinforcing repaired and that thesteel nonca",cr.ne ma r . a been closed out.
Final documentation of the pair ill eviewed during a subsequent inspection. Th ' tem wil amain open pending review of the final documentation.
c.
Concrete Foundation Mat Crackino Beneath the Containment The inspector reviewed the status of a potentially significant construction deficiency relating to cra - in the foundation mat which was reported to RIV on Au =_ l- 19e The cracks are located beneath the containment entifi by water seepage.
Review of correspondence indic ed i requiring that the cracks be sealed prior t lace oncrete beneath the containment vessel. The nspec a the sealing of cracks with Sikadur "High-mo LV." nis # .m will remain open pending review of the result ' the ing during a subsequent inspection.
E. Safety Related Structural Steel The inspector observed structural steel erection by American Bridge in the area of the cooling towers. Specifically observed were the bolting and torque testing of four joints. These work activities were found to be in accordance with American Bridge Procedures No. 4 and 10.
Qualification records of the QC inspector were reviewed. These records indicated that the QC Inspector was qualified in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6.
The inspector reviewed calibration records for torque wrench No. 9495 and the Skicrore-Wilheim Bolt Tester SN. 3055. The torque wrench was
! found to be calibrated in accorcance with Procedure No. IC. The bolt tester was found to be calibrated by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory on March 14,1977; however, the tester is not specifically included in the calibration program as part of the procedures. This and similar omis-sions of equipment requiring certification had been identified in the Ebasco audit of American Bridge, Report No. JG-77-7-1, dated July 29, 1977. This matter will be resolved through the close out of the Ebasco audit. Resolution will be verified during a subsequent inspection.
This item is considered an unresolved item pending review of final closecut of the audit findings report.
Ho items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
1 l
m e D em G ge 6h6=
l _
i
l During the inspection of the above fillet welds, it was noted that the zinc-ri:h paint apolied to the welcs as a protective l coating in accordance with Fisenbach and Moore procedure CP-203, Rev. 2. contained cracks. The inspector reviewed construction l
procedure CP-203 and cuality control instruction QCI-101'43 to '
de: ermine the requirements defining an acceotable painted surface and could not ascertain well defined acceptance criteria. The ir.spector discussed the matter with the licensee's Quality Assurance Te:hnician and the contractor's Project QC Manager and was informed that painting was inspected during the final inspection of the ir.s talled supports. The inspector expressed concern to the licensee regarding the definition of quality requirements for the zinc coating. 1 The licensee committed to redefine the quality requirements for the costing and review the components already painted to insure tne coatings were not cracked.
This item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
- 10. Sicnificant Construction Deficiencies Recorted by the Licensee The ins ector reviewe: licensee action related to the following ite:.s which were previously recorted as significant or potentially significant constru:: ion deficiencies in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFP. 50.55(e).
- a. Common Foundation Mat Cracks After an unsuccessful attempt at pressure injection of Con ressive 1380 epoxy into hairline cracks caused by mat flexure, a more effective procedure was initi rol the leakage of water through the cracks. This ed to ted of chipping a one in:n ceep trench along r gt f the rack, roughening and cleaning of the surface me 00: strip on ei-her side Of the track, and #illi Of e :n 5:P. E . Hi-Mod-LV e::xy. All re;:ai-s b=" --
e:... . . . E -6 were monitored for one day and no in:icatic f er 1 ge was cbserved. The in-spector viewed the resul #
u sealing operations performed in anticipation of future fill placements which should, when placed reverse the flexure and minimize the cracks. O c t.os E.o
- b. Excessive Air Entrainment Additional borings in wall pl
- 571-S01-5B and -23 have identified the area where c e sive strength is less than the design strength o ds square inch as an area from one to four feet bel e to f wa 5B and up to and includ-ing thirteen feet from th xtreme st e of this placement. The total area involved is th fore a oxi ely fifty-two square feet out of a total wall area o 'ght and eighty-two square feet.
The wall is three feet thic
-9 .
