ML20090K792

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Review of Us Testing Field & Lab Const Test Data on Soils Used as Fill. Related Info Encl
ML20090K792
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 07/31/1979
From:
BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17198A223 List: ... further results
References
CON-BOX-02, CON-BOX-2, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8405240423
Download: ML20090K792 (160)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- MIDIAND UNITS 1 & 2 JOB NO. 7220 REVIEW 0F U.S. TESTING M AND IABORATORY CONSTRCCTION TEST DATA ON SOILS USED As y:I,I, ~. BECHTEL AS50 CIA 38 730FESSIOKAL CORPORATION July 1979 8405240423 840517 PDR FOIA RICE 04-96 PDR t--...-..-

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE i 1. Use of Laboratory Test compaction Curves 1 2. Questionable Retests 2 3. Theoretically Impossible Test Results 2 4. Repeated use of Questionable Laboratory Test Data 3 5. Limits of Accuracy and Acceptability for Test Data 3 6. Accuricy of Test Equipmene 5 7. Islative Density Tests 5 8. Summary 6 TABLE A - Listing of all classifications referenced in Plant Area Fill Soil Test Records which were used for 20 or more Field Density Tests. TABLE 3 - Notes on Questionable Clearing of Failed Tests, TABLE C - Notes Relative to Questionable Test Data FIGURE 1 - Moisture Density for 3MP 278 - All Tests FIGURE 2 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - Passing Tests only TIGURE 3 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - Nuclear Densometer FIC3E 4 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - Sanicone Tests FIGCPI 5 - Moisture Density fo,e BMF 278 - Nuclear Density Passing Tasts T3UIE 6 - Heistere Density for 3HP 273 - Sand cone Passing Tests FIGURE 7 - Window of Acceptability for Test Results FIGITPE 8 - U. S. Testing Co. Proctor Method Comparisons FIGURE 9 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - Adjusted Heisture Content FIGURE 10 - Comparison of Wet and Dty Relative Density 6 { i

~ ~ ~ ~ REVIEW 0F U. S. TESTDIG FTELD AND M80RATORT CONSTRUCTION TEST DATA ON S0ILS USED AS FILL This review of the quality control tests of the earth fin at the Midland Sits was made as a result of settlement of tL. fill supp rted Mers1 2 nerstm. building in excess of that predicted. Soil samples obtained in borings indicated that soil conditions beneath the plant structures are not compatible with the quality of fin that could be espected based on the results of the control tests made by U. S. Testing Company. All fill was accepted as it was being placed based on the results of the field tests performed by U. S. Testing Company. The review showed many discrepancias in the. test results as outlined if the foM owing paragraphs. Review comments are based on the requirements of the technical specifications for fin placement and to subcontract entered into by U. S. Testing Company. 1. Use of Laboratory Test Convection Curves Table 9-1 of specification 7220-C-208, page 145 required one field density and asiscure content test be taken for each 500 cubic yards of fill placed. It also required one compaction, grain siae, and specific gravity for each 10,000 cubic yards of asterial. This gives a ratio of 20 field density tests to 1 laboratory compaction test. Although 20t1 is not a strict upper limit, it is a guideline; should density tests be taken more frequently than one per 500 cubic yards of fin the ratio could be higher. The actual ratio is shown in Table A attached. In fact, some of the laboratory compaction tests were used to determine percent compaction for several hadred field density tests taken oier a period exceeding two years. Even though no time requirements for the period of use of laboratory tests are specified, it is unlikely that any borrow source in this area would be of such uniform character that such extended use of a compaction curve, truly representative of a large quantity of natorial, would be applicable. Listed below are selected laboratory test data results indicating the vide range of soil properties that werereported. Such a wide range is typical for soils of the kind used in the fin asking prediction of maximum density, based on visual inspection estremely difficult if not impossible without testing. MIN. DEN {ITT MhX. DENSITY OFT. ICISTURE ,gg, (1hs/FtJ) (ths /ft3) (nercent}

  • tHp269 127.3 10
  • sHF278 H7. 0 13.2

~

  • 3HF279 140.8 3.7
    • RD24 100.9 119.2
    • RD33 90.2-109.7
    • RDel 109.3 123.3
  • tHF refers. to proster type test.
    • RD refers to relative density test run by dry method.

e v - - - -... - -.. p.

. = :.-. ::- -. = =.=.= :- = : = : = : - - ~. - - - - - ~ ~ 8 H l Fage 2 1 2. Questionable Retests A field density test that fails to meet requirements of the specifi-j cation should have been reported to Bechtel who then would have required reworking of the area and ratesting. Of the 663 "fa111as" tests which were marked " cleared" by another test, i in over 10% (72 tests) of the results, the clearing of the " failed" density test was apparently resolved by merely using another laboratory j compaction curve with either lower maximum density, which resulted in in the percent compaction being increased sufficiently, or different optimum asisture content which caused the fill to meet the requirements l of the specification. The possibility exists that soil was rercoved af ter a "failins" test and replaced by different material, but the records do not indicate this and it is not possible free the record l to determine if a new density test was nede. In other cases, tests 1 labeled " failed" were incorrectly cleared though the same laboratory standard was referenced. For example, in sorse cases ratests to clear a " failed" test were not taken in the same area or at the approximate 4 j same elevation. More than 40 ratests were over 20 feet from the " failed" cost location (as recorded in the test reports) and some were over 200 (' feet from the original test location. In general, if after a "failing" j test the whole area is reworked, the density test location is not too critica1' assuming that the correct laboratory compaction curve is used r i for comparison. However, in the plant fill work areas were relatively j saali, and soil characteristics showed considerable variation necessita-ting ratesting in the immediate vicinity of the "faillag" test. Retest j should be taken in the lift or soil layer that has been reworked. Al-l most 50 ratesta vere taken at different elevations, some up to 10 ft. t from the " failed" test. It should be noted that 3echtel field personnel gave the locations for ratesting. This was not a U. S. Testing rappen-sibility. Two ratests were dated prior to the time the original test l " failed". Over 130 "failing" tests were marked as ("non Q") and never recorded cleared, as they were outside the saftey related area. I \\ "abla 3 is a compilation of notes relative to questionable clearing of ( ) failed tests. 4 i 3. Theoretically Impossible Test Results soils cannot be mere than 100 percent saturated; therefore, all field density test data points, when plotted as dry density versus moisture content, must be below the sero air voids curve as defined by the specific j gravity of the meterial. Specifications do not require examination of the sero air voids curve, but it is considered coimen practica relative l to compaction plots. There are numerous cases in the U. S. Testing Company data where points plot above the sero air voids curve. Figure 1 I attached shows a typical laboratory compaction test curve with field I test results plotted on it. Many of the field test results are to i determine percent compaction plot above the sero air voids curve. I Provided the specific gravity is correct this is not possible so that ( all such points sust represent erroneous data. i i j .--o*=====>*

  • '+-.g.==.*

- * = * , _ _ - - - - _ _. _ _. _ _ _. -. _. - _.. _ - _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ ~ _ _,. -- -_.,. -, -- ~,,_,. --,- _,

e - -. - - - ~ P:33 3 i The fact that a large number of test results plot above the zero air voids eurve tends to make all test results questionable. Also, referring to Figure 1 it would appear that soil density varied widely. Specifications called for compactive effort results as defined by ASTM D 1557 which is 56,255 ft-lb/ft3 energy. This was modified to a laboratory test compactive effort of about 20,000 ft-lbs/f t3 energy, often referred to as Bechtel Modified Proctor (BMP). Laboratory compaction test curves should be related to the same effort as that called for in i the field for use in comparing with field density tests to determine percent compaction. According to plots of field data shown on Figure 1, 3 density varied from about 108 lb/ft3 co. about 130 lb/ft. It is doubtful i that the soil classification or other properties would be similar for such ^ a wide variation in density. It is noted that 100 percent of modified Proctor { ASTM D 1557) which is difficult to obtain, is rated at 56,255 3 ft-lb/ft energy. The curve plotted on Figura 1 is at about. 20,000 f t-lb/ft i For comparative purposes it was determined bg U. S. Testing in 1974 energy. that 100 percent of specified effort (20,000 f t-lb/f t ) is approximately i equal to 95 percent of the maximum densief as determined by ASTM D 1557 (56,255 3 } ft-lb/ft ) Reference Figure 8. i j 4. Renested use of Questionable Laboratory Test Data i j Some laboratory compaction test data were used repeatedly even thou;;h they i continued to show suspect field test results. This could be indicative of questionable laboratory data or the fact that soil was not being placed or compacted according to ' specifications. Either case,is a cause for concern. 1 i j l Several specific gravity calculations are in error, such as for 3MP 273 l and 274. In the case of 3MP 273, the =ero air voids curve passes through } the laboratory compactica curve. In another example, SMP 297, the laboratory compaction curve is invalid due to calculation errors, yet was referenced by field density tests 22 times. i l Table C is a compilation of notes relative to questionable test data. l 5. Limits of Accuracy and Accentability for Test Data i Figures 1 through 7 attached will be referenced in discussing limits of l accuracy of acceptability for field test results as compared to laboratory test date. The figures show plots of compaction data for BHP 278 which are typical of all test results. l 3 Specified laboratory compactive effort was 20,000 ft-lbs/f t d field l compaction effort was originally specified at 56,255 ft-its/f but was j changed by Revision 5 dated 7/8/75, specification 7220- 210, Section 13.7, Fase 57 to also,be equal to about 20,000 ft-lbs/ft I I I l I ee e

  1. es e e me e, o.m e

e-e < o. a ae e

  • * = ee e. =

a 4 e a ey

7 Pcg3 4 The specified 20,000 ft-lbs/ft3 relating moisture and density for a specific soil.sffort establishes a compaction curve i for field placed fin to be within t 2 percent of optimum moisture asMoisture was specified determined by this effort. Percent of the==W== density. Density ves specified to be greater than 95 l As compactive effort is increased in ? the laboratory test, maximum density win be increased and optinum moisture content win decrease. to the extent that the field moisture content will permit it.This change can only occ j Once field compaction is such that tha fill density is significantly higher than 4 abouc 105 percent of==*=v,the specified tolerance from optimum moisture content in the laboratory compaction test may no longer be } cyplicable for field control. content acceptable at the* A + 2 percent numerica1'value of moisture specified compactive effort would be too wet et a higher efforr since the zero air voids curva defines the absolute mazimum that can be achieved, indicating that higher densities for that soil are impossible. such material, the data are in error.Therefore, if the record shows high densities for This was apparently overlooked. P, lots of field data for compaction test BMP 273 are shown on Figures 1 through 6. plotting data for the figure.The title of each figure gives the assumptions nade in j that a majority of field tests were made using the nuclear device.In comparing i two test results shown on Figure 4 for the sand cone method indicates one The i test result on each side of the zero air voids curve. above the zero air voids cerve (shown on Figure 4) is designated byThe one faning j U. S. Testing Company as the only passing sand cone test (shown on Figure 6) Far a field test result to be valid as van as "?assing" it must fan with-i in a wen defined area on the plot containing the laboratory compaction This area or window of acceptability is shown for a hypothetical curve. csmpaction curve on Figure 7a that would meet requirements of Specification 7220-C-210. of specified density, vertical linetIt is defined by horizontal lines at 95 percent and 105 p ) through t 2 percent of optimum moisture content, securation about half way between the compaction curve and 100 pe i i saturation (zero air voids curve). The practical upper limit of 105 parcent of specified density is not defined in the specifications. wee arbitrarily chosen as numbers greater than this give increasingly It i invalid comparisons between field test results and the specified laboratory j compaction test curve. Therefore, if all data points fall within the defined window there would be no reason to assume that they are wrong. However, when many data points fan outside the designated area there is ' A review of all data indicates that about 25 percent of the cohes test results fan within this area. t I Figure 73 shows an area where field test results would be acceptable,. in theory even though not in strict accordance with 'the specifications. up to a compactive effort related to ASTM DFigure 73 was arrived at by e is considered to be a practical upper limit. 1557 (56,255 ft-lb/ft ) which ethesive soil test results would plot in this area.About 40 percent of all e ...... - -. ~ - - -.. - ~=-~~ - ~.A-~.- ~ ~ a*

o e 1 Page 5 2 6. Accuracy of Test Equipment l Almost all (over 95%) field density testa on cohesive soils were made using the Nuclear Density device. Specification 7220-C-210 section i 12.4.2 page 42 indicates this to be acceptable for moisture content determination provided that the results are compatible with those obtained by ASTM D 2216. Similarly, section 12.4.4 says density deter-mined by the nuclear device is acceptable when results are compatible with density as determined by ASTM D 1556. In a. letter from U. S. Testing to 3echi:e1 (dated May 30, 1974), the average deviation of the nuclear device from oven-dry moistures was +.12% for a set of 30 tests. However, th9 standard error of estimate is 1.8% for the data with the range of differences being from - 3.2% to +3.9%. Thus, accuracy of the nuclear device is questionable, and could i translate into errars of about i 4 pcf in the dry density calculation. (It should be noted that errors in the moisture content tend to shift 4 the position of test results on a moisture density plot approximately parallel to the zero air voids curve, assuming the in-place wet density is correct, and thus do not explain the large number of points which plot outside the zero air voids. Compara Figures 1 and 9). No reliable correlation between sand cone and nuclear density tests j were carried out therefore there is no basis for determining if U. S. Testing would have performed better using the sand cone procedure. I However,it is clear that a large number of the nuclear density tests are wrong. This can be explained by considering the wee unit weight may have been wrong or both the moisture concent and unit weight =ay have been wrong. A reliable correlation with ' properly conducted sand 4 cone tests should have revealed this, but it was not apparently done. f 7. Relative Dansity Tests i Cases were noted where densities in material classified on the data sheet as zone 3 (sand) were compared to the maximum densities in proctor type tests and other cases where densities in clay soils were compared to the = =4=um density in relative density tests. An error must exist in the record in such esses either in the classification of the soil on data sheet or in coupsring field test results to inappropriate laboratory i test data. In general, it appears that relative density tests were used 'in control, ling density of sand fill. There were a significant number of arithmette errors on calculation sheets even though there are signatures 1 on the sheets indicating they had been checked. Over 100 errors were found in calculations, of relative density from 8/15/79 through 12/78 (not all of these errors change the acceptability of the test results). l f I. l i 9 .. -. ~

w. z --

- Pasa 6 l-l ASTM D 2049 section 7.1.2 Wet Method states: " Note 2 - While the dry method is preferred from the standpoint of securing results in a shorter pcriod of time, the highest =v4=== density is obtained for some soils in a saturated state. At the beginning of a laboratory test program, or when *a radical change of materials occurs, the navimum density test should bo performed on both wet and dry soil to detezzine which method results in the higher nwimua' density. If the wet method produces higher maximum densities (in excess of one percent) it shall be followed in succeeding tests." An example of wet and dry relative density is shown on Figure 10. j U. S. Testing Company apparently did not do this frequently enough, or on a broad enough range of non-cohesive soil types. As a consequence many i field density test results exceed 100 percent of maximum dry laboratory relative density. As an example, for laboratory test RD55 a total of 566 field tests were made. Of this total, 364 tests were greater than 100 pereene compaction. The highest relative density found was 142.2 i,. Porcent with the majority of tests over 100 percent falling in the range i of 100 percent to about 130 percent. Since the difference in maximum d:nsity between vet and dry methods is about 4 to 5 lbs/c. ft. (based on recent data) any test result greater than about 115 percent (based on the i dry method) is suspect. i l Even if 'the wet laboratory test nethod data were available for all sands, it appears an unacceptably high nmber of field test results would i greatly exceed 105 percent relative density even based on the wet =v4==. 8. Summary 4 In summary, there are five major faults contained in the Midland Compacted Fill Density Test Reports as follows: 1 l 1. erroneous field density test data. .2. incorrect soil identification l 3. incorrect (or questionable) laboratory test data. ] 4. calculation errors 5. improper or incomplete clearing of " failed" tests. l 1' Itcas 4 and 5 represent existing faults in the data which could be s i corrected. However, as a result of items 1 through 3, there is no rational means of dece=4-4=- wk.ish test results are valid and which i cro not. Since more than one half of the test results for relative dansity and percanc compaction fall outside the possible theoretical comparison I limits, it,must be concluded that these test results are suspect and sheuld not be used alone for acceptance of plant area fill. Therefo re, j cther means of testing have been established and employed to determine if the fill in any given area is acceptable. t I Also in item 4 it should be noted that on many occassions the inplace density was divided by the maximum density from the relative density tccc to get percent compaction, these tests were also used to clear other pricing tests. I ..y_ _ _.

i TABLE A Listing of All Classifications Referenced in Plant Area Fill Soil Test Records Which were Used for 20 or More Field Density Tests Classification

  • No. of Tests 3200 90 3251 31 3252 22 3254 42 3255 57 3260 68 3261 36 3262 165 3269 227 3270 226 3271 141 3274 37 B276 21 3277 15 8 B278 82 3297 22 R015 20 R016 61 R024 248 R030 54 R035 59 R038 39 R039 28 R040 35 R041 69 R042 103 R043 48 R044 71 R045 43 R049 63 R054 118 R055 566 R059 65 R061 589 R063 42 R065 59 Note:

Spec. 7220-C-208 gives a ratio of approximately 20 field tests to each laboratory test. l me em+ eaman

u f i TA3LE 3 Notes on Questionable Clearing of Failed Tests l 1. Tess, number MD 245 fails due to high moisture. Cleared by MD 246 which references a proctor with higher optimum moisture content i (OMC) such that thr f,2% of optimum requirement is met. 2. MD 205 fails with moisture content 6% above the OMC. Cleared by MD. 215, which references a relative density lab standard, and is itself still 6% away from the OMC of the proctor referenced by HD 205. 3. MD. 223 fails because of high moisture. Cleared by MD 223 which has actually a higher moisture content and lower density, but references a different proctor; the recast passes and clears the failure. 4. Both HD. 844 and 886 fail because of high moisture and low density. They are cleared by MD 888 which references a new proctor with lower==v4=um density and higher CMC chan the first. 5. HD. 231 fails due to moisture being too high. Cleared by MD. 253 which uses a higher OMC proctor. 1 6. MD 668 clears MDR 634, but the two tests show no correspondence in location, moisture, density, or lab standard. 7. MD 771 failed, being too dry. Cleared by MD 782, which has almost identical moisture content and dry density bu. tsos a new BMP with lower optimum moisture. 8. MD. 2384 clears MD 2342, referencing a different proctor with an OMC which fits the in-situ conditions. However, the dry density of MD. 2384 is way too high to fit the original soil classification, and in addition, it falls outside of the zero air voids curve for the classification which it has been changed to. 9. MD 536 clears MD 554 by using a BMP with lower moisture requirements. The field densities differ by 24 pcf and would seem to be different material.

10. MD'.338 clears MD 555 but hse too high a denstry to be the same soil as MD. 555.

It also uses a different proctor.

11. HD 566 and 568, clas'sified a.1 BMP 262 cohesive soils, are cleared by HD. 569 vhich is classified as RD 33 and has totally different o

soil properties than the

  • s fsilures.
12. MD 1317,18,19 and 20 fa:1 and are all cleared by MD 1477 taken

~~ over 5 weeks later. There is poor correspondence in the soll properties and the proctor is different from failing to passing test.

13. HD 2965 clears MD 2963 with a different proctor through the test results would have been passing with the original BMF.

1

14. MD 1384, classified as 8HP 278, is cleared by MP. 1461, classified i

es RD 55. ~... _

15. HD' 170, classified as RD 24 is cleared by MD' 173, classified as BMP 234.

16. MDR 287 fails with a relative density of 77%.

Cleared by HDR 291 which has.1 pef louer density but arbitrarily rounds up the relative density to 80%; it passes and clears the failure.

17. In all of the following field density tests on sand, the passing test has approximately the same or lower density than the failures, but references a lower marhmm density 3D lab standard:

MDR 343 clears MDR 339 MDR 514 clears MDR 507 MDR 513 clears MDR 508 MDR 515 clears MDR 509 MDR 516 clears MDR 510 MDR 522A eients MDR 521 MDR 558 clears MDR 556, 557 MDR 480 clears MDR 473 MDR 555 clears MDR 525, 527, 534 MDR 533 clears MDR 526, 530, 531 j 18. MD.2384 clears MD 2342, but is at 7' lower elevacion.

19. MD 123 clears MD. 122, but is at 10.5' lower elevation.

20. MD. 149 clears MD 142, but is at 10' higher elevation. l

21. MDr. 1694 clears MD. 1693 but is 43' away from the site of the first 5

test. i 1 22. MD 3114 clears MD 3102, but the two tests are 68' apart.

23. MD 186 clears MD 183 though it is 110' away.
24. MD 1209 clears MD' 1207 and MD. 1205, yet is 183 ft. away from the failures.
25. MD 1097, dated August 4,1977, cleared by MD 1048 dated July 16, 1977.

Notat This table gives typical observations and is not meant to be all-inclusive. 1 J %m l 4 i e Ip...

y TABLE C I Notes on Questionable Test Data 1. The first field denstty cast to reference RD 24 (5/75) has a relative density of 170.6%. The standard continued to be used, however, with relative densities greater than 100% occuring repeatedly. 2. Similarly for RD 30, the first two tests (9/75) have 114% and 122% relative densities, yet the standard was used for 10 months, 54 tests, vich 52% of the results over 100%. 3. During the first two weeks of use (7/76), RD 41 was referenced 22 times with 12 tests over 100% relative density (6 tests over 110% and 3 over 1202). The standard was used for 5 months, however, with over 40% of the results over 100%. 4. The first test using RD 55 (S/76) has a relative density of 119%, with the field test being made the same day as the standard and, i thus, assumedly the same material. These results would throw doubt on the lab standard, yet it was used for two full years and 566 tests, with 64% of the results over 100% relative density. i S. Even high density structural backfill standards such as RD 61 (==v4-n= density of 125.3 pef), used 593 times, show over 25%.of 1 the tests having greater than 100% relative density. 6. The first seven tests referencing 3MP 269 (scattered over a two month period around 7/76) all fall outside the zero air voids curve. This classification was used for 11/2 years, referenced 227 times. 4 7. The first two tests referencing 3MP 270 (7/76) fall 6 pcf above the zero air voids curve. Continued use of this proctor for over 2 years resulted in 226 tests with 82 outside the theoretical maximum. 8. For the first month (4/77) all 3M2 278 tests fell on or outside the zero air voids curve. For the next month, over half the tests did the same, or have greater than 105% compaction. The standard was ~ used over half a year, with 43 out of a total of 82 casts outside i the zero air voids curve. Note: This table gives typical observations and is not meant to be all-l Anclusive. '~'~~~, I ~ ~ -- -~~ ~ -

Ml3IS T.LJ R E ~D E N S I T Y F R Eb M P 278 ~ SPECIFIC GRRVITY = 2.6 E ~ RLL TESTS o a i s m. E Zero air volds curve for this material 6 ' E' Zero air voids curve for S.C. - 2.75, shown for reference. n la. U It o u o. ~ pb-X F m X n b. Li X .M Zo e W / R E-X X X x y X X X b y X X y E-95% of maxissu. s w X y 1 o Z o. X Ho i

4 N

o 2.15 d ,.6 5 2 .00 St.DD B.DD 12.0 0 16.0 0 20.00 2 *f.D D 28.00 32.00 MBI5TURE CBNTENT Cm3 i

li t; 55 0 15 0 8 22 2I 7 .gn 2 i t s D eT D. B I P S U M y b b d D E e D. u 9 l f I e d RE sA 6* B.Y D3 2 E F =L D. C D N I ~ B X T Y N \\ S E YTT I T S D D. N TVE SB R T IR C I G 5N Xg X E G C R X X 0U I NI5

0. T F 5 25 EIR I

1 C DEP B .P M S 0 E 0 6 R IL T-0 0 "9 E I I O E M ooge EaE oo.b oE = 0 E-gd". D ntuDu yEHLZuR > :D R y u E 1_ S 2H l I 3 o 3

i L ?, t.) 1 I mme rwa MNN t "f fi b b e n a s i

  • N 0,,,

r ~ {. X d3 r "N

m. m s-l,LletF

~ SQ l + l Il ,*d u / p g pu Z t spH /X D ~ ', i ( / W /HW ~ , ~. l-h! l E B i hem N .W Z y W XX X W

Wum, X X X

Er t i ~ 3-I. ZHke g XX X X NYW N dm ~ H a '/ 0U X e s E l ^[ U1] ~ g ii ~ LU .x;. m ,,.J r ~ 7 S ,,,? a i

  • /.

H~ ~

j... -

a 3 l [ J 30'QIl 7' 0O'ONI OO'041 OO'Sil

-. dO'Gil -

OO'061 O O'O'E ' CJ3s3 A.I.,I E N 3 2 A W E 33W"1st NZ l^ ~ o y f ............,.-,.t ,; ~ c

i / i\\l)!llt[i l ? ss5

i. s. 8 8

az2 I 7 2 U B. E P I M o 3 ~ 2 S U. 1 I R5 s 6 2 G] B. 5 F =TS s[ I YS T E N YT \\ E IT X T TVE

5. O 9 N R

N E IRB IC GC X S-E C1 R NI3 U FN 8 T R

5. S EIS 2

C 1 I lE I S P X M S 8 3 t 'B - R U ~ T. ~ 8 el 3 i. _ S _ I g B f 8 8 M a aE-aa ax. on aS ggy a*.e ao a9 =s". 1 1 nkUgu FVHmZuR yKR guaJE ZH t g 38E. i lIe .3 [i* =;**-

:5

,:.3 y \\t e ..../ ' \\ 4 s mm e s re a dd& m. s \\, ,fx a (

s. -

e a c [~d Q g ~ 7 y ~. [ d c .a \\ m ~ ~. g

v. ~_

, s.- s m u ~. 4p e .NW 7 s a n s f* _ m ig W 7 9 du IIH s m X F LO F Z ,e ':l' ^ ~ pFZ W l\\ c >z HH ~ ~ xm s x .;e cm Hs[ / -u ~ x X X X y XX '-- L. y. 7 X y' k,- X X' uch W,]R -S! ' W. )- .\\ E E g,., m _a 2 . 2-- s a 'y ',~' q \\ [ '* p x r. ] J' g. ']*-\\ s y = a a i ,r . no - j s H _i 'y x k- < a 00'0$1 00'ONI 00*OSI GtE Q $li ' n G 0'O'11 00'G01 00'05 C3 JdJ A.L I E N 3 !L 4 A big" 3"J h:! 1d - NI emme. g l^3 FIGURE 5 ~ .'t '\\. ey .Lb~ wumem en e eh 1 .t

A?

y

.i Lt1 tJ1 c HR ru iu u en b ' N 3 c 8 c. e m 'tu b d [ A c0 = s = 8 c e bidm ) 41-e n -Nm 9 95 bggi- -5 " l- >W Z .[ usm =z [G 60 Hgg -u UW Z"5 =2 LdO'f i Fly $ i l IRT i m o= i .g J F-4 g H i [ 00'0$1 00*Oh! 00'0$1 00'0$1 ' 0 0 ' 0'11 00*0dl 00'0'S CJJd] A1IEN3[ ABC 3]W7d NI l / l FIGURE 6

e.

-n b w yaw-y- w -y%

- -_i i g \\ \\ g- \\ 105 % --~ p DATA POINTS THAT PLOT IN SHADED AREA g g D [ y,9 WOULD BE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE g / ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS [ w o h 100% 7 NOTE: ABOUT 25% OF ALL FIELD DATA PLOTS IN THE SHADED AREA / H% g i g 2 I l l l 1 i I l 1 \\ BMP I g l l s 3 I I 2 OPT +2 MolSTURE CONTENT. PERCENT FIGURE 7-A. \\ \\ DATA POINTS THAT PLOT IN SHADED AREA \\ D 100% o. ASTM p WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE REGARDLESS OF e-f 1557 4 9 EXACT SPECIFICATION WORDING o NOTE: ABOUT 40% OF ALL FIELD DATA 6 POINTS PLOT IN THE SHADED AREA l . / c: / c 100 % BMP Sa A \\ 1s3 ) p, I 3 s t I \\ l BMP I g ] s- \\ l I l l I 'N 2 OPT +2 MOISTURE CONTENT PERCENT FIGURE 7 8 FIGURE 7: WINDOWS OF. ACCEPTABILITY (A) BASED ON BMP SPECIFICATION (B) REGARDLESS OF EXACT WORDING OF SPECIFICATION o

......... c.:. . - :.J.:.... ' " ~ ' . /. c.... .z ,,.h .%.a

,,g.

. :-rt...we.3. .s.

-i.

Q=. . UNITED STATES TESTING CO.,INC. .g - Graph Representation of Three

1. '

Procco: Method Comparisons ./za l 7.a. June 13, 1974 ) l Sy: Peter Tr7ang o /Z4 3 ( d'p./c -- Note: ( ) added by &y j g p[0 ' Bechtal /EO p.9,o ~ .';.1-+&% l ,-s.bs- .:'.i?

  • y,

.,C,.) , //6 '.kl. \\$% u'.. e ~ a i.:. ,f'9f i.'. A-L s ,1* [gh .. ['f. - N $ f. ( J . b f}N . Ib' f/A, C )g /1,f^>$- o l Ng v pN O '9 /c4 8 /0 /?. /4 /6 /3 40 ZZ h Jroaz:we conawe: =d b. FIGURE 8. t

T ~' ~-- ~ ~ ~ l M 15 T LlR E D E N SIT Y FBR Eb M P 278 i SPECIFIC GRRVITY =

2. M-RLL TESTS I

3.5% Subtracted from Holsture Content. Dry Density Recalculated o ri W-HOTE: Not only does a 3.5% shift in moisture content fail to bring tests inside I ca n ej the zero-air-voids-curve, E-it results in impossibly high dry densities. n h. u -. 0. n u m. n j > S-' X F X X X 3 H g 10 X X X X gfi X gX n X e Fi nn d Xx y XX ft X X R X 1 E X yX X N- \\ .J R. ZN H n._.. t g 2.as ri 2.65

  • .00

'I'. 0 0 0'.00 ih.00 l$.00 I0.00 i't.0 0 I0.00 3'd.0 0 c,I MSISTURE CONTENT Cm3 i

122 REGIO E _2 $t-117 E ) 8 tc my WET g METHOD d DRY METHOD i 93 0 100 116 RELATIVE DENSITY, (%) I. NOTE: VALUES FOR DRY DENSITY ARE TYPICAL OF A RANDOM FILL SAND. ANY TESTS SHOWING MORE THAN 117% RELATIVE DENSITY WOULD BE SUSPECT IN THIS EXAMPLE. STR'UCTURAL SANDS TEND TO SHOW ONLY 2 OR 3 PCF INCREASE IN MAXIMUM DENSITY AND THUS RESULTS AT MUCH LOWER RELATIVE DENSITY WOULD BE SUSPECT, SAY 105 - 110 PERCENT 9 FIGUR E 10 CHANGE IN RELATIVE DENSITY SCALE FROM DRY TO WET METHODS OF OBTAINING MAXIMUM DENSITY, BASED ON RECENT LAB RESULTS ~ w ,m--

7 - h*

~ fT ^ %f. O r - b, ~. 0 f y REVIZW OF U.S. TESTING FIELD AND LABORATORY CONSTRUCTION TEST DATA ON ~- " SOILS USED AS PLAST AREA FI1L g~ Q /. First Paragraph on Page i states in part, ": roil samples obtained in borings indicated that soil conditions beneath the plant structures are not compatible with' the quality of fill that would be expected based on the result of the controi, tests made by U. S. Testing Comparty'.'. ' I don' t know how this statement can be made when no correlation has been made between questionable material L and actual tests taken at that locatin.

  • ' ' '.s R g;.

~.

  • y-Item 1 on Page i states in part, "although 20:1 is not a strict upper li:2it it is a,s'uideline. Should density tests be taken more frequently than 1 per 500 cubic yards of fill, the ratio could be higher". This is misleading.

G. a, C-211 for Plant Area Fill in Confined Areas the frequency of testing could g,.- . be as frequent as 1 per 10 cubic yards of material to 1 per 100 cubic yards of material. This could give you a ratio of 1000:1 to 100:1 ratios respectively. .Iten 1 goes on to state, "The ac:ual ratio is shown in Table A attached" Does Table A include North Plant Dike, Northeast Dike and West Plant Dike data? M -dA4. 8 A d w 2 on Page 2, Second Paragraph, Last qua ter of paragraph slates in part, m. w.m. Item

.7

"it should be noted that Bechtal fiald personnel gave the location for retesting.".. e This should state, ]it should be noted that Bechtel field personnel gave the i-. . tr-r-w.n.*. j ':'.locatiemi.-for.e=*rfng=and. retesting'?. - 5 P-r E W ~ Item 3 on Page 2 states in part, "Tigure l' attached ~shows a typical laboratory .J; .p .m. compaction test curve with field test results plotted on it" Is this a typical l l laboratory compaction cast with respect to the number of tests plotted to the right of the zero air voids curve or just a typical plot of a compaction curve?

D -- ~. - m .a __2_ w,r.. - .1

..% w ;

w w u-, a..-.; tw,.- s _ ci y#' 7

.-%M

$MM' %MM'W - N INbN"W-' N. "P s e m'- n.'.; ; ; :..z.;s. b- .c _ - (.,'.#[f.Page2" W.. y..;,. w First Paragraph on Page 3 states"the fact that a large number of test results Plot above the aero air voids curve tends to make all test results questionable". I find this statement hard to believe. What is the large number of tests we are ), talking about in comparison with total nunber of tests? gm 1 Second Paragraph on Page 3 states in part, " Specifications called for compactive .'. effort results as defined by ASE-D-50.57 which is 56,255 feet-pound /dshic.-foot ~- m.n.*:..N.f': ' ' " Y ' e'nergy. For Method D, this value should be 56,000 foot-lbs/cu f t. Page 3, Second Paragraph (except for the first sentence) the remining portion of this paragraph does not seen pertinent. Item 4, Page 3 First Paragraph, Last Sentence - What is the reason for this senfancebeingplacedhere? Item 4, Page 3, Second Paragraph states in part, "several specific gravity calculations are in error, such as for BMP273 and 374." This should state that the plottingsof the zero air voids curve on BMP273 and 274 are in error., What is the basis for this statement. The calculations for specific

j. >.

= gravities on the calculation machine s,eem to be correct. l d,. ' : ~. i,. ~ - ::+ L.. = - ;. :..- r WSJ.'. ..C^-Item 5,.' Page 3, F.irst:. Paragraph;nlast sentencewstates?."The2 figures-shew-plots TQE',%?5t5.- _ $ A.l~O A P '.- "$:~45 'G.*.'ki;$??$ TY.M. - .:' 'i.:L(gof compaction data-for.BMP278 which are-typical. fo$. :*?Q.h )* ' '.P e r all. test results."-?This. '* # } statement is misleading.'--' K : >@ f.' .tyf y,h"qs':, .:..7' .f.?._i-"'.'s:c 1 ;- Is this plot showing the number of tests above the n. 3 - - ~ ~. - l '- / zero air voids curve typical for all tests using various BMP's. ~ 1 h W

/ f. ,s'.,. 5, S-.%.-< 2g'; j.',, ' I v 'e 1 x.. ::y a

y.-;;.* 'Page 3

,j..,..- ..s ,.; y Item 5, Page 3, Second Paragraph references 56,255 ft-lbs/et ft. This should ,5 .be $6,000 ft-lbs/ct ft. 1 I i ,.[ ' '. Page 4. First Paragraph states in part, "this change can only occur in the fic1d i w. to the extent that field moisture content will pernic it'.' Once field compaction is such, that the field density is significantly higher than about 105% of mm*==s the specified tolerance for optimum moisture content in laboratory ', -- compaction tests may no longer be applicable for field control." What is ~ ~ ' J 1 6 y,eant by this statement?%~. e A%~ w.9~w.c n A pe -Page 4, Second Paragraph, Last sentence states, "The'one'following above the zero air voids curve 1------- '= (shown on Figure 4)'is designated by U. S. Testing Co=pany as the only passing sand cone test (shown on Figure 6)." I What is the relevance of this statement? Page 4, Third Paragraph and Fourth Paragraph reference Figure 7a. This should . be Figure 7A. .,I. " "Pa ^[ F $ ge 4,."Last Paragraph states in part, 1 :.,. f * >; " Figure 7B was arrived at by expanding .,Figate 7A to include test results up to a compactive effort related te ASTM D15.57 c_, 'a (56,255 fr-lbs/cu ft) which is considered to be 'a practical upper limit." I don't .'i &.-Q,~.C - ,- M' W ii'. $ & .. -m W - g.y. jiQld feel that:this-is a practical limit-based on: lift'th'innesses-and-compaction- \\ t'-M TX. s -S.gfm w.