=
"*.5 ' ! S .*7 t aas:0 stavicts sesCeasemat te c , . .. . >
... . .: A E . 5... C. s..... .
CU ALITY A$$U R ANCE
. t .C o . .. . . . !d 3- 4#M_ soscoseanxiscs asecar v " - o -
....e.....
Punk . In.e. geer el NCR
'NSTRt;CTIONS: free b.ch .i te,w mD *PDi'i) CDDE. 244:c. u,y 9 g*g* 99 C _
- .s~. o. .. oa e ~ s , e.....s ~ o.s.. ec ~ o. .s.
+ .w? .c c. L.... .m.
.A J
- , b , p.., ;*., -
. . . . u s . . c o-. v . w c e ... o c o . c o - , . . c r o. ... ..o. . o. ...
J. A. JCSES CS*'EC. ICE CD. M3 >.;y 4 c c .c . . . . ... o r co- ,-a-v....,o....,c-...
- 1. g D ESC RIP T10N O F NON CON F O Ku ANC E fl' ems in.el ed, Specificefien, Cose e, Stone'oM to Which items Co Nef Comply.
Submet $besch if Appliceb'el T.ere are cencrete = ads in de base rat of the Paa: tor k.:xiliarf Buildine. ' itis is evidence bv the eerC=1ation of water in sc all a: r:nt.nts, u: thrauch these crads. _
These cracks are locaw 4- "e Gas Surce Ta .k Rocra.. Waste Gas Ta .k Pocn, and Waste
- Gas C:: cresscr "B" -.:cz ., all at elevation -35. 00. See attached ?.S.A.R. re ui.reme.t.s .
fer suoclene .tal in' = ation. ICII: ':Sese are exar=les of stere cracks w.re fou.x*.
p . u ... e ,
. D'. :C: M3 i
s . c . ~ o .. . . . w . sy . . . e = c- o . .~ a ~ o - c o- o . .. - c e .. .
v i- -s < c o .a -- c.'s..
S. Ec m n e _.Q% 0. A. Scr c. En . /2 asco 5-11-53 l 1. R ECCuu END ED Dis 93$1TlCN '*' '$ubmaer Skeech if Aeol.coble)
}0Le e E== p ~r AS Ts , REPORTABLE v. c ::n f
10CR50.55is) I ~, r1 C h e -- Sh MMWJ T \ti ~ . Joca?1 ,,i i r:1
.'. TI:R. Date: pjQ
'~
s . .. c . s : . s . . . . : . . c . , , , c : : ... n . - s : .. -.c- . .. . .c.::=.... .c .
6ms.c e. (_e Niu. N C - ? - IG A - 6:secc 5 E 5 l i t. EV ALU ATICN O F D11o C5ITICN ST EDO. R E ASON FOR DISPOSITICN .sas I
.,- - 5-t v. CC RR ECTivE ACTION ' [ E ' * * * ' [ N'et R e e v.,e ci 5 /
24,, -T J We J.'5 9-
.w_- -
~
v;"',{ ENGIN EE RING l QU A LITY ASSU R ANCE l CCNSTRUCTICN l C?WER
- 4
- . , . usa u.c %.=
g .g p ,s **=E **s**T at aaws s 's == a "c
- l' , j'Y -
j s . .A *'/ = ~ ' D h_ & Y'==
.it ca?t
.-t
, .f/* 2r/n' g ,: -/. .3 l: ATE
[.*:E*itt [ stJEC?tc "p"~, C ; t P T E's [ mt;tCtro , a C C E p
- t : ] at.'ECTED ~,_~ aCCE**to ] at.ECTE:
" ..C:t* t: .i
- C:w=ta. s
'e - - -
- aC:tr te ei?w cewwtw?s -'~ *Ceta t: **?w _ ww e % :_s
-- aC:E*?t: ei*w :: = = t a.
- s V I.- v '.R m C ATICN C' Ot$ rcilitCN
_ m Eq,s eg g ks- 5 .i'n t~:m 4 a t:$3 '
/ -
as $9%** *C TC . :'~*
. " , . .,.g.;g .
- e .