.4. v:. ~ ~ c==.M.

a 7. - -a-i"-k,4.gg5 equipment d-Bechtel modified pr. :n. . - s,:i:..L.. 71%:%p.;:. ? :.-..;. .. ~.T. n c: n -~ a octor is more applicabl.ei than... practical.,(y{';,, '.fy.,- ~ v :t %... .v...;,y,... - r m.x r.'.p - :.".. ..w%.,:v...:

v..9;.tp.; ~

e ..- W -.~ ..m.. vi.. ~, ;- -- e. .... ;.a. .,..g. . \\+*:~..v-. .e ~ . s.. ..g.<. 1 .z. ~~ Item 6 on 'Fage 5 states, "almost all (over 95%) fie'id density tests on cohesive boils were made using the nuclear density device."" What are the actual numbers nuclear density device vs total test? -~ -

N. Jf$'4..- '.v @.d ' ri.'QP',..: I '4 p,., ; qg,: :.- .u qt ~,:..

2. 2..

- -~

  • ** ;p

?=*- p.f,;,a.;A Page 4,' .7, .a g ia.. ;,'. e. ~ Item 6, Page 5, Second Paragraph, Second Sentence states, "However, the 7 . " stand air of the estimated is 1.8% for the data with the range of differences .% mean from negative 3.2% to positive 3.9%." L' hat is meant by the " stand air" J-g; 4'a.p. pp..- 3 Sama para. graph - further on - states "(in sh'ould be noted that errors in o.

  • '.= i 7.."... '..the moist.u. re content tend to shif t the position of test results on a moisture

...-..c.m.., ,.,v y>. c. ..u 1; density plot approximately parallel to the zero air voids curve assuming the '.,' [8* 18 v. ,%,in-place wet density is correct and thus do not explain the large number of ?. 2 ' I. points which plot outside the zero air voids. Compare Figures 1 and 9)".Is

..a

. the assumption that the in-place wet density is correct / valid based on the results of this report. P.. o.. .,s Item 7 on Page 5, last sentence states, "over 100 errors were found in . tha calculaticus on the relative density from 8-15-75 througn 12-78. (nct all of these errors changed the acceptability of the test results)." h* hat were the actual numbers? ..? UT,S -: &^~-b,, - p**y*@First Paragraph on Page 6, second-to-last sentence stat ~ c. es in part, "ths W :>nt. NT.C-= bs highest relative density found was 142.2%." This contradicts It L . sts - em 1 in Table C ... u;.~.5 C.-: uhr h-4nMM-s.:relativeulensitycof 170.6I - f& 'N:%T&-.$.Ch*. -? u j.2 a.M in, ;.:. '; @~'~ t a:, W' ; ' ~,d ~, '?([ Table _A - =Does +h4= 4 ~ Inde_ h;;)&j;$.' i: &yl est' plant dike,'.nolrth planttdike and northe O tests in:,the w

8. '

. Q". .f7O. .u ~ ?:.? 2.w;.3 does this include Q and Non-Q areas in the plant areaffill?'&.'.b.%"].'.T:43).. ~r~ Q'?~' 7 .l,0 17, 7.s -.. . :.:. ;Q %. ~ p.W ' ~,. ~- m. - ..g,. - i Ttble 3 - Item 16 - is not clear. Is this stating that the retest had a density cf 76.9 and it was rounded up to 80% using a different layup density standard { e c.gpeu > .e m..-.a e ...m..*

[ -~ .;.. r.. u.: l b. go ,s Q,w. G. s.v:..'.,,*

w. s,.. r.".

,i';.'.Fage 5. ,: - 's f:....:e.."*A.., w .r .-4 ,3 .,s. ..,.r.. i 1 ./'.P Figure 2. and 5.- there are approximately four tests that are shown to the w. . right of the w moisture centent plus 2: line which should be failing y - -. tests but are shown as passing tests. Figure 9 has subtracted 3.5% frow the moisture content and recalculated dry ~. e density. Couldn't the nuclear densometer also be giving ' incorrect ver densities? s,. <. ..,.. m. .. a.7.. -e - =:. ..,m. L..:,,. , y;., .a - ..2w. .,ee.. .. ~.... n .~. i 4 %i -

W.?. J.,

. r. .s t

u_ c.
;.. ::s. w.....

.e. a, s. ,..,.s. ..a, c.c n. - 3_ o .~ + . ;, y - - m <j.,~.., .. r .-..v f

  • e.a

, o .t.~. ..e

q.,....-

.. - : k : ;..z ... i. m.,....2sxh. o..: 2, <tg.

4..v.

, __. ~.. .s.p.::,...% n.....: ' t' 4.,. .e. ..s.,,..:.. :y-.e. v.....v : s.i-.

  • s..,

..m . 7 ..a p .e.. - - ~ -.J . -%,.;;ug.L.: -; ..r,7-% p. h. - -t

w..: t m., yz.%c. d. "fg.r.;,a;4,..r -...

+ &., o a. !r,,, e. * -..,,. s.m s n. a..:.4 f.W "'*r .p.r..g..,.u.r9.,..,... c...

};

= a ~..s ^* E..,;-,,-.ZS' 1 0.. "z..r, a.., (a.s;!.!e- _.m.. g m... ...o-. - y n,,,,N..

','... : ' F.y "-Q..'.,,, b. : as=w..;.i.t,.'.e.? &c. e..~.1.4GlD:i.? i, :...;

,e .m.,., n %....s.:., n . -.a. a. z Q r r: u'*.*'4 K

  • ~7

, + g ~'s... ~~=...-e.. ~ w,, .n.

s...

n. rg....p ::t.x. na -Wy... :, *-.3.g.. m,..M,; ..s..,;wp., - h......

v u..

. w.. r g '.. C-v a e. . s. w. , u.,. .c .e.. . u.,., :.. "., -c t. n,....., m.- .. 2.., %, % .. :..:-Y : t. ~ = src ~.a.,. ...,.,.-m-4,;.2...- 3 -v . ~ - ,~?.'- l .s. '..,.2g..a. J. ,,p,. e f,,

  • f.

e ,g . _.-, Y > .. p.e,.', '. '. e u .fe - - q-y, a...w. 3... - - * :..' '.-= .; ~,. 5 ..,,3," h-r . ; 2, . L. ..=,,. .g O Q .f 9 * . g g 4 3 ,e m.e .mw ~ "":,... sy.- ~ 7- '..NN

.[ E.

i3.. C0hifENTS ON THE REVIEW OF U.S. TESTING FIELD AND LABORATORY CONSTRUCTION ,.k A: R. TEST DATA ON SOILS USED AS FILL . J. pr ..e 5. 74 -.- ;~ v.4.v ja. W First Paragraph, Last lin g first page - This sentence ~# f m Le (

f. C.

.Q g , ^ ~k~ Some of te may have been rejected and m1; -" 12:r or merce correct. y xA%~32-k ?.2, j 9 am ; ; L_ _ m.- This could be stated differently. Fill wee tested for 4 s.o. 4-acceptance at, but not conclude what the results were. f.'~j 4 .' a .si%. Gh.

1...i y aq'y.
  • ~

Page Two, Second Paragraph, Last line - Scaces, "over 130 failing tests ~ dit .A - d Q. wars marked as Non-Q and never recorded cleared by a passing test." Does ... ; py that mean that these tests were really taken in Non-Q areas and, becausa ...:. -iM - 4, ;' ~ 7 '.~.% chey were in Non-Q areas, were they just disregarded? Better put in words ..zE ~ -5.Cin to indicate that they were marked Non-Q - in parenchesis - because they ' ~~. ' T . e.S,-f -fp.; ~ ' were taken outside the safety-related area. . _ ~ -- :. : m,.m/-: m-y.....g .- g. \\ -;. - =;u Itan 3, Second sentence - States that specifications do not .c:r.-

?),

require exanination of the cer2 air volds curve cut it is considered fundsmental soil =echanics .;.2l. . i,.

.37. cyr, relatite to compaccion plets. If that's true, why didn't they require it and 1

7-

.m.i@

l why did not Bechtel use this method years agc. It's a little late to be J.,s.-ys. r. .. m-., I picking on the tester when Bechtal is supposed to head up all cetttTols on

.u.

f'.-.P testing. .' ~2,_~: q.,,'. : =..,. ~ ..,S:. ,.s. %:q. Item 4, First sentence - States "some laboratory compaction test data were s used repeatedly even though they continued to show suspect field tes t results.".,.,..c-- w. fg.'i .. 5. We do not understand that sentence. Are they saying that for some period of time, a long time ago, either Bechtel or US Testing recognized that they had y g suspect results and continued to use these results? As stated, it is ..s% invalid conclusion because suspect is a recent event. -s w..._ .w. ...;. N...... ( Y"...'; g.., ..'~ R"5 i y.. q g. :.y..y, f.., ;g:,s n. x. , R; ~.-

s. v.

,.,; ~; Pcg3 2 5'4. - '. ; -a*. s.. s .. ~ .. i;S ';. >. s.-=.... ~' ?..d.s s s. -" -?.i Page.4, Second Paragraph, Last' sentence fe3es *

  • f= "- i li!4,1 cult ea_:a O "J.

yM-which in fact should -e -6:g-% They ought to complete the sentence-that the only I -W4f have bean unacceptable or should have been labeled failing test.g ode.$.. the point' g b.hkW * ....=i4*T

[ne,Jhoni d W oeen passIJg
-- M..-

r ::d 2: ::: 27$ .a u s. 4 h -ka- --? M ' :- e n ~ '

  • u -

-C 2

d S C cian c.s.i
.h: - -->-

..w ..m +-e

.
.44..C, u.

..y "74'. ..v'**- .4 .C. 1#

  • ')$%

... y y-,- ..,d'.?'..*,.*. >%.n-. -. g <-s h-

.:'..*.4Q e

'~;s ._ Ti.J. T

n.

........u. Page 4, Third Paragraph, Last sentence - States, "a review of all data indicates... ..m M' c., -f.,. that about 25% of the cohesive soil test results fall within this area." -The " '.tf a 4. 1,..y last paragt uph, last sentence on Page 4 states, "about 40% of all cohesive '. 'f.ef ..y ,. 9.. v3 0 a N soil test resul.s were plot in this area".,Are we saying 75%and 60% respectively'. of our dat.a is outsids' these areas. Therefore, it's overwhelming proof' that ,g

y.

it's invalid data? [ ..i.. i, ( .s _..i g.p. a ,s / a y -...,x. It would seem to ce if they were going to really make a strong point, they -i-. '.'n. ~~ should reverse the nu:.bers and,,,. [A-75% fell out and therefore must be invalid. a ...~. - ,'c.h. ;.. -... '. :A

y."
:.- m;f T.R -

l Item 6, Second Paragraph - ~Aegeal' quasr.im. 1s.- A = = ., a, r. n d.u=-.cas.1 causes N :n W nt. It would seem $ ** *^ wu. ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ R O t.anw- '"Th S::: w g u., c mid ::em that they could carry this paragraph a little -,, ; - ay ~ ' - " y; further and provide the end result error that could exist because of this. An then I could read it and say, h k ~~ L-weighs this auch into the cause of ,ss - th sectiement." . :A . j. 2. n.,-., .... :...a .....,,:a;;.; ,r:. . ;. ~u.y.. r.;. ,.c ..,.x. ... o. ?. n. n. :e. .. s .y. :V;, ^ L a .. ; 7. f,:y;.t., Pcge 3 .~;.- a- ] Page 5, Item 6, Third Paragraph, Last sentence - Statas, "in most cases were 4.' c

it:.

the test result. plots outside the acceptable zone defined in Section 5, the .a... .f differenca between nuclear and sand cone methods would not have made the test ~.,.. results acceptable had a sand cone method been used. Does this really confira our poor compaccion? ,n). ?. tu*."s .,k' 9 Page 5, Item 7 his " comparing" spelling "compring" ..g, ,t..u. s s .c ,;G.,,i?.'

  • 7.; '..

4 . <.e W Page 6, First Paragraph states in part 364 test,"- should be " t :::" .s~ .a- ! h.. '. L.s di r-f. In their summary there are five major faults. 2 They are.e4eht anamolies or nonconformances. They are unexplained anamolies [ ~;. or they are five major nonconformances. If you find fault with something f Gw it means that you are placing the clame there. 3ut these look like non- -Gs- . +. MY confor=ances to me, so they might as well call them n eru they arn. .d' Y. .:h:$

. s.i J;MW

,.4. 4 %. ' f W.M.. Page 6, Item 8, Last Paragraph. It must be concluded that these test results

ic:M

'i are suspect and should not be used alone for acceptance of plant area fill. 4 a.w I+- M-t b . n,.' f.?. -th4e-conclusion too. The next thing is i I ~

t..d?asmu. D sottewhat editorial therefore other means have been established. I don't think

~.m

  • l.
1. s d..g:

W.i ' 6;r.- that belongs in this. It has nothing to do with the review of these reports. .u rx "h %,, u '.. .: c;.<.7 7' T '..., t. It might be a follow-up action because of our other conclusion. It really doesn' t have any - this is the, wrong place for that. .SS:!!'t$$2. I think we ought to just,,',, ;.]Q} drop that sentence. 'E i.TridB:M2 g.[ t'+1-g e.

e.".1..~.%..J!

ir w,;.;.s;N ,.,.Shh. )N[k 'h .u c ~ =-*"y :.= m.., pd7 m ~f..,,.-...- .c..u,..,,,.. -:.,,. s.....,. --- g,. .. ;w.,7 r w w.- <

  • s.
w...

. N., -:* l.' :.e5: :.kl.. :'. ;;. E *- t - O '* *4 ~.: - 2 ',lh*,' N b M k f'..:w. '.y~. car s.gf.w:*.;.' g-w ;M;.';;y::: v. ; +:.;. q.:..*:. J . n:. ~. c. m...,n. y. >.. . ~;C2 A.f.@3..,.rL '..y. %.i y.;G.-Q Q Q, W & j @,. a-;. :.Q W..., .'~.?..: d. f.r..b' h...yM... ~. K .b-p CTLt.;f; y... r.y.

.g

..:. ~.. y f Jj' T ;'.Q #.7. h.!."c..Y..'I,i. q?.;l }.. % &. : . y.f.t:..l.yage.4" ....t. A %s 5, lJ.. 4' .. a.M.,i M. *.. i^i m.. f.. .s. .~ ~ : i r,.;. !.

  • f,,' [.3 ~ U......,< : \\,s' *.

g}.a. v.; %.t. m a -f j;..iQ..Q..%. {'m.k. 9 n.. w- ... :.- es - Q# .,c [ .S. '.c. [ E .[.', [W. m "~ .. 7 J .3".c,.. One;last thing; .for.a final conclusion is. this' enough. information.. that you

r N

e .'. 4,a*?.~.19; W: 4. a. y s

  • .*~*e'.
    • f
  • ek W' *-

.. r 8' c, .e '.s p.;. o. : v, e *..; p e.* ..i....

?

..;'t ? '.can say, despite-the absolucee accuracy of this. thing., is there enough inf' rm '..r..e.i.s':sp - o 1

u..t..w :

.g,..-. 7.. <.....,; 7.. :-~ ~. v.;.:....+... n. e., c,. c,.... r :., 1.. x a.. ~m. :. ~ -w ..:. unexplained or what. have yo.u here,". to conclude that wa'really did. have placements s.. ...u n.... 4 9.. ,.7 :. .s .v. m '. .c .~ ' r...:that did not meet. compaction criteria.

s v

.. se. All the stuff we did. on. K~ 4.u.,.'.;.'7W,o

n
y., y,2..y

. M..<s ~..a.e. 9 c.r,'. %. a v.-.... e... ,.:.-t. g c%.:..m p ga.n ~ @mw and. all that kind of stuff - the bottom line is still that we now know that e.' @A...t : ' n.,p&W .: cq....: im.s..c.~; ;?M...n.p:p:.m..;,,.u.... : ;p-.w....c. .. i. 7 ..a v .. <. ~ -' "m' *m o . a... '. ri.. soil, was, not placed. compacted. to the specification report. ' Our testing noe e-- 7.. \\- :./.... u.., q ;.. .r >v,'- 3 only failed to catch that t.,our. testing led us to believe what we had for the ... -1., /.. .c .......a,.w..... .., e.o.: r - a. > >*t. y.:a , n. +a.:..;;.w ". y -

,..~.

.i i.: duration we that the stuff was really good.' Ic seemer to me: that is the root..' V,i,n p ,:.....,.....,.. 9.a,. s. v. t. L...,. :...,, 4

v....

.. o.s

,. z.

m.A:n.'e: *r J,

..-. 5

.;. t. +" t .e p-9:. p

o. k.. 2. :&.%.**w s..-

v , w.~..,.of the Diesel Generator',f..all. ing.. r... . f. -:\\'.:., s.. ~w a v i d *L.,.,. tcause i. 7 '; 9 2 ..a.,...., s.....,e 4... .:... - J..ws. s - l.y.,... [.i'7,.';.y.26..,.. g, <. ; ..c. .e > g u c. :f .u- .-v' . Q '..a ~s ...... K:}..l. cyA.: e,*: '.i: M.:.p j; g O.*::s ;\\ v.. ..[.. ' M' ; - * *.V.{ [rp. N:-[*[,-{' - ' ' ' * ',. w ,sg". , r;.9-: s ~, [j. Q

  • ((s {1{Q.

.:.t.h.:,i ... a ' v' . -l I;. .....,r, g t* t.t*lf . 3. [h [,,,,:.. L-9. 4 s. ' ':, 5, f. .r* W a.;>'. W.. .L*; d~ l.pc/8+ a.d...sIJ.. 3

  • J.<.?.. ~.. *...
u.gJ'..?'.f, -

. v.,., ,n. . :.,,,s.i s r. s+ <.%. t f *.:..t.,. v..v Q, :... s *. t.. j .: ~, . ?; ;....., . ~.. -. = q 9, 4. :., *,, ',, = ql;...,c,, c.1,.,. 1.,* y..g .,..,~. ; s. (. ..,.. } <.-;" c .. ~ ~.., . -. J. p.~._.w.ny vy.. P - ... ;.:)g, <, .z w ... 9.~. ~.

g. -ry gy.,3 4., ;..... ;.. 6;., ;,,..

..w. i..., 3 .. ~.. rc.... e-1-s,2 w;.:. g_,p 7 2 a.a.,,, ce, 77 n, r .g. r., C p dlf. 'G'" 4).ib' ~e -f,. V.,g c.,%., Lv.,) ~.9.,,-i.:. :.-w, g< m:...v> ~w-e...

.1.
. :.....

.w &:... y:, ; A.. . p:. a. ;.

:.. <::..n

. ~. m q. .. + .s ..

  • x.. *. 8. w%M-

's: s :~. t r f.h.. #* '/ *'.:4..C.~ *' G:::.%-. .~. - e M * '.Q.Y; % *- S. ' % .. C,..3 9*. L,;4.5t O.,.., ' *.Q*'yyf-T?)Qf. '*Q, *P2d'.l'q; ~&J31' %e, * *s.l. *'. v1- $ 9E. +.Q.'".'Ii3-Q-k.Q

  • '?.b r.

~ '* d e:. j, 8 *.y R**c.R.2.; e % y % W;.*.4s.v..,4 'e7 g*k 5.h*k.'A.-:N 8l.) N j,nr% Oif g.' C-lQidEi.%.'~;.M)}.1*&p:#W}C-.ja'~ +*r <*Q . t:' n ..w.t. ,';"<.:.i f'". W A .t < > .J,:... :. "t r uf 3' '. AfQ::$Q,.:i f i.t,s.,, [r 2:c.u. w. o%*% ~$M-Q.v#*.].} -. e;

  • -.:. m. p., w n; w&.%.c.(-., m.p.c. q,. ?.v m,o.

. r m..e .&s m. w-- :.:..:m s.:.;.., r,:s..,:m m.m:. e.~. p. ~' r w. 9:.%. u. ?. .,4 ...e... w. a s.. n. s a. M., D,.%. +,.? ' ;n .;;. * ~. e t....-e+ ' ' + x.,. ~.. ~ t.. -. ~ ;. t'..

  • w..

m r, V ~ a, . c t. ;..... -. u .s -. y,9 -

p..

..",...; = '!....+t..;.?.',) .a f..,. p. w..s %,4(;. a-@o. ..s.~ e. .s...- .. ~. w* , C.*.%..7.

  • . ".m.s k,o.?g. i. '.jll.'

,;.f. *i s. r-6 . ' '..: d,e.- . W,~~.?e. .v-.'v.~.. g. .b.. P -.ww., e. r r. ?

  • .i '
  • r "s
  • f' 7,

s..% 's4.' e..*y"4Nlplg* M, e* .. 4 - e.,l'.. ,,,,-.,..<,0.,,..,.,(..., h's ise. a.4.s.,;.5 >.% la.'.' * 'd e ', ^ 4: -4 .'s;...,.-.....&. .,. %,.m

  • s:i'w.:,t,. -
  • r j,

.r. ....s. .,;.g,g., * ;,-. e.-. w. A.,. .g'a...

  • j.w

,w yt*? - w.. g. .e.. s . =; Ja .t,, - o .s, g. .. ~;. -..\\,..... "%..: 4l;W.. ~ ~. i N...%. -. ;.+*'.:.4..L.. <

  • Q, &.. -

. 2 A :'.. ;;tl. .. ~. .*} I ~

s*; ~ ' *.

1..,s .a Jn. '.. c -.;;. s.s, t, &., c..s '_. I.. r A. ,a .s.*~~ .6.*, .s ......r p e,- ..v* 1.

a..s.p.-

-,-*.s. .. g...u.. U....~,.... =v ; 'y;m.n. ;

  • m. ;,*y:s.v, W.,..s '.io,
f. c

< v m o..u., s..* -,.. m,,..e.. ;.:~, ~:.w.. m. y~y,..e t.e s ..xp.

  • ~ 9..* ~;;.
  • r

.a. s. v g.: ...... ;.>.p a ?..~.......',., y s; r,. c. . c* <:7 >... .s. -.,. p'.;.;: r.,.- n .s p.oc,, 7.v,m....a n ~. x **

p :..v {.4. 4lurg,W,,...g....
  • g. f. ; : e. <.,...;.,.

,.f. y .n . 32 d'.yJp,f q' }.3,- ',h,.,.;k, g,. 3. -;... Q.s. e<>1....e,.}~~n , + ,~. n -4.~..: c P.V G.. ** ~ : x.* .v. s, V .,~.;.. .r...,';.:a.,,...;.,.n, . r. &.,: y:r.:v..c;:br.a.res;.

w-
  • : > e<. t.. c m

y ; y,.i;...;. ::.~..

  • y ; y.,. y n :r

~- ~. ~ <. v. ge ~.;.. ;.:m. K., c. H e;.~~,a. y,; s. .n t w 7,;}<. c.p-w- v. se...... r: v ,s. .. A 2.'?s.* a y.. s: - r. ~ .s.s* M. W.. M.,cy.- c. .e' s..,t.,: a.1::

z. gn w..a q,

.e. w;...y.em%r p:... y?g.~,;.M. m.,~s;..<. 3.g

s.,

m..~. ....~.. s : y - ss u ag r s . q. 7. m_ w.:. p..: m,m.,..a. g;~. v se c >o:A f .s.>.,. a

w., r.v.7 r

3 s. r %,.. w;. u,: g.v. m. w..- m. w. w r.r:. " 3.,s..;. ..c .a w .w-g .,. y.. w o l'd... E. e e... e:r J N. e6Es @ M M:M. r.: M..M.3.* M E R f W." M. ;. ~w-e.,.~.. r. ;*> %...,:**,f,. *'*:p %.: n.- e..$ n 9ms.c v%;n.w,:.iv'9.,,m,,:s9rm .~~*..%.,,.*:q*:. .W..e. v w s- . m .u .4 & Wt 4.w, !;ssy 3. M'W. J v s,. ; p'/ . "T.h..,.m.;.'.?> - *m, ' t-3r s .t y e.,.:. -c;.. e -. rc. + r ..c 4 ,r .q s,u;..

  • ~

.,.1)y,., e.,y@&.. n,W. m.o.,ti<my%, f,c-t 9.. .y.g..a. a.y c~. p.ll4, w.f y.s. y x... 8

  • .<.y y +...s

' ~.; 2. 4 y.e, Sf.c*.:,.<w*t.w'. ';.%.a ?* : ? b.e...J.sw.- ef4r o.-)y.4, :.%.r.a -..c / ;w.. %. .u 4vs A .c o -c w ... %A r ay P ..h.'. i .: ~-c..,. g... %, e +.%.r'.:;> nes r WMk &M.+sl4+f..';~.qh%S.O...c c,J. A:;p..;n.4-gW .m....~. u. , o.q,y.: y 9 y 4 . y a .n. .s f..;. c ::;.r. ;...:.......~..e. ..;w.x m.;&;1.e. 3 q.;p.

.r,A;v.cc..f.g. isc,p%WU}r

>. i: w w ..m;s %m.4. + M U W f u W N. w.- <DE 2, a u,... 3 SW i: .. n r.n./ m&,<.;.m..vmy k e.,n. 99)-v+ m%..,,Q+g A p: wur..#. -c w y v S.:s,:, % g % : W.w.+ ~~:.w @' . ::..< 7.>.; o.: ". : .;. ; n.. @.-i ~;n..: y e

.%.;r + M,. n << ;-

'. a y @ u.r. %. < r. + r, ,,, :u. s/. <:.4..s.,,q,.y. 9 p.w:.%. :. :.~ s 1 2 .. :.~:. M.g AL.d.j..W.q r... y M....:.w.,m. W.. . c m... ,3 o;,,. .. gr.. e.g.%..y. MY'S,Q,.,, ~. 7 &. ?iy;?. s,

  • T..3

- W, w.c ;m.' u.;:,v..m.;.,.,s.3,. n.g.G:...-s. m 7.o.z.< . s.)m. ~.a.-, A.0.%.a.?v>o. m. c.3 ~s. p.g. s~..t eg:,;: r "r...:. w .a

...,.. ~. ~.

.... ~....r;. a &,fi,y.?* f-...,...$.*,j(i W,3. y s t' g m,. . s,+. s.

w...

E*.:.!, &;.0.:p n....... m < &y .w-,. u~ w a,.

p.
e?; -:$.m.p.,., r$ Y.$'~Y.Y 'h?' '

.v. ~..w. Y..f?. rR.. n -.-.~.. .n. .b: ' M:. 's ]h&'

  • ?*.'

...r:4 ~ ' ! >p.: X:.~ gy.w %,t;.,n.L' d.,w, 2 . M.W2 ';#">4$f..*,'W4:@J;.>.;

s

.g t..y 6 ' Y. r.bz'gh rd%I.2.%;p W'l.%;yry?rs'g;&s~.% a -+* ik

m. ;:.4. qs,n * ~.% ~ V:;*; T1 s:..s a..

t Tsh-f ' $rf n -.* ~ . f. V.'r'% '. 4 %..'.5..'M. -M.m.. 'i'ij-E:%:".

.4 hA* $.

f.* .. m., ;r...'. f .c. 3,.:*rd.g;.?,g;s.N2.^, ;.. :. 4.J..,,, ; = ss ^ r. <,,r 4<- y, ., :v w sr. ,Z*$,$... w M :::'. e n. sv. ~. ;.p s.,9 +:r... -.**m.. x. ' --:. %...h,:..~ n ?.i.W+s.,.' '*.* % L ] l%'.:n,n. C ' R

  • . G "* Q.s

.n.. .,.se 1 ". %.7 =%, ~.. ;&5 T. ' ^ .. (_,+ s;,,~..>n. .a.

p..* '

- s ^ . e.....

t. w. -

.a..:l*f m,. 1..'. l v f. s*,.,,.. ep,,,.,.~.. y ",A..'.# w.._..>.r..., ...,. s y. ~,. s e *n. ; sy 8 s. ~ ~* A ~ > .+ w. Y* b +. . - es sp u ;* :.!..g.. *.. c. s f, g. g A,. +t. e ..p -...n....n... a; c. w.m... 0:

u... v..... w 's z;.

. a. ~ v ~ e I g '. /V47 l I MIDIAND UNITS 1 & 2 JOB No. 7220 RZYIEW OF U.S. TESTING FIZI.D AND IA30RATORI CONSTRUCTION TIST DATA ON SOILS USED AS I'ILI. 3ECHTfL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL C05PORATION JUNE 1979 N wh, 26 + M,;2 ny A a J A / f m,.dkA~ M.n-g ( M A O ~ A.c wzz/

  1. yns k

) $$f"# +8 y- / M/ TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Use of Laboratory Test Compaction Curves 1 1 2. Questionable Ratests 2 3. Theoretically Impossible Test Rasults 2 4. Repeated use of Questionable Laboratory Test Data 3 5. Limits of Accuracy and Acceptability for Test Data 3 6. Accursey of Test Equipment 5 7. Relative Density Tests 5 8. Summary 6 1 i TABLE A - Listing of all classifications referenced in P1snt Area Fill Soil Test Records which were used for 20 or :nora Field Density Tests. TABLE 3 - Notes ou Questionable Clearing of Failed Tests TABLE C - Notes Relative to Questionable Test Data i FIGURE 1 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - All Teses FIGURE 2 .Wisture Density for EMP 278 - Passing Tests Only FIGURE 3 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - Nuclear Densemetor FIGURE 4 - Moisture Density for BF2 278 - Sanicone Tests 1 MGURE 5 - Moisture Dentity for BMP 278 - Nuclear Density Passing Tests . FIGUIE 6 - Moi:ture Density for 3EP 278 - Sand Cons ?assing Tests i MGURE 7 - Window of Acceptability for Test Results nGURE 8 - U. S. Testing Co. Proctor Method Congarisons MGURE 9 - Moisture Density for BMP 278 - Adjusted Moisture Content ] FIGURE 10 - Corparison of Wet and Dry. Relative Density ..,'N i e M-[ REVIEW OF U. S. TESTING FIELD AND LABORATORT CONSTRUCTION TEST DATA ON SOILS USED AS FILL Thio review of the quality control tests of the earth fin at the Midland Site was made as a result of settlement of the fin supported diesel generator building in excess of that predicted. that soil conditions beneath the plant structures are not compatible with thSoil sam made by U. S. Testing Company. quality of fin that would be expected based on t e bastd on the results of the field tests preformed by U. S. Testing Company Tho review showed many discrepancias in the test results as outlined in the fellowing paragraphs. Review comments are based on the requirements of the ecchnical specifications for fin placement and the subcontract entered into by U. S. Testing Company.

k. ?

f py" j ? n>> RAa ,+ l. Us* of Laboratory Test compaction curves b# h 1 / f ble 9-1 of specification 7220-C-208, Page requir field density p and =oisture content test be taken for eacQ It at w recuired ena e m act' ion M f fill placed. }dd'#phpl grain si: W u specific gravity for each ~ 0,000 cubic yards of nacM, This gives a ratio of 20 field density tests to HaToYawry compace2.on test. ' t' #

  • d than one per 500 cubic yards of fin the ratio could be high
limit, cctual ratio is shown in Table A attached.

The In fact, ( hundred field density tests taken over a pericd exceeling two yea f thtugh no time requircrants for the period of use of 1toora :ory tests are Even spccified, it is unliksly that any horto.7 source in this area would be of such uniforn character that such extended use of a compaction curve, rapreJentative of a large quantity of saterial, would be applicable. truly below are selected laboratory test data results bdicatin ^* "ik :ss,Listed ecil p.,r of the kind used in-nie.9 ; hat wateroportedJ Such a wide range is typf cel for soils t,he fi:Emaking prediction cf naximun density, based on visual inspection extremely diftiedt if not impassible without teacjM, / MIS. DENSI~T MAI. 3 73 H T 3 OPT. hDISTEE TEST (lbe/Ft ) (lbs/ft3) (oerennt)

  • BMP269 cBMP278 127.3 10 CBMP279 u7.0 15.2 140.8 5.7
    • RD24 100.9

' n9. 2

    • RD55 90.2 109.7
    • RD61 109.3 125.3
  • BMP refers-to proctor type test.
    • RD refers to relative density test run by dry method.

1 ~t g sm wf y wm Sfec t J od f-r' 20 A 7 fpy;re e N ~ - - - - .=. A </ Peg 3 2 2. Questionable !tatests A. field density' test that fails to meet standards dictated by the selected laboratozy test data must normally be cleared by another field test made in the same area after corrective action has been taken. In the procedure adopted by U. S. Testing Company, this test result would be compared to the approprince laboratory compaction curve. Bechtel QC determined which "failing" tests had been cleared.by subsequent retest. of the 668 "failing" tests which were marked " cleared" by another test, in over 10% (72 taats) of the results, the clearing of the " failed" density test was apparently resolved by using another laboratory compaction curve with either lower mmvisans density, which resulted in the percent enapaction being increased sufficiently, or different opti=um moisture content which caused the fill to meet the requirements of the specification. The possibility azists that soil was removed after a "failing" test and replaced by different material, but the records do not indicata this. In other cases, tests labeled " failed" were incorrectly cleared though the sama laboratory standard was referenced. For example, in some cases rttests to clear a " failed" test were not taken in the same area or at the rpproximate same elevation. More than 40 recasts were over 20 feet from the " failed" test location (as recorded in the test reports) and some were over 200 feet from the original test location. In general, if after a "fatiing" test the whole area is reworked, the ratest location is not too critical assuming that the correct laboratory compaction cuive is used for comparison. However, in the plant fill work areas were relatively small, and soil characteristics showed considerabia var 1ation necessitating re-testing in the 4-'4=ce vicinity of the "failing" test. Ratest should bn taken in the lift or soil layer that has been reworkad. Almost 50 ratests were taken at different elevations, roue up to 10 ft. from the " failed" test. It should be noted that 3achtel field personnel gave tha ' Q locations for reteJting. This was not a U. S. Testing responsibility. gIC8 Tus ratests were dated prior to the time the original test " failed". over 130 "f=4 ung" tests vera marked as "nen Q" ar.d never recorded / g K<., cicared by a passing test. (g& i ggpfta-Tabla 3 is s compilation of totes relative to qacstianable clesring of ' ',, oss 1.~ failed tests.

  1. b h f~t5fa 3.

Theoretically Impossible Test Results Ss11s cannot be more than 100 percent saturated; therefore, all field density test data points, when plotted as dry density versus moisture content, must be below the zero air voids curve as defined by the specific gravity of the meterial. Specifications do not require armninat1on of the

ro air voids curve, but it is considered fundamental soil mechanics relative to compaction plots. There are numerous cases in the U. S.