/
." - *' ~
h A h, k 1 - l .2. I E N
P6dC k ATTAC*." MENT E The effect of postulated videspread hairline cracking of the base =at has been investigated by Civil Engineering for stability of the g
Contairment Vessel against flotation and overturning under buoyant conditions caused by postulated groundwater intrusion and by Corrosion Engineering Contain=en for groundwater induced corrosion of reinforcing steel and t:w= *iew t Vessel m w bo:to= head. %~ wew m ,u ric tio%. Q - r i.i. es
- C M Fa s e = Tow Mc3 d " '%# "
Based it on their findings that there are no stability or corrosion problems is concluded that no corrective action is required.
See attsched =e=orandu=s:
- 1. Me=orandu=
dated AugustCCR-LW3-77-55M 5, 1977. frc= A.W. Feabody/M.D. Oliveira to P. Gress=an,
- 1. Me=orandu= frc= ?.C. I.iu to 3. Grant dated May 21., 1963.
& -' % _9E s z. r - E s 88
. 8 C
T#
m O , @h #
e
- ' e e
._. ,_, , , ~ _ -.-4.. . . , _
- )
5
} .
J. . ./ ' -- ,5
((,C k.. LO Y ' (- 2. I 2.
R G, c- 2 o
August S 1977
. COR-LW3 -7 7 -5 5M To: P Cross =an '
- 1 e # /
Trom: llf4w A W Peabody /M D Oliveira
, % W. e' lO * #
4
Subject:
LOUISIAD. P0t ER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT 3 CCRROSION OF REINFORC'.SC S*'IEL AND STIEL CC). TAI!D:ENT VESSEL ?iATES IN CC!CACT VI"E WATER In accordance with your :elephone request, ve have analysed a possible situation in the ce==en =a: ,
co'ncrete cracks found on :he surface of :he =a:where suppesedly s cund water weep ceuld corrode the reinforcing ment Vessel.steel and the outside botto= plates of the Steel Centain-It is a preven fae: tha: :=ncre:e by its alkaline na:ure passivates ca: bon s: eel e= bedded in it.
It is also known that vater in contact with c=ncrete beco=es alkaline and consequently its corrosivity :o steel decreases conriderably.
In addition to these factors, assu=ing that grbund water is lef t inside.
the crack ne:vork to a certain ex:ent, this water will be near stagnant
. and without replenishment of exygen. Consequently, the rate of cc :csion under the above circ :n.s:ances, if any, vill be nsgli 31ble.. This applies to the reinf ::ing rebars as well as :
pla:es, in case the repairs presently being c:nducted de ::e the cu: side cf the vessel bo fully preven: :he vate fr:: reaching the vessel.
!CD/hn ec: R K S:a=pley J O Booth /S D Tovier D N Calligan L Skoblar W F Cundaker .
e-e jy ..,
uu25 W
4 O
op & . *
- I -
I
4
. /.. ~ 7 - u z,
- w :-62.g_
~
m.c, c s
(
C ZiU 83 e
1
% S, God' ca x27]
<;R m % . P c. L.lw interoffice correspondence EECO Fr'.7 R!F. File: 6-s-20 f
. )TAITT.3t?D S35 UMIT NO. 3 STER
- COCAnWT 50A3III'rY S.is is :: ::nfin ur,:::versstien ths: the a: eel 00.021==+:: stability 5.as been reviewed for as i=n t: ally :::diti; tha: the es: eriebeofresults de ::n- of :,:a to subsurf ace water up te 5*.-l.30 f:.
tai:::en sculd r.:b
- ac t such a :: di:1cs the sesbility of the con:*ir-review wit will sethave be concluded ce=?romised. that u:ds:"he etsbili 7 calculations wC1 he included in .
W1cne n, ISAR Damirn I rus - 6W12-Fsa-002, 4
- -CL
- dg ect C A Is.=ehr.::n
/4M s.*
55Lm.ie W.3. a
? C ,4u -
d Cg M$1 e ha99 - --
(
g.,33,2 5 -
G g , - , - , , - , , - - - - - -