Testing Company data where points plot above the zero air voids curve. Figure 1 attached shows a typical. laboratory compaction test curve with field test results plotted on it. Many of the field test results plot tbove the zero air voids curve. Provided the specific gravity is correct this is not possible so that all such points must represent erroneous l data. I p ~ .-......-m,.---w n ~vn-, - -.,, - - ~.~ y---.....--.--......-----.. /W

  • Pag 3 3 The fact that a large utnaber of test results plot above the zero air void curve tends to seks all test results questionable.

g Also, rafaW- *a Yi - - 1 it would annam* *h=* ea41 daa=1tv varied widely./Specificacious called for compactive effort results as def4D[ s J y ASTM D 1557 which is 56,155 ft-lb/ft3 e ynt Ihis was modified to a H 7 = s.w sy 6 w.c css.ve effort of about 20,000 ft-lbe/ft3 energ7, often referred to as Bechtel Modified Proctor (BMP). Laboratory compaction t test curves should be related to the same effort as that called for in the field for use in comparing with field density tests to determine percset compaction. density varied from about 108 lb/ftAccording to plots of field data shown on Figure 1, 3 3 to about 130 lb/ft. It is doubtful ),j/ that the soil classification or other properties wonid A= 1 ' -* #s such { a v4d* e4ation in density,gS. a noten was.1.00 percent of modified / Proctor (ASTM D 1557)~which is d4 F'4e"1* obtain, is rated at 56, y255

  • a (Q-1b/ft3 energype curve plotted on Figure 1 is at about 20,000 ft-lb/ft 2.7 Por' comparative purposes it was determined by U. S. Testing in 1974 that 100 percent of specified effort (20,000 f t-lb/ft ) is approximately 3

cqual t 95 percent of the== h density as determined by ASTM D 3 ft-lb/ft ) Reference Figure 8. 1557 (56,255 4. Renested use of Questionable Laboratory Test Data j Some laboratory compaction test data were used repeatedly even though they continued to show suspect field test results. This could be indicative of questionable laboratory data or the fact that soil was noe_ba4w r compacted according to specifications.f r.stnet case is a cause forlaced g [ Sdbrontract fil5R*'206 rzhibit C, Page 17 of 47 No. 2 states concern. / "You (U.S. Testing) are to inntediately report data that indicates caterial \\ that does not comply to specifications or procedures." ~ " "p-fj.7 spa'cT!i'(,gra d.*[ulation are a srror_,_ --suc& er c h as for BMP 27 and 274 the laboratory compaction curve.In the case of 3MP 273, the zero att voids curve passes th g i Mc In another example, BMP 297, the laboratory Wy by field density tests 22 times. compaction curve is invalid due to calculation errors, yet w M-Tab ~ cemp tla cDrTP'uot e's%eraTiveTE'quis ticGrie'Ta'it'lis is. i 5. Limits of Accurse? and Acceptability for Test Data Pigures 1 through 7 actached will be referenced in discussing limits of cccuracy of acceptability for field test results as compared to laboratory test data. l The figures show plots of compaction data for BMP 278 which cre typical of all test results. Specified laboratory compactive effort was 20,000 ft-lbs/ft3 d field compaction effort was originally specified at 56,255 ft-lbs/f but was changed by Revision 5, dated 7/8/75, specification 7220-13.7, Page 57 to also be equal to about 20,000 ft 1bs/ft 210, Section l l I l l i - ^^ /M Pcsa.4 De specified 20,000 ft-lbs/ft3 effort establishes a compactica curve relating moisture ad density for a specific soil. Moisture was specified for field placed fin to be within i 2 percent of optima moisture as l, determined by this effort.. Density was specified to be greater than 95 perent of the *=== desity. As compactive effort is increased in the laboratory test, anziana density will be increased. ad optima moisture content win decrease. M is change em only occur in the field to the extent that the field moisture content will permit it. Once field compaction is such that the fin density is significantly higher than i about 105 pereene of w--*;the specified tolerance from optimus moisture content in the. laboratory compaction test may no longer be j. applicable for field control. A + 2 percent numerical value of moisture content acceptable at the specified compactive effort would be too wet i at a higher effort since the zero air voids curve defines the absolute ==w4a== that can be achieved, indicating that higher densities for that soil are impossibia. Therefore, if the record shows high densities for such material, the data are in error. This was apparently overlooked. Plots of field, data for compaction test 3HP 278 are shown on Figures 1 through 6. The title of each figure gives the assumptions made in plotting data for the figure. In comparing figures 3 and 4 it is seen that a majoritw of field tests were made using the nuclear device. The two test results shown on Figure 4 for the sand cone method indicates one tast result on each side of the zero air voids curve. The one faning above the sero air voids curve (shown on Figure 4) is designated by U. S. Testing. company as the only passing sand cone test (shown on Figure 6). For a field test result to be valid as won as " Passing" it must fan with-in a won dafined area on the plot containing the laboratory compaction This staa or window of acceptability is shows for s. hypothetical curve. compaction curve on Figure 7a that weuld meet requiremena of Specification 7220-C-210. It is defined by horizontal 21ues at 95 percent and 105 percent of specified density, vertical lines through i 2 percent of optinua i' moisture content, and a line paranal to the zero voids line 1:.dicating saturation about half way between the compaction curve and 100 percent saturation (aero air voids curve). The practical upper limit of 105 percent of :pecified density is not defined in the specifications. It t was arbitrarity chosen as numbers greater than this give increasingly i invalid comparisons between field test results and the specified laboratory i compaction test curve. Therefore, if an data points fan within the defined window there would be no reason to assume that they are wrong. i Bowever, when many. data points fall outside the designated area there is i comething wrong with the information and than an data points beeces suspect. A review of an data indicates that about 25 percent of the cohesive soil test results fan within this area. Figure 73 shows an area whera field test results would be acceptable, ~ in theory even though not in strict accordance with the specifications. Figure 73 was arrived at by expanding Figure 7s to include ta:.t ryults up to a compactiver effort related to ASTM D 1557 (56,255 ft-lb/ft ) which is considered to be a practical upper limit. About 40 percent of all cohesive soil test results would plot in this area. l l - - ~ ~~~ ~ Page 5 /W 6. Accuraev of Test Eeuinesnt Almost all (over 95%) field density tests on cohesive soils wer using the Nuclear Density device. e made 12.4.2 page 42 indicates this to be acceptable for moisture contentSpec determination provided that the resulta are compatible with thos obtained by A3TM D 2216. determined by the nuclear device is acceptable when results areSimi e compatible with density as determined by A32M D 1556. In a letter from U. S. Testing to 3echtel (dated May 30 +.12% for a set of 30 tests. average deviation of the nucelar device from oven-d , 1974), the 4 1.8% for the data with the range of differmees being from-3 2% tHowe +3.9%. Thus, accuracy of the nuclear device is questionable o cruslate into errors of about t 4 pef in the dry density calculation , and could (It should be noted that errors in the moisture content t / ( 1 the position of test results on a moisture density end t % is correct, and thus do not explain the large' number of ensity plot outside the zero air voids. o nts which Compare yigures 1 and 9). j values shown above, it appears that the controlling fac j moisture i in erroneously reported degrees of compaction were selecti resulting i typropriata laboratory test curve as well as erro on of the (revealed by points plotted right of the zero air void neous test data I specific gravities.in excess of s curve indicating the type of field test method used.2.80, 2.90, and even 3 00) rather than i plots outside the acceptable zone defined in section 5In most cases where the test r between nuclear and sand coce methods would not have mad , the difference result scespeable had a sand cone method been used. e test 7. Relative Densicy Teses j Cases were noted where densities in material classiffed sheet as zone 3 (sand) were compare'd to the =azimum densities i 3 on the dets i type tests ar/. other esses where densities fa clay soil n proctor .the a6xir.ima density in velstive density tests. s were compared to the record in such cases either in the classificatioAn error anst exist in the data sheet or in compring field test Tesults to in of the soil on j laboratory test data. tests were used in controlling density of send fillIn general, it appears tha nappieopriate significant number of arithmetic errors on calculation sheets eve There were a though there are signatures on the sheets indicating thn checked. Over 100 errors were fond in calculations ey had been ability of the test results).from 8/15/75 through 12/78 (not all of these e e accept-bb W llowsa A h } f uT srA # ='~' f f %6 pL JG b

  1. A M'

(Tdw!ut m 24 %# h 1. w I ..... 72.. e L /T Pcge 6 ASTM D 2049 section 7.1.2 Wet Method states: " Note 2 - While the dry method is preferred from the standpoint of securing results in a shorter Period of time, the highest==v4== density is obtained for some soils in a saturated state. At the be-4=a4=g of a laboratory test program, or when a radical change of asterials occurs, the==v4== density test should be performed on both wet-and dry soil to decernine which method results in the higher==v4== density. If the wat method produces higher==-4== densities (in excess of one percent) it shall be followed in succeeding tes ts. " An essaple of wet and dry relative density is shown on Figure 10. U. S. Testing Company apparently did not do this frequently enough, or on a broad enough range of non-cohesive soil types. As a consequence many field density test results exceed 100 percent of==v4=t= dry laboratory relative density. As an example, for laboratory test KD55 a total of i 566 field cases were anda. Of this total, 364 tests whosed greater than 100 percent compaction. The highest relative density found was 142.2 Percent wita the majority of tests over 100 percent falling in the range of 100 percent to about 130 percent. Since the difference in nav4== density between wet and dry methods is about 4 to 5 lbs/c. ft. (based on recent data) any test result greater than about 115 percent (based on the dry method) is suspect. Even if the wet laboratory test method data were available for all sands, it appears an unacceptably high number of field test results would greatly exceed 105 percent relative density even based on the wet==v4==- 8. Summary In stnaary, there are five major faults contained in the Midland Compacted Fill Density Test Reports as follows: J 1. erroneous field density test data. 5 2. inco-rect soil identification 3. incorrect (cr questionable) laboratory test data. 4. calculation errors 5. improper or incomplete clearing of " failed" tests. l Icess 4 and 5 represent existing faults in the data which could be . corrected. However, as a result of items 1 through 3, there is no rational maans of deter =4=4's which test results are valid and which asa act. ginca.more then one half of the test results for talative density .md percent compaction fall outside the possible theoretical comparison l limits,1,c must be concluded that these test results are suspect and should not be' used alone for acceptance of plant area fill. Therefore, other means of testing have been established and employed to determine if the fill in any given area is acceptable. ) O i { l%Y TABLR A Listina of All Classifications Referenced in Plant Area Fill Soil Test Records Which were Used for 20 or More Field Density Tests Classification No. of Tests 3200 90 3251 31 3252 22 3254 47 3255 57 3260 68 3261 36 B262 165 3269 227 3270 226 3271 141 3274 37 3276 21 3277 158 3278 82 3297 22 3015 20 2016 61 2024 248 R030 54 R035 53 2033 39 2039 28 R040 35 R042. 69 2042 103 2043 48 R044 71 R343 43 l 3049 63 R054 118 R055 566 R059 65 3061 589 3063 42 R065 59 Nota: Spec. 7220-C-208 gives a ratio of approximately 20 field tests to each laboratory tast, i I t l w-. i I% TABLE 3 Notes on Questionable Clearing of Failed Tests 1. Test number MD 245 fails due to high moisture. Cleared by MD 246 which references a proctor with higher optimum moisture content (CE) such that tha +2% of optimum requirement is met. 2. MD 205 fails with moisture content 6% above the OE. MD. 215, which references a relative density lab standard, and isCleared by itself still 6% sway from the CMC of the proctor referenced by MD 205 3. M.223 fails because of high moisture. Cleared by W 228 which has actually a higher moisture contant and lower density, but references a different proctor; the ratest passes sad clears the failure. 4. t They are cleared by MDBoth MD. 844 and 886 fail because of high moisture lower==*== density and higher CMC than the first.888 which references a 5. MD. 251 fails due to moisture being too high. Cleared by M:1 253 which uses a higher OE proctor. 6. MD 668 clears MDR 634, but the two tests show no correspondence in location, moisture, density, or lab standard. 7. m. 771 failed, being too dry. Cleared by MD lower optimum moistura. identical moisture contant and dry density bur uses a i A S. MD. 2384 clears MD OMC wnich fits the in-situ conditions.2342, referencing a 11ffarant proctor with an However, the dry density of W. 2384 is vay too high to fit the original soil classification i and in addition, it falls outside of the zero air voids curve for the classification which it has been changed ca. 3. MJ 556 cJears MD The fiald densities differ by 24 pcf and would seem to be differe i material. 13. E. 558 cleara MD 555 hua has too h14,h a dansity to be the same soil t as m : 555. It also'uses a diffarent proctor. 11. MD 566 sad 168, classified as EMP 262 cohesive soils, are cleared by Mn. 569 which is classified as RD 33 and has totally different soil properties than the two failures.

12. MD 1317, 18, 19 and 20 fail sad are all cleared by MD 1477 taken over 5 veaks later.

sad the proctor is different from failing to passing test.There is poor c

13. MD 2965 clears MD results would have been passing with the original BMP.2963 with a diff MD.1388, ciassified as EMP 278, is cleared by ME 1461, classified 14 as ID 55.

/% 15. MD*.170, classified as RD 24 la cleared by Mtr.173, classified as BMP 234.

16. MDR 287 fails with a relative density of 77%.

Cleared by MDR 291 which has.1 pcf lower density but arbitrarily rounds up the relative density to 80%; it passes and clears the failure.

17. In all of the following field density tests on sand, the passing l

test has approximately the same or lower density than the failurse, but references a lower =M== density ID lab standard: MDR 343 clears' MDR 339 MD2,514 clears MDR 507 MDR 513 clears MDR 508 MDR 515 clears MDR 509 MDR 516 clears MDR 510 MDR 522A clears MDR 521 MDR 558 clears MDR 356, 557 MDR 480 clears MDR 473 MDR 555 clears MDR 525, 527, 534 MDR 533 clears MDR 526, 530, 531

18. 5. 2384 clears Mn 2342, but is at 7' lower elevation.
19. MD 123 clears MD. 122, but is at 10.5' lower elevation.

20. MD. 149 clears MD 142, but is at 10' higher elevation. 21. MEr. 1694 clears MD. 1693 but is 43' away from the site of the first test.

22. 5 3114 clears MD 3102, but the two tests are 68' apart.
23. MD 186 clears MD 133 though it is 110' away.
24. MD 1209 clears MD" 1207 and MD 1205, yet is 183 ft. away from the failures.
25. MD 1097, dated August 4,1977, cleared by ED 1048 dated July 16, 1377.

Nosa.: This tabla gives typical absorvations and is nas maant to be all. inclusive. l 2 l m. 4 e. w_ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ " T.=:.~. " - ~. - w,. q pp ~- ^* i m [\\ a N Notee on Questi - kle Test Data 1. h first fEeld density test to reference RD 24.(5/75) has a relative density of 170.6%. The standard continued to be used, however, with relative densities greater.the 100% occering.rapestedly. 2. Similarly,f d ID 30, the first'two casts (9/75) have 114% and 122% relative densities, yet the standard was used for 10 months, 54 tests, with 52% of the results over 100%. 3. During the first two weeka of 'use (7/76), RD' 41 was referenced 22 times with 12 tests over 100% relative density (6 cssts over 110% and 3 over 120%). h standard was used for 5 months, however, with over 40% of the results over 100%. 4. N first test using RD 55 (8/76) has a relative density of 119%, with the field test being made the same day as the standard and, thus, assumedly the saea material. h as results would throw doubt on 'che lab standard, yet it was used for two full years and 566 tests, with 64% of the rsaults over 100% relative density. s 5. Even high density structural backf411 standards such as RD 61 ) (aazimum density of 123.3 pef), used 593 times, show over 25% of the tests having greater the 100% relative density. 6. The first seven tests referencir.g Elf 269 (scattered over a two month period aromd 7/76) g fall outside the zero at voids curve. This classi.'ication was used for 11/2 years, referenced 227 times.

7. Ce first two tests referiscing 3MP 270 (7/76) fall 6 pef shove the sero air voids curve. Continued use of this proctor for over 2 years resulted in 22d tests with 82 outside the theoretical maximum.

~ I 8. For the first month (4/77) all 3M:' 278 tests fell en or outside the zero air voids curve. yor the next month, over half the casts did the same, or have greater than 105% compaction. The standtrd was md over half a year, with 43 out of a total of 82 tests outside the sero air voids curve. ,. m Note: This tabla'sives typical observations and is not meant to be all-inclusive. 'N N' r' .x \\ I ( ~. x .o c ~ j_% s o r .s ['

  • %h%

e 2, ?

s,

l ~ f: n. p ..;.2... i .- '!L - - - - E - - - - ' -~ ~ ~~ t:I i .i 4 .i$ . ' I!! 'I ..{8 l! i: ~4C-55 0 16.0 8 22,3 2 7 2 0 e c _0 n c.2 0 e r P e f e M r r x o . S f 0 n 0 u ,4 o _2 hs RE la i 5 r 6 7 e t 2 0 3 2 am E F_

0. C 0

s ,2 C. X .i X \\ T h t S Y N r r S YTT f f o o E I e e X T S 0 TVE r r v v N R g^

0. O u

u ,6 T c c IR C 1 5 s s X X4 X E 1 L d d SL l i o o C v v R R X y, DU NI r r F D. T i i a a Xx X X d5 EI / X I X o o I C r r e* e ]E X B Z z P w M XX S a mu D E m D. ix 'D a R m f U o 15 T 9 0 0 '9 E I 0 M o4y EdE' mD. o9E-EE oa oS' gg. 0 ~ nlU3u >6HW2WR >DR yUEJg zH a C I 3 e ~ ,l, s iI* ' j. i 'I il I l: l .s v. .'k 9 144 _ - ^ ..j, s s mm a rm a d ra & m 4 m m o m H d ai s ~ m Q g a r ~ a [ ] = a .s y O w N oo b1 .l[ 4.* 1 g >J m m s .~ l ~ og du igZ 'm S X I-Z / Yf 'l f Y H iill! aZ r[g 14 a 6S -U ms

  • * ' " 'e i

uHH X X .X-km c3 ~ u ul mi l-r -m U1 gg-H b u i a N., I ut f- ./, am -d [ [ ^' ] -., ' 'i A "s N. p T m ~ o l s ~ -j 'N .A s H s,_ s ) t ~,, w s i ;,- cs -[. 00'O$1 . QQ'Oh! s00*U$1.; G0'Q21 0 0*011.- 00'001-00 05

  • C i

.C.dDd3 A. LIEN 3C Ah:lEn 33td.1d NI n, .b,. g ,\\ % q \\ Fo 1 s 3 +1 \\* .ws [, [s.1 N ,q V WiR { N .g F-N =. -5 0- [ X [ 5 m 1Lt1 QA?a 89 { "F .j ' e

  1. /

r pu Z W bc H5E 5< W XX X W UR X X X X ,3 E- = }- g XX X X _rd s bbW X - H Qd f X X I m']Z e .C22 1 9,_ \\ ] b' 4 .m H O co asi aa os aa asi aa aii a a a'n aa adi aa as" ad3d] A1IEN3[ AMI 33W7d NI 5 a x rzans 3 i l '+ Y \\ mma rwa Q A m.j F PJ .m e O_ m E c0 -Tu 5tA AN a e I mE LL gglli ~m u m I-ptil l-Z / i N F _g-W ' eZ Z -ui G HS -U U X U I y R ZH =3 L.[Z = l-ii LU LU -m La - H q1u G X 1 Ln N a O'

  • d

] l-8+ H O = .[ 00'Q$1 QQ'QNI 00'Q$1 . QE*Q$1 QQ"Gil QQ'Qdi QQ'QE l CJJd3. A1I5N3[ AMC 33W7d NI t FIGURE 4 l l ...emy,, ,,,og .e.x ,4,w en e eees,** ems 9 = jl /7I PRR m ~~~ F l = = =. 2 Q 3 [ s e i = x -m i Eb1$' 3 4ei Onm-4 m i, =a a e X l- >. m Z h L__i m aZ = l Em .ui G H"' ~U U1 XX X W Ud ZHz g$ t X X X 'Ld .cd,,, bhR ~mH Flyd 2 maZ m U g _] l F-R 1 H O - [ 00'O$1 00'Qhl 00'Q$1 00'0$1 0 0'011 00*0dl 00'Q5 CJ]d3 A1I5N3[ AMC 3]W7d NI 5 mae. I e een epv e o en e en

  1. e8
          • De-

fy mm a C9s mm m m b ru 1N O m 8 = m 1 4 d E 0 = m = 3 =- + .m 4 ltriu1 a ber NW @Q i W du L ll1- 'm l- > tQ Z L_iG 'E Z l [W 45 [ H Q. -u Ln W E uZ ~HkG m3 cF b RW9 IWE I W cs i.; a LLJ -d b -] H- = -i H m -[ 00'Q$1 00'Q$1 00'O$1 00*Q$1 00'Q'11 00'Qd1 QQ*QE CJJd] A1I5N3[ AM[ 33W7d NI f. FIGURE 6 l h_. i ~~ .;,h / @ 's.i" g \\ \\

h. 108%

\\ \\ d , [ DATA POINTSTHATPLOTIN SHADED AREA y WOULD SE GENERALLY ACCEMA8LE g / ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS w y 100% d' NOTE: AGOUT 25% OF ALL FIELD DATA w PLOT 5 IN THE SHADED AREA i 95 % g I E l 1 I l 1 I I I I i i \\ i BMP g g i g s I i 2 OPT +2 MOISTURE CONTENT. PERCENT i FIGURE 7 A- \\ s DATA POINTS THAT PLOTIN SHADED AREA u. 100 % I Mt.D BE MA8u RWRDLESS OF

  1. e,o EXACT SPECIFICATION WORDING ASTM 1567

+ NOTE: A800T 40% OF ALL FIELD DATA wo POINTS PLOT IN THE SHADED AREA e i c 100 % l d BMP \\ b hk(*z,k + -E,,, / I I i i I s i i s SMP I i i s l l -l \\ [ l 1 1, i s 4 CPT +2 MOISTURE CONTENT. PERCENT FIGURE 7 8-f FIGURE 7: WINDOWS OF ACCEPTA8ILITY (A) 8ASED ON SMP SPECIFICATION (8) REGARDLESS OF EXACTWORDING OF SPECIFICATION G e 6 eda ta h pg ,+ - w. y-r.- _---,,,7 .--v.., we.:,- ,.,,,,ww-.. .-m---,,-.,w-- ,m-- ,-e e.%- x- . - -....=s.W-=,.,, .,u., .... m ce. -.7~. t.. ., ;.9 y. .....,.3

9 4.

.j.y

c.. :

s .,,,a yg s... .u ..w i.-r wd, N. _._.n=. ".. '.( i:-i.i.:: ',

7..'

5

    • ~._9....'..

.~ UNITED ST.AIES TESTING CO..INC. .g-Graph Representation of Three -

1., ~

Proctor Method Comparisons ./28 g June 13, 1974 By: Peter Wang i.f. J /24 R t,s/(4:) l -= - 'd Nota: ( ) add.d by Q y +/ a.se.1 %. /zo -. [o ~ e \\

  • 's-
f. y 1

.+ 1 g . b :%& rip., ' y....:... %4..; '&*l V-Q-

m p

. _ _w. ,Q ? >lp.$,). &a / 3.:.. /t + . -,m. : ., y. .w 1r f ,g,, s- . ~. ." ~- - ' I-p.p. /[,.,...., v. i' .*..f ',,., .~ p. N .n f. // ~ p.f' I "a / p.9 I f*f 'y J \\% .me .v ~ eN- - ' '. 'a

  1. o
  • 1P jeg 9

g q s to ia is a is a zz F2 hus.srwe carwe:: .%= s MGtmE 8' .N .1 _. ~.. ~ ~ l u 9 M 15 T LIR E-TJ E N S IT Y F FA R Eb M P 278 4 5PECIFIC.GRRVITY = 2.6h RLL. TESTS h 3.51 Subtracted from Holature Content, Dry Density Recalculated O. l NOTE; Not only does a 3.51 shift la moisture content-l Q (s.11 to bring tests inside d the sero-air-voids-curve, E-it results in impossibly high' dry densities. ~ f"1 ku 0 ' u. n n n p !"- X F .X w H X X g i H m X X X X N X R E_ 4X X X X N XX X g X X R X 1 y i 0 e X yX X y U E- \\ E J \\ 0. ZN H g_ i i I 2.15 d 2.65

  • .00 9'.00 0'.00 lb.00 15.0 0 60.00 I4.00 88.00 I2.00 MOISTURE EONTENT CE3 I

f $.. .w. 7~+} -SUSPECT .,y / / / REGION Coth [ t:' '117 I E

~

I >co tuu WET f METHOD 1 iE DRY METHOD 93 i 0 100 116 RELATIVE DENSITY, (%) NOTE: VALUES FOR ORY DENSITY ARE TYPICAL OF A RANDOM FILL ANY TESTS SHOWING MORE THAN 117% RELATIVE DENSITY BE SUSPECT IN THIS EXAMPLE. STRUCTURAL SANDS TEND ONLY 2 OR 3 PCF INCREASE IN MAXIMUM DENSITY AND AT MUCH LOWER RELATIVE DENSITY WOULD BE SUSPECT, SAY 105 - PERCENT FIGURE to CHANGE IN RELATIVE DENSITY SCALE FROM DRY TO WE OF OSTAINING MAXIMUM DENSITY, BASED ON RECENT LA8 RESULTS t

  • ==e.

-o a* _. = p...., ,. 3.. < y t ~ NONCONFORW.ANCE REPr-T , l " " "" ..~.. _. _,,_._.._., _ ;,. r o o,. c... ..u.... 5 ... v. L......%. . ~ m,._. o.. <a' PnK-C-12 & C-109 Q l6 7220 I.. Shlvo -. u~.c.6 1 n.......... c o.. c .....o n , o r,. 11/28/71:

3. e n... x

.r.... .s --- ' ", u_.-w. _jtartinsork Zono 1 & 2 ..., u. 2, c. ,0 - - ' ~ 61.TJr.,j / I'oin g 3 ..m m. 1 .. w.7,.i r _ Q Listed Diken A- 'M l kMY [_ _ _ q _b k

  • b l;0.f.

3;.. ... u. u o. /... <, c.<mi,r, p- (., ,.o. CA _ i..... su.. L. w. J..,.s,,,,., g,,/ NA .. ~

o. evac::asc onc.<= wo.

NA i..e riun iusca..oe. '<.a u no C-210 l. 1 ,r.-.;,, Q,, Ihe.d,, D' __. _ C-2.10._ltey, 2 " a m a u u n r sc u o.t **' 18,28,2h,31,J2,17: 33 and 3l;_ NA

c. gese r se ac r osepcocA v eon 7" = """* **~ ~

e s. Asner O vre . ' sa *'a c* C. _a_n.onle Const. C'. South Haven, Michigan o caos Kl o Sub-Contractor ~ ~ ~ " * * * * " " " " inconeou=w.s conoeveau.. 0"*".T"'*""""*'""=a... O iEodn 'o a^ v a a'ai. sure a visua . uovi.no...,nue reone.. .v - w 'a

  • m.

k,_ . Spec C d10-Roy. 2, ecotion 12.6.1 statou in part "The wat.cr content during compaction nh all- _no.t__bo amore than 2 percentaste poi.nts below optimum moiett'co content and shall not i.o more tha __abova optimum moisture content.i." ..g _ _ _ Contrary _ to the ktiove, compactitiet test 'reconla indicato that material with out-of-opeelfication moistu C9 .- c._.-- re content was placed as shown in'the following list: ,- g. 30. Q F9 ELD D99.*GS4YDoM 'Mr0E%.D OBECoMe4END ATOON/stols14* To F.3aktCT 5 NC8 HEE 8.e. G

s. & StiLD Distott F.uas stEsut.'s S.

-Aa par-ION.J)EDON101_ dated..Hoir.[7.i.19 0,_.@o_ opt.imus!i iso 1 u turo content._rnngo_wnn roinu4a.. _ 1 ._.m .to y. dry to_.8?)(i.wat_odsono_.LMuterlsl Ju_Wo. Du11ook Crock..a_r_ea ain_d t.h.. _ o_th..e._r_ in i etod 1 tmat_9t'.@9_.(ike as gneoified_1g the Duchtel _ropronontativo.,_ The followlng data from __ lock _19_.ls 98 mone 2 malgrial.gdid _wi@lrL2%,5lry._tg_5%.wqt.ft _9E l f tlance. It in 11nted ' h,.s Paratolv for nye.1ect erwinoer19w'c evaluation to Bl.IM1-lOla i I e wun.un.wa pes,osesion _f.Und_en.A.ECYiew of teat _rgguita._llsted_Qn.pnges_2 t'ltru_5 of_this NCK.and_aiso un _various_ e s. s no u rco u a ois. us.....n ..ui.ii.i test remalts subesitted as a roeptus_e_to NCR C-2_6,_Eng!nggr1pg spsys tit 3tg> l amaterial le satisfactory. _t hukthe_ Ltt-place __ k ~- 1 suns.t_ary__o.lti.te temslig_glour evaluation _willbe_ forwarded. _ sand:.:r separate.di.cavar r,.m.,. t - -- -- e > - -- "* __Kicineering2r. $ecommenda_.. e.,.J. t.?.t. i.. - %.w procdeaingdtlDi Il=,Piadt_.Arca_Eill worlt,.and also-reconwiendu.: ta "ean.-cs.t ' athe 'in-place..,.. materialidescribed in thf a NdR.d.4.p (:/'2V i s gym,,.s *.e.seasse c6*A8ees setietseereo ne d 4*

  • '*. ? ',,

..,H,, ves; see AyyAesernje-

34. 9tEsecTf D MATERIAS. Di&roSIYeoM

()-"""""""" ~ e. .; ;,.V;f t 8. oc 0 212 " 7 AJHet / .f. ::new.;.-3* I'.; >:.,: O 1; #.n*( ?...,.. a.r.. -

s.

. i O

  • If'

~ 6/,/.: ..,.. w,:en e>ce 8' '. =...t s I.. '=. ;., p ..,,,., t .e=s s. _ ,. new. +......=.r . m.?. W.. y s o, " ai.e.....=a...c..= i.-

p. -

- = = = = = = ~ - -.. A t a ' J_gc. o: - ^ -.uoe.- .). l 'I 1 5 3 NONCONFORM ANCli HEPOf t r (CONT'DI

e. cac e._2__o,._5.

.....<....... 55 Q - T _EST NO. D' ATE. STATION - -ELEV,..n C TEN. ' .M01!1TUHH NO. M STU E: OITIMUM: CURVH RIGI OR LEFT g 3 . d.. 4 - + ' Noi th Plant Diko ' -/ .F. " H s ~.,.. l#0n. 8_ i. 9-12._71 7_+_.32 ?' 410 10.!: .7,1 00P 29___ _..2_tyr R:' No Aetion Taken z 3 9-12-71 8 [ 93 d: 610

  • 9.6

_12,6 C%_12__ __ 215'li' .}!d'Achlon Taken Lj la 9.}lt-73 10 + 50'.A 612 6.8 - 11.8 y .... e i COD 2 200' L d - 5 9-11-73 9 + 50' "l.612 6.6 3 's ~11.8 COD 2 1.0 -- .-'.250' L.~ O -~ ~ r co { 8 9-18-73 '9 4 19. * ' 610 14 5 - 7,1 C0P 2Q ._2.388 L? .Q 9 9-18-71 6 + G2- -

  • 610__.

13 0 _.._.10 3 COD-1 92' R.. 12 9-25--73 la'+ 09 600 10.0 7.la. COL-11 805 R s.Roworked-No Rotost 13 25-73 ' 6 '+ 08 ! ~ 609 11.2 ' 3 9.l: COD-8 1058 RU 'Roworked-No Rotnot ijn 9-24 '9.'+ '08' 612 42-9.13' COD-8 2008 R .Roworked-No Rotoot f 15 9 54-71 '< T 10'2' 609 .12,1 8.6 C0F-2 80' R Roworked-No Rotoot i 19 9-2'5-73 i.'8 + 59' 1 611: 13 9 11.2 COD-5 82' R' 23 .10-06-73 .8'+'92.*'*5613 20 7 10.8 COL-15 212' H. Material lloplaced-llo Dolos

s..

s. _ 21: 10-06-71' S63..+1 90.W.'.613: - 21,0 - '10.8 COL-1$ 212' R(.- . Material Hoplaced-Ho Roter 1

2. 9

- 10. 00 73dl{+'*25.4.p' 61'3 - 10 3 " 11.,_] L COD-7 92' R. Ho HoLucL 3 7 32 10-1a-7.3 '.1'C 00 * ' 6.15 ! <69

Llp COD-8

$0' L j 7 i 16 10-17-73 8'+ 82 a 615 1$.2 10.8 COL..-.. lo' R- . g 8. 6'15 i .$37 ' 10_ _17273 ~ 7_E82 : 1!,2 10.8 COL-1$ _. _.h0' R' i 30 10_19-73 b + 99-? 615* 19,la I. 10,8 COL.15_ _. 110 8 R Hown'ked Aron-Ro Heteut r i ____ _39 _10-19-71 9 t_52 615_ 17 3 10.8 Cor.15.. _ 110' R. No Rotoot t I:0 '10-13-73 i8 + 169 615 _.15.2_ __.__ 10.,8 ._.C OI r 1 $.. 210'RI 1061-734'3'+.00..'e617 1:1 13 8 :,. 3 i 11.2 COD-l 150' R Roworkod Aroa i l,[ 1'O$ lay 7[*E5YOy M bh! 1L$ -T' 16.lg Of-2 6 21 8 - Q, j l7 10'-25-8 56'#+ 03' ' -621 :' 10.0 7.lg COL-11 70' R t .. ja8 10225-71 6 + 01;* ;_6aj' 12,6 9de COD-8 ...__150' R ._.. 5l: 'n11-08-73 Ullr+~!' 0,Eh621: 2.~., 11.6 y i,, 0 t ii 2 - -. COD-5 20' R Rotooted not raooed-Soo sd M... (ipp.isdN.UAE.Y/ ' ".'.i 3 ': ' ~ ~ 'dfi5 @)*,da,)l' h __._ _. '. ... ', Tp ..j.jy< w,.. oc. e--- ---w r.. _ g

a. ~

,.m mm.m. mm g_i r+: s.:r-. n: a.a _ _ m.m ag QQ:.. .u. ?, ,t

_. - - = - - .iiF NONCONI 0!!M%lCE flEPOllI~ (COh!I'D)

  • M01:fruttis'"*"*'DrilMUM ~~~ ~'" CUliVE~~~ ~'~RNiff W TEST NO.

DATE STATION EIEV. s.uce .....55... e _Q0. H.T_lWP..- wop 8-55 11-08-73 1: + 00 '623 18.3 !STU..R.S - tl0... _ _ ~ ~ ^ " ' '11.2 .-Q, t $9 11-10-73 5 + 00 6 214 16.5 C00-5 20' R' n 11.8 COB-2 20' L '_6.1. _11:1Q='f3 h +100 62h ih r.) _ 10 3_ COD-1 _ 200' R 1 Holature Too Iligh { 6h___._11-13-73 ' T_t *iG E 62._2 '10,5 ,.,8.0 . _T_ $0* L No Action Until.. Spring WOD.1 .1. 9:11-73 5 + 30 - 610' West Plant D1ko __, Start _Up"_,_ 1.8 ' .h 2 9-11473 '3 + B5 ~610'

1. 7 *C-con 1

_ _._ _ __00 ' R No Reteat _ q, 4 .12.0 4 12.0. COD 1 11_. 10-21573 ' 1 + G2 6 62h @ '1317 80' R :. No RetesL c. _3_ 9-11--71 *- 2._t170"_.6jb 6,0 ' - 12.0. 00' R lM-COB 1 11.2 .T He' worked Area Ho Hotest _16 11-08-73.. i5 +"00'* 633 A ~,10 3' COD-$__. 75' R E 8.0 c COD-11

q.,..

1_^ '"].:.. -'.s _ ____ _25' R of shoulder -_ North East Diko won 7-35 9-12-73 ' 27+00r608f 10 3 7.ls COL 11._ ? ~- h6 9-24573 h 5 dd'~616 ~ 19.5 16.h COD 2 10' E _h7.. .9-25$73 3 00 616 19d. ' 1%.7 COB J___ 10' R Reworked-Rotected_.(peebelg .58... __10_..0.2..-73 28 + L'i O 612_ 2 Reworked-Ro tno ted 20;1 16._h COD 2 85' R % 6f. 10-11-73 3 [ 00-6th 18d t 11.2 COL 8 69 10-12-1) 31 + 00 616 21.0 3 _ 90' R p_7L 10-20 73 ?* 28 + 00 -' 617 23,0_ 20 5 COD 6 10' R 12 7 COB 3 12' R Retest--See WOD 7-47__ 78 11-1h-73 30_+ 00 622 16.3 11.2 ~ 80 11-13-73 31 + 00 ' 616 17.1 12.6 C0D 12 208 R COD-j 10' R j Retent of Ig7 &_6.f_(f.a_il_ed..)_, 1 ~ ?h - '!. 6 ((fdd.. f;4.:*

.'
  • U s

.,ic ... y:. m c. ,i;,. 9 i- . ;.* t \\ ,,..; e ..a ;...,.i......- -t s, ~ s T. .i*$. 8 8 ,..,m...__... .I n., 3,t, m - 1 __.___m_ .q,,g;}yp.q sp,t::nu:.r.e g____.___.. -) '. - a ,,::3 _____...m.

.. n a dt_o e _5._ - NONCONFOllMANCE REPORT (CONT *D) .i r. o. _E.OCL 2"O. CONTINUED _ ___ TEST NO. - OPTIMUlj MOI _gqitE DIFFfJIMICE 11tCM OPTIMUM 96 CollP&CTI0ll 4Qlf8, 1101S'I'URE CONTDIT WO14_9._ 2 1_30 10.3 _t 2_,7 97,f.._. .'.. 10. 0. '

7. I:

12.6 100.2 WOD0-12 2 1h.2 9.h __.__.__..ih.0_ __._. 9 7 7... _ _..___ r- ___WoD0-13 2' _.__WoD0-19 i' 2 15.9 n.2. _._ -i l. 7. .._____.96.0 i . 3. 6 .__ _.99.6- _.).dDD-29 2 10.3 ___1h.7 + u / _. 0i 0.36.., 2 . 15.2 10.0_ __ __ _ 3 h,.h 103,2 _ W ! 1-l' .hD0-3't. v g,; 2' ' ' 11.2: 4 I n. Q_. +3.15 .._._101 9_ . _ co ..._WODB-l:0 2_ 15'.2 ... 10.0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... _..+18.1 _ _100.15...___.. _ _ .WOD0-l:1. 2 13 0' 11.2 _ .+2.6 100.?. _ _... WOD0-l 7 i 2' t i 10,.0 7.la i2.6 99,lg_ 9_. l __._ ._ ].2 100.0 WOD8-lia 2 12.6 + .l 102,l....,._. WODD-$9 2' ~ 3 16 5 11.0 +1s.7 i 41.0 __ _9 6 0_. 11. 3 10.3 WoDB-61 2 3 1 ' ' ' E. 7__ __ ~ 11.2 42.$

99. 3.._ _..

WODI-11: 2 "_ 13 ..uoD7-35 2 10.'3 _.__.._._____,._,.7 l;_ +2 2 _,J7 1 .h0D7,,l;6 19.$,, ,,16._lg_,, _ +3 1 ,yu.fi 2~ . 3.J __ _., , _ p6.2 WoD7-$8 2 20.1 16.l _ + i +1,,1 ., _.95,1 __.__. WOD7-61, 2 10,j_. 11s. 2 1 S 0 l1 -l __,_.

20. $,, _

+2.$ 9.6. 6 2.- 2 . ' ~2).O. WOD7-71L =_... _..___ _On,,the romainder of testa 'the'flold submito 't'ho following supplomental data for Pro,)oot Enginooring roviou & evaluation. WODB-1 ' d-2 10.l[ 71 +3.3 Bl.9 t __ _ UDDG-3_ - 7. y ' 2 -

9. 6 - i : '

12 6_.. _3 0 ,103 3 t 1;N '1 . I O ' - 65 0' '.f. ' 11.0 -$.0 .~ 100.L 5 . WODB-la u"

  • 6. c....,6

.,.(y "" ' g g ~ **..... qi.,-.1& x .:.7 1.0"'" ~ "-- -- "= - $. 2 101.1 "---- F41 woo-e --~ o .:..%u.. t.... - . r..;..

    • = ~

" ~ - n aniGilW (4 I

. ~h'. l NONCONFdHMANCE REPORT (CON 1. - = _ ').. _.._... race.5_ oe.$ : ,_...r-i. e'.5;5 : ;;;Jl .L.DIML?A.CONTIENL. '. _T!BT.NO._ - EQlfB MDISTURE CONT W F OPTIMbM HDISTUHB ___DIFr a M NE_FROM OPTJ!!UM__ %.90Hi%Q'j40ll. 7 . i.5 71 --2.6 imma-8 9 'l i 97 7 i _ Mon 8.1% 2 17.2 9.h _ _ _ +7.8 D6.3 I ~ . Woe 6-15.._.* 2' 12.1 0.6. _ ___. __.+3.5 ._.913 9 _ = .__. MOBS.21 -l., 2 - 20.7 10.8 +9J %9 2 M98.

  • 9 Pig.n 10.A

_+13 9 100.H ___.y095-32 1 6,9 9,h _2.5 95.3 _hJelb38. 9 19.h 10.8 . 8.6. 95.2 co Woe _8_-J9 2 17 3 lo.8 45. 95,6 o., 1 7'* 19 5 16.1: UseS-46 O __3 1 p].8 + ___ oeE-Sh 1 -D : ~ ' 11s. 6 11.2 +3.1: phis w __ Nots-55 1 18.3 11.2. ___ __ +7.1 90.5. __ygen-6h 1 i* 10.5 _ 8,0 +2.5 199,5 ~ I mi-1 ~ 4.8 12.0 -L2_ 95.9 1 4.7 _ _.1255 *- . __ _. _ =7 3 98.7 __ Wont-2 1 wont 3. 1 5,o 1:'.o -7,o_ ._.. 9 3 7. _ _.. _. et-16__ I 10.] 8,o .t2,3 _.99, 6 WODT-l 7. 2 19,6 12.7 i-6.9 8L3 i wasy-69 2 21,o 12,.7 __ _ 8_,3 93,J + ___.Moery-78 9 6 3 _ -- J - - N ::y.t,.13.1_[i.! ,' 3, d 12.6 ' _____.+h.5 93.y. 11.2 +5.1_ 97.3 __yopy 80_ 2 1 G ir m 'er, r.14 r

d. Jeal'ai'st'ofM aff.oted in._-pla.e unborial be dono at kho name time that.valuntion 6h e

.'P*-*N' e . *=== tr-MM..W1Wrma*=v &, 1gs Y*s* it- - = - ~ .,.....,.....,.. u.,.....,...... "I - 4. ~1 l ' -., ~..... -... r. n

q.,.y..,.

n

5. Uc., p{ v \\ h '* ' ' ' *,) Q 8echtel AssociaC Professional Corporaj!n 6.wr-x. 69* 8 Inter-cifice Memorandum - A?'".**M' - ~ B?.sc - 104 h. Mum.ev T3 E. E. Felton caie Novc=ber 7, 1973 1idland Plant Units 1 & 2 From P. A. !!artinez . sWem Job No. 7220 Enginecting Earthwork !!aisture Content og s File: C-210, C-208, 0274 Ann Arbor

  • C*M J. H. Allen J. C. Hink R. L. Ris: ford L. F. Wilcox

Reference:

a) TC1-C-15 da:ad Movember 2, 1973 In response to your FCR (ref. a) and based on laboratory tas: data, ce=pection da:a, and locatien of the =accrisi heing placed, specifica: ion C-210 can be relaxed with the ic11oving s:1puls:1ons: The opti=us moisture ::::an: range can be specified ac 2" dry to 5% wet of. optimum provided that if :ha c is:uro conten:. cxckeds 2". wa: of opti=um the fill shall be placed ui:h a ec:pae:ive effe:c equni to at 1 cast 95% o! the }., Ecchtel =mdifiad p::::c: :es: resui: (20,000 foo: pounds effort). i'his vill be done a: no addi: ion:1 ess: to 3achtal. This also cpplies only to zone 2 cc:arici which is placed in the Bullock C:cek area and in othc: selected areas of the dike as spacified by the Bachtui rep csontativa. The mois:ura con:rol specificati:ns cristna11y writ:en for zone 1 ::carici still :pply to zona 1 cs:erial. Th:: is, : na 1 =accrici t.:ust be placud wi:hin a cois:ura contant renga of 2.*; dry ec 2 : wet. The abovo changa 1. sil:v:ble run a of optinum coicturc ce;.:ent for the zona 2 :::aris; ety result in mora -han four passes of conpccuun equipment. Houavar, cr ;cin:ci cu: ab va, th:.s uditional effort vill n:c be :: the c: pense of 2*eh:a1 sinca it i, being dona to c11cv con:crue:',cn :o..;.:ir.ua and give the contractor, the bas: utilization of his equipment and peopic. /. A t,i),l ' ' / %v Q~~1n % y hq,. 3,

  • l * ?f,-

.I'l P. A. }!artines s e.., 6., '.'. ' '. '...U. 3 :,. i ELR/; - 1 .e l N;.r 030 ~ ~ ~. -

~m ' 2 t Q.. () C } o . /**. .. - = 1 C;/... 1*h U ) j.I

:

e.n --7.*= j,-<.---,_ 88r,re's yM..r.s. M.c * 'e.g <.... ~c~ t. .J::r.: t.::.- : T l' 4.*-:/. r>MCf eA Ti eiOw (._ .i _ N:.hstm i ri.:: r.sw: L_ a e mes on;a,ery: c,.4 4 /...0 . C.. : s,- *. e -- i..,.,,a vis6:20 t ic:.a.us.a w. ci c.x 3

o AD3kCSCE t

.,y A: MSS Il 1 Lt.r%i ;.u w. ::: ::i CE. c:. M Maahtel 7 ver cercorst'es f '500 T. Miller Road Midiz=d. X#.cf*.c= r,. . m v .e., "A3E C10 13M. I! ai* tion.sI a.:'.f-ws ce roov's.ed coednue to list b tour: s. L R-~~~ 2 2. 1974 i -* r--e _ 2tn Td.dect: F.idland ?l=== UP.s 1 & 2. Jcb No. 7220 1 1 sof.1 *: crime Pronw T'.l a : C-210, C-202. 0274 L ?.eferecee: D 513C-233 ettach. Shc. I '!= res-ionfie es t.2i n : --ecese fre: 2. Creta en 3/20/74. thbt d.a co ci.rify th. : -' ** "7-eas s" -- f,--. ed to in e-f. 1) c resf.se of sf.stu e cente== dece..1.stin (""*

  • n 210 a.- 4 d--r de ssitw.

"" e <8 -- de ef v d e t-ba detsc. leed b-the followice e oced = e:. t - le.i v'11 *oe e ma ted in Shelby t,.bec. A reera.aeeta ive fo::r C tn ed - 1 e' r e--le ch ell 53e cut 5, 3,.h e es.elhv tthe. We. cum j ~. O. t.- < r?,- n.* veenend!e.1:r-sa the e-*s of the' tthe. he ' ..,i.,r. . - 1,. r s a.A,* c' - be e-e'tdist:snWed., f-r: the eve ser:fo: ,_4 u n e.s., m.. ..o e .2, _ 4- ,e,,c.-o.,,*-%,es!t.yed \\ m g: ;.crwa 3 edd b.* 3, s. 5 F ?.. C:ote,J. it. /'.1c... S. 2. Mifi s 040 p,,__ _. n m_ m-m.- d e -,- i m 4c n e t.. g c.x,m.src4.:. w,

r~.@ tc). m (,, %'j &gc h ) p," w }. e\\.i. e-ccm.o ,n o ......... ~, ~. ) _". q 1 5 UL h

~

TYF2 CC.'.;'2 5.hCE G Q.:2F

=w v.::.r=, r..w <r:. :T "'

j I I UcM0J: 1 ? E PRc7AtATE ecx: e .e u N ;c t.:r: 1 rei F.:,: a I s.:o:r. c.J,ury: ces uf. e.ccT. +-f 5 ~ l,o AcoRE3522 y u i t o ) :...c.;Ea. s sh 5 S i Ano;ttss -; o

I t.c Ar.oM tcrr. STATS ca coc.. '

ud M ^ -m

a.,m,,

oo ~ l + CSACs ss::noN. It #% ac::r 6 are rm;end El e m Get below: L ir.ade b r-*rU ly with care rNaa to s.sacre acz tmdefor=:ed * 'se=;212. he i==1de dt.a=ater of the Shelby 'B.i,a vill be used to exeres the ~ se=cle dirmstar and the voltzm of the st:nle ce outek f ./ rota the c-es s-s_,gtetd o nl - c.: e=d t*t e e..*re - 2 of f;.a-h + hc e.t. m::-es. te vet ( sitv is the ratio betvem the reiche c f t'ac m rai-4 se=sle setd the c=le. lated volt =e of the s = ale ne d v deeri:- is the r-tio betvee: d th e' v-is t a f ar eve = d--et: - c ct10S*C for 3 heu a dd the e.lculzted rel.. e of the cel e.

  • - 1+

e--- is meired *n heedifse these se slas *uet A veen'the bo-i== lee: tics and the laboratory to assum obtaini g ng am 2 e--ds fon d s==S!m. De e=truries t=d vaise end befeht mi nte e.- tats shid be esde be a cum 14 fied t ch i i e c r.a tmder the st ner. --r --***.1 e' fr~ e g. ec. 1 r: w ocn4rotu i 0d1 s c c Arse. p ex n

ca., u c g c,.y, m eJ

.. = = .. i .4.

v ,.3 '04605...... x ~ -.O iC:.. i. r%s 3 ' D[ I,3es ' c 2$%,,.,a. % ~ hSf2J Icewcct SLw.<d,m a a s ( TYPE CC' ?.LE SPACE BE 22!U ~: caci Tu:rce t v.sx 1.. ::: Y :. -- e GGCE A!* PRO 7P.:ATS ECtt i C..aFf,E..C.""r. C,0".3: Egna L'r:- I NIRam: I h Osusory: ar!,,$ ; T43 i .",,;;.'..f.R TO CE C;d.L.J .e AOORESSEI I n.

  • o t00RESS LCOA7.0.'; ;OITY. S372 C.? Cry. t" '

Iw .%. r' 'w but t sw t=

t..

,o o s. LEEACE SaCTt0w. rf az:':amat ac&usses :,e reouned corrt:rmae w list tnN

  • l Vd : ~:t t::e. sura aas am to ha r5. ------ O M.m A #4 -. 4 r.~.

~. To th aes te t 0.C1 1 _5. r-e : A r... - - er :.s s ere -.. e s.a '.*.'.E p... -s * .*e

  • t, t

i O e i t .? .p 0 L a ~.

.=----- -m a

--w 7.

't ~Ii-l I j i:iu < ,i c 'R ' l '.5 NONCONFOI NCE 11EPOh f o ' --_/.- 00 t- / ___[b.._ _.._ _, p. -g jo.g.f 'o / .oor.o e ve

n. u scos..ou concuanruce

.. rnonc, no. ... v.

a. o......ir..

9 fi~D~E m - & ~1 j f ;_ byh92 zc;.;. I' 20 % a l 'l .c 9220 M-% sn -- s. _[v a s i gygA '/ pavel/dI/~/l ~'If to av p e

s. stau asscasersoee; g...
s. lTru Locarsor Q

$l3/* &..,...k.y.w f 'EAM/ovach N O / k, ' ~

  • Q

.innso IDsNSG {q( .. c.., r... r... 4 ,,,, 4, u r.. s,..... a ..<,.uu... ' /.. nari.aceuant sensat no. { ,)@/} f Q 6 .V///.,..* kjY $ j; H/Af - S - N/At f g? l' .sI /2; .. ru cu... on ou n,.o. - - g-j m inocrinoiusreev.oneLan no. 2/o 6_t.mgewhccG7-62/o h.,. Z. */ y k 2 4, t E; S I, 3 2, S s sty.

' q

..L y,...r..... f..

;I j

coes t a ncio ss/Locas son .s. p .i " Is.mhur o v==

  • > Sounc=.*.

'.s M4.3 [no "Yd 82 NI /F MTk. } ... nour wa.wsvaucreons. _ ___ e v e u Raouis to riuo==cencraina O ouve io mavensai.sorzieve.oa 7[ 4 9hNeoMropuBNG CoNDST8oNaSped NZO-C-200,_.Iab.le_9_1mpage 14a_sta.tes_liLpari:__fleid_densitics maisiure cnntent_tesL.freqin - *[- will be one per' every 500 cubic iards of fill. Ac_tual_ test takenhis _ one psr_c.very 2300 cubiq_y3rds. Ref: NCR JC-26 A f i It' was reconnended by-project Engineerinq borings be _taken to eva].uate the_inf olace density _ol.aHanteLareas,_ j NCR #55, - f( 4 .1 p Approx. 500-samples were~ taken ~1rLirgas' as designated _by_P.roject_ Engineer _ing_(work. done_snder._ subcontract _ ESC-60. l l h '. Raymond,Internation) OutMf all sa'mp_1_cs' takeq_55_are actually iallurgi. 4 I-f '1 -t 'I lk 30. Q rsELo 08SrCsBTeoM rIELo REcouuENo4 T eon /58ou f E To enoJECT ENGINFE RING 3 5. etELo otScoS8T8aN ftESul TSs n 4. P J._Qhrggar:d 'f4ilures~aY th'ey_arplwidley_. spread _ouland_not 'fai _out_of_ spec._A_1arge_percentat !_o f_1hese_f a Llur.as_are_al sn. .$[ jn the top:ohe.to ts6 feet of dike and would have to be refonditioned befortplagemeq,t of cobankment anyway. We i recon = rend leaving dike as:is with reconditioning of top lift as required. )( jj//M.>f Ng i ( ( y j ._ [ c g Nlll}. . W], 'f' '.* E. " - .V s }@ J [y y

qrs, o.3,. a i n
n. <

y

. r uss======e ogroserson,,,.7,

<g.]gg 'gf- ! j. Based upo gn ;evalu.,..ation of da.. . w r ta from the boring program initiated in response to NCR-C-26.- ug Enrivieerif 'reNameh'd%e Pls t 'Arth' fill._he and-ns -f a): A_e.ummary_of_ihe_rcaults' od lie _ dBEClITE POh/fR CORP. a. l 6. :., JOD 72.20 t. borinsP oronram is'bein sa t muleted and will be foivardp,Lundgr_sep.argte' eqyer. Earthwolr k .. n.. : - i .e thelp1 g Are 11.Y2./[ %'Nh/ /- (/_- 50 78- .T 'u I" j may throc o a. .e t .-9

n..,.

n.;.: % j as. pourcvzo M Aveu na t. ossrossrooet D ~='***'9 =rru.. ,,op cc.fy.nce I a .,F., as.sg oesso.re Ss: puer recuinao gn'a.,.n,*w. 3 .. _ y /c4<.r*, f Zsy

v..

n..... g..-.g;

m. m. g o.m..%..-.n.,

e. a. 3[ .o. .c to 'I,. "

p. pS -

N'{**"f1 '"*"*".";,D "-t?l @,. l ]. s c .oc .,m. .M t . -...?.I J'W 0 3 ' 6/,* o o. - j g, I '3 NU... g h_ iJ to 8 L

......,q;. 7,g p,4.q.-p. -y i.. v........ ._..'.3,i .q,.

i. -

L_. g _ e .+

w. _ _ =u j

kaumurfitbi.2 E ? y c 'ft:do. a n _ M. u:..p,-M...-#- i-t vt y 4E'Q a ....~.y....= u i m ,4E"(.. 4 .+ jWW 2NNX E % "5: % Eal 3di$i Y }&~0i$$$t If&& ~ $(J%$.syM .m ?n. *. gl,.v -. 9 .yY'}s:.~'Yb$$... ~ a.m. .n -- ~ - c

i.,w

,.,.- s: M' h$ ? f ?. A E hD 5 n[. ? nwwJ.:y:5 $c myl.M-86kt AAE u, 9;.s!.asem+(.a-N, L-e WM ke. -.,, n,..u.y+

u. w?

^ K41 se

__w,

? wa' /7+.v....nBr- . mb < t w . W. e...: ~ ....si m m. .m ........ $ a th H rr=... $,".. - Wrd._.d5Mb_i(_1.' hT,ti. g l ' _6th. ed _C T T T_ _ _ "'".,y. '.;. W i' !M Qasi wa;1*%f!*."'-f:I;d.M**f8Jt.f.? *"*"'"*"f* 9 "*'F"* ".*!"'i' '"W.F 2 ' , slbdJE'C'l'E* ?.: N _' -i.1 .MllMInkhE4ver)3 ssEYish.'&tos'Mahliid. nespJam atafn id'maE4t41d'lanattMs4mdisiurs 500'iistcVaMof 'ffil.' ' Actual test taken uis heiskavirv 2360 bbfc vards. Rif; NCR.Jf[26k_.., ~ 'fM(5EDEQiENamensiido(16rPrdect DisinterInn'hirines be t'aliin to y ~ 5iit'ariation)NfMaaAIE$ers'iakaYIsNi[esi_as daMppatad hvtrejartJag[neerIde j '.?". f Ost ofsa11'sasibles taken~52 aw antggily 'failust. -L' 0.~ i U;;N.:2% 4 :4.. e - 2;. 1

s..:

{ f.WTJ""". "'*". :;.. it. - M*'? 't'i*""" *"""'"**" " f **?i'. '"'""""" *. 5 '- >.C r'"* '""P ".?" ""* "' t-- i ~ .m.~. j sged filluves as ihavdre widie/ inre,id out atlaAI. fir DDA Af_snac. A bro' noreantar.naf_thseajallude As.Jdk ; a-l 5 thertef ens to two,fhet'qiWftenrid.wv.1d.1(aie to:;..: redonditionad.befbre

  1. o(eshadament ardway. Wa

) WiGiinisid leaving dito a's"Is'3iltn'~rifonditfanIng af top 'llft 4s required. II[d.pla@f//g W. i ~ k g C n t -4;

.e
  • Dw..

.. ~, i !8 e -.-

a.....==...im m

=.ui.d:- w 4 . r -- -. . = ih.-.. j lLft. *Besed upon eval'uhtiok'ef de_ta from the borina program initiated is rssoon'se to_ MCR C-26 ' [! ,,f h blaaerina'yeedqnee h(tke hiant_Ar&h fill behaed-ma2fs A_ si--ry_.nLj%g.h-eut en_af tha 1 NI \\ L [.p%I borU eMj[ beteelt! sailoted and will be forwarded un4t seearate_ money __Earshwerk' t' M* : N ? r.-.bMsdM a.M r..%111.4M o-w M1J-1-to -W ~ ' !MWW \\ ,,,y-IX; Hi* a;. h % x. L. ~ ~ F- ~ ~ - M 'b$47 -

l

) yaneamW@psl==.nyn e ame yi =.dy...

a. =6=== 9= =ie=.==

.. g g,:-"~ ~~ q:.[;p q. - a d gmau. ri > c i: r

i.-

== ; p ,n s.Q = ~ ~ ~ =- t~ l 5 { ? M W

.--,_..--n-.-.. c . -j. .g. - O Bechtel Associa$ Professional Corporatick Inter-office Memorandum 3E3C - 376 ' ?, e '.t.. .. June 10, 1974 ri E.'E. Felton cate p. . i. ,..a. a e a :., ',s. n,.g.,y?. ' A.... Martinez- - ..x w.<, .w...

g....wMidland'?lant Units 1 and.2g..

- p.m we Job No. 7220 Engineering Report of Soils Boring Pro 5:am g, File: C-210, 1700, 0274 ^* # J.'E. Allen w/o. U S. S. JLfifi w/o. ,,v/a (less appendices) - -.. l. - .T C. 2 ink my.;. ,,,7 ., g - r. ~....

References:

a) NCR 26 b) NCR 88 '

  • 7*.*-

Transmitted herewith is the report of the Soils Boring Program h iniciuted as a result of NCR 26 and required to co=plete action en.NCR 88. This report ' completes Engineering action on the two referenced NCRs. e ._:o. P. A. Martine:- RLR/siv e.> Enclosure O P , 3.,- p\\,

t h

Uf t. p.- g .y ... y. a.y.... Jutt 101974 BECHTEL POWik COr;!, JC0 n ?.o 2 M. per s G c

g j. :-Q,.;.w.,f,v. ,. =,, ; e, e;,;,. *.g;... p d( --i p.. * :." -.. d .,C. ~ .6 ~ ~ ~.. ..,s.,..

9.,'inw;2r.<'.. N.,.y v..

REPORT FOR NCR 88 Q @.,'.:;d g $ T.W,.'%'M e' ' e ': d 3.4.Mttgon. Mar,ch.,26, 1974, a sanpling.and testing program.for additionalc.>.- ~ z wg:m. a c.a ' moisture and density checks was etarted under the supervision of ~ '"' M N W '~ a Geotech representative as requested by engineering to respond to NCR 26. Drilling and sampling was started March 26, 1974 and l #'.$., completed on April 5, 1974. I.aboratory testing was complaced.

  • ."a April 11, 1974. The tests were compiled and since 5' percent

@i s.. b. M compaction values fell belov 95 percent, NCR 88 was initiated.~ ..'e $yi T. * ' The dare pertinent to NC!t SS' in connection "vich the existingt I ' s. ..v >.. e - g T; <' - fill in the west plant dike, north planti dike, and northeast ' k. 3 ",,.;* ',' plant dike are discussed *herein. The intent of this report is a to assist engineering in evaluating and documenting NCR 88. ' e. - i.%.* A total of 58 borings were drilled in the west plant dike. ""M. north plant dike, and northeast plant diker These borings h ' */ ' penetrated Zone 1 material and Zone 2 material as indicated on Figure 1 by solid symbols and open symbols, respectively. ji Boring ground surface elevation, coordinates and depth are r-shown in Table 1. V t, Trem these borings, a total of 356 Shelby tube sc sples were taken. The samples were cut in the laboratory to lengths of n.. about 6 inches resulting in a total of approxiantely 451 U specimens suitable for testing (338 in the north plant dike, t 53 in the vest plant dike.and 60 in the northeast plant dike). Another 84 specimens were not considered suitable for testing because of tube danage or excessive stone content, as indicated in the renarks coli..ms of the tables in the attached Appendix A. v'.11ch contains a tabulation of laboratory test data. Appendix s.. , 3 contains laboratory data worksheets.. s-Moisture deterninations were made according to ASTM Designatien D 2216, density determination according to Chapter 1, page 37 of Earth Manual, U.S. Departnant of Interior. _TestMesult: t lle,:,( Tigures 2 and 3 show plots of percent Bechtel modified compaction , g",4 - (BHC). versus dept.h. for the borings wherein patcent compaction belov 95 percent were encountered. Test results which were judged unacceptable by the soils engineer on the job were not included in these plots. These were results from samples which came from "p the sand drain (Zone 3 material), contained stones, or vare disturbed. In the case of sand drain or excessive rock, it was judged that samples volume measurements were inaccurate. gs, n7f-s i remarks, column. Appendix A. Q 4 ;, lO l aunio1974 F.!CHTEl. POWIP. Cor' Jo n,:l 0 A g Ma

.-s, - m-e.m. _.. _ _

[$s.h*. '* '*, j[.'

,4 3 . s. :. 1 ... ~ ) .@.,gp,'C ,I ~~ ...n. '.**Ih ' Figure 2 contains data where the percent compaction belov 95 Nwg.2 , percent was either above 94 percent or the sampics tsken. were ..p;, ' .near the surface (TB 24. 21, and 4, NPD). Data between 94 percent and 95 percent, when occurring in the infrequent manner hiktEmDetween 94 perce,nt and 95 percent is not significant when con-D" .1 ~,..,.. g. 3 '. sidering the accuruy range inherent in sampling and testing ' 4M7 ' procedures used in practical soil mechanics. Turthemore, these

[.; ; I.

' data were not a part of a trend of reducing densit'y within the .. ".R@ * . fill as can be seen from Figure 2. This is substantiated- ['Gi p further the lines of av'erage percent compaction (Figure 2).* ~ which shows that the degree of compaction was above the 95 - ...M ~ percent valtre.. Averaging.of so1I propurcies, within a reasonable. 'N N.f. - n;-depth range which does not contain significant. scatter is a , '.6L commonly l accepted tool exercised by soils engineers.:: Therefore, '...h,@~.. s. *all data between 95 percent and 94 percent are considered 'within .[f the intent of 95 percent BMC compaction and viu not be further . discussed. ' ' r.'.. Data near the surface feu within the zone where removal and , M,t reconditioning vin be required before placement of new flu ,^N. (only 3 cases: TB 24. TB'21, and TB 2, NPD). The degree of i compaction should increase after reconditioning and passage'of the 50-ton rou er equipment. Figure 3 shows plots where occasional percent ce=paction less than 94 percent vara encountered. The plots also show the 95 percent compaction line and the average percent compaction line. -v 4 These same borings are indicated with a hexagon on Figure 1 and i. ~ amount to 10 borings. All the above 10 cases in Figure 3 were between 90 percent and 95 percent compaction. The values belov 95 percent occurred in ' 9. d.. the form of spikes in the percent ce=paction versus depth correlation. Further, they represent one'value between 90 percent and 95 percent 1* per 5000 cubic yards for northeast dike, 3200 cubic yards for vest plant dike, 6350 cubic yards in north plant dike. These occurred at scattered locations as can be seen frca hexagons in Figure 1. 1

  • g Furthermore, lines of average percent compaction for the holes show 3

percent compaction above 95 partnet (Figure 3).. Except when soil Properties vary within a large range, the soil behavior is more y*.' determined by the average pertinent property than by the. absolute maximum or the absolute minimum. ..... ~. It can, therefore, be concluded that' the'in-place fill tested meets the intent of a 95 percent degree of compaction by the + Modified Bechtel Method. s s e e w) s'

    • p,
  • I f, is. m l

C O

n. l A...;. p. y.

e.

O 'sechtei Associ@s Professionai corporation [;.., Inter-office Memorandum 3EBC - 810 '... c.' igg %. % ~... .,e.', ,...3.'7.,.To. .J. Connolly Date June 9, 1975 Zhuisi se W1=d Plant Units 1 & 2 - prom R.nL. Castleberry- '~- Job No. 7220 Documentation of Change to og Engineering

q..,,

NCR 88 Raport Film: C-210, C-1700, 0294 Ann Arbor cco.es to 4: J. ' g, J. F.. Nevgen 7, y "...'.. -W.'7. Holub (. - '2'"~ Enclorure: 1) IOM, S. S. Afifi to R. L. Castleberry, 5-6-75' 3 'Ihis is to trans.it enclosure 1, officially confir=ing the infor=acion given verbally by J. O. Wanzack on 6-19-74. h sii.':b6 R. L. Castleberry ELR/jeh i Enclosure. i i 8 e 8 QC 07220 A 1 M .M A??CCE .&,Q . A. PFOf:n /( *, mm v %e .Jei;-., n u pp ,.. p.;;----. - ~.e.a.... : m.. :: n c ~ RECE VE0 dc on:. JUN 121975-O m t~'. I oc2 f -. Q U S.L t tY CONZROL 4 BECHT jog < w,, 220 li O

. y",2,.;.>. q.. g.=. .[ (_. - } ~70 V n T Bechte! Assoc. kas Professional Corporatio: s. 'a ..c ;... W

~NM Int.er.off. ice Memorandum /Y.C k k [-

C') 5'~Ni' Ic/ h-Il Y'~~($' \\ &.9.'. ik,,7o. i ~ - R. L. Castieberry Daie 8 May 1975 . 7. 7.w... 5,"2.'.h.c ~. ~

h'CR 88' Text Cor:cetion From S. S. Afifi

%i.s. t.e..'.t W t. &, Midland Units.3.: G ;2 '3end.iA<Mb +. *.G*V' ~w- "M.- ~ Job 7220-001 Of Geotechnical Services g,..;b. " - -.. . + c, cocies to R.. O. Anderson Al - Ann Arbor 10(D)5 e.. i.iWi?u - S. L. Blue WI d-R. L. Rixford '.3.M-j ....-,.a,,.' 1320,2530,3410 ~ w: ..s ina.n.. a..,.,.. s .s .n,- d.:i. ' .c El4. - This memo trans=1ts a me=o from J. O. Wanreck to ne regarding ._c a correction required in the re ct of NCR 88. This correction ~~ vas given verbally by J. O. Wan eck to field personnel. O ~ Don Horn of Consumers Power Co=pany QA requested today that 6,..' this correction be transmitted officially to the field. r ~ ~. ./)/ S. S. Afif r SSA: lab Attachment f x:m .,_........i .a \\ s n'!.:.'" l._.:-..r. ?.i. A. c f ,u I r...... s. c, .3.. ....*g s s s

t.. - -

.. t s 1 -.._. '... l s 1 t.:. AY 1.0.13.'C > a" - (Ld$/.,'. ' /. //../ h9 >D fr: I ~ t.......... ..,,...f

,.A. ; 1 O

?.. ~- .f [. +. v :3.5 t/ I,... -- _. . ~1 y --r. .r t ...t e. n.:' O.;2 G.

e. $~'s,

f l 0 C

% m m t w ee mJ m ww w2 M +~mrm m=== = A $3 ~.', Bechtel Associntes Profer.sional Corporajic O *- 6 ,,.,.3;.: Inter. office Memorairdum <.a .. e, +.. $p p ? - To S. S. Afifi Date 10 January 1975 . n;a "w.. ,e sve,:ect Hidinnd Units 1 & 2 Acm J. O. k'anzcck,

  • DXM'g. m MCK 88 Documentation oi *-

%*S * ' n^ % g 1- ~ : . ;.g,, ' Verbal Changes et Geotechnical Services n'. [.l, consto S. L. Blue w/o A Ann Arbor - E t ',* R. L. Castleberry w/a E. Rixford w/a 1310,2530,3410 .::.+ ;, '.Y 5':.a,. ' The following u.emo is to document my response to a question raised by hidland QC and Consumers QC on June 19, 1974.as noted in my trip report dated June 21, 1974. g. On Report UCR 88 (attached), see Paragraph 1, second page which W should read "... (!324 NPD & 21, 4 NED)." Paragraph 2 of the second page should read "... (IE24 NPD & T321,2 NED)." This information was given to the field verbally therefore, this memo is intended for documentation. J. O. Van =eck J0W:; Lab Attachment

  • a t

e n e O O

mw-e-_- + " ~ } ~.....____m p'.w.3.yy. w. g 7.,,. ;, - t_,_._,,,,_,,._,,a,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,,..:.. s..;.. ~. .y. -. t..... . g,.:,, g p).*- ... ~. l...:9 )... .s ...*.i.';.....',...,...,.. .u,.,., 2 ' :,s t ' i.,. ',.,-l. < f, '.i.i.,..q), ;, \\,.~. ; 'i..... '. ? i. : Y.':;l 4p i .., s,. s.,,. 4 's ' ': 4 :o

  • Q..'
~..J.,.:.

.R:I *.' ; V.;~..,.,:,"yt n >a,,',pll ',..;.,'.,'

,}.,,, ;,' **

W' c a.. r.. d :c l .r-Rt. PORT rnM ?:tM $4 .... " I! * ',., c... '. ! cu',. i.,' [..' :.....rM. %'~ 6. " - ~. .. :.1,',',.:.,.....ij,... ~ N.wn :;. ' e ' J($n itaccli 7h. .;.s. -. 117t.. ' "r::m' pt lun nnd "t ent inn pennrnn for add!t innal",' ',' N.,9 '.i.,; * ~ n e 8Di-nointur. nnd i emtty checkn van neartrwl under the nut.crvinton of ' N.';l. t Dv',- a Ccot ech reps.ct:entative an reeluentetl by ennincerinn tu runpond '. ; ~.a ~ to I:CR 2fe. lirillinn and.Enpf lon van nearted !!nrch Ofi.197/e ..k Q'. ; conrict cil en.'er 11 'i. I')7/. and i 1.nboratory tent.ine van ceenplcted ..,

  • 9' *.. *;

i April 11. !?7/.. tio. tent.it vere c.mselleil nuit ntnce 5 percent l, cotapactcInri valisen full belov 23 i crecnt, llCR M van inittsted. i ...;l.p,;. 4; J.4... p - The data pertinent to 1:CR 80 in connection vith the existing f f11 in the vent plant dihe, nneth plant dil o, anti northeast ' pinnt 4 t!:e are discunsett herein. The intcut of thin rcrort is U* to annist ennincering in evaluating and docuracnting !!Cn 88. A total of F1 bortuns enec drilled in the ucsc plant dike. north pInnt dike, and northeast plant dike. These 1.orints pcoctrated Iona 1 enteriel and Zone 2 materini as indicated on Figure 1 by solid arnbols and open s>M ols, respectively. Boring ground surfses cicvacion, coordinates and depth are shown in Tahic 1. Fren there hor [nc.n, a total of 35G Shelhp tubo nampics ucre taken. The rt<mplen vere cut in the inberatory to lengths of about 6 inches resultine. in a total of'appem.fnintcly 411 specimenn nuttahic for testing (330 in the north plant dike, 53 in the vent utant diha Another 8/ apneamenu ucre, net causidered tiuitabic for testingand i because of tubo daeanc or excessivo stone content, in t.hc renarks cetumna of the tables in the attached Appendix nn indicated A, which contains a tsbuintion of inbaratory test dats. 8 centsins Inhnratory data worksheets. Appendix iloisture deterninntions t.ces nade accordinc to Ar1!! !)csin D 2216. dannity determinatinn necordter; to Chapter 1, page 37 of nstien Etteth itsunal, U.S. Department of Interior. Test noenits .1 Tigures 2 and 'l Phev plots of percent Dechtel nod!!!ed ceepnction (11110) vernun depth for the horf ur,n uhtrein percent e.cnpaction below ?$ pere..nt ucro ete:nuntered. 1er.t resultn which verc jud::cd unneceptal.ic 1.y the rotin ent.!ncer en the jnh ut.rc not inclujint in thenc pler.n. theto vore t ennita f ree en plen uhleb can f rom the r.nn1 drain (Ts.uc 1 nnterint), centnine1 ntenna, er vere din:urbed, in t.be cane nf nnn-l d?nin nr exce.t.tivo rock, it unn .jedred I hnt remat hn, ent mir, Appetid l.t A.wi plen vnlic.er n.cnnurmenta veru lunce'erato..* h h

yn_. -,,e__. 3 m m_ __w..yyw=ammmm.w-3; x p.

v.
  • U.8 gg.-
w. m....... -

[ C..c '*'y ~ pir;ra, 2 contog ~). c. per:cnt van eit her' above 94 peri a it er the nanple {g i ;' ' . 4, {g ; , ~ near t he s'irf.iec findt.e4h-am3-4 -Gr$ Unta her ucen 94 (TC24 vern perce.nt and 95 percent. when occurrJnn fu the infre'tuent t . p. '. g lip?) & 21, 4' E. shown in rinntn 7. In considered neceptnble. )t*;2 manner betvern 9 *.1:cre.cnt nnd 93 percent The difference stdurinn the accuracy rnnne. inherent,.in nampMun sindatin not ninnific ~Q.g f \\s ' h,.-. :, Proce.hirenntnce! :tn pract'tcal noll meelutnicn.- entinn . fill, an can be veen frem rinure 2. data were not'a part of n !.O

].'

within the lurther the 1Jnes of average pere'ent cenpaction (rtnnrThis in nnbst.' ? 3vy., which shown chit the decree of coepaction van nhove th /4.' :.4-e 2). percent value. depth ranr.c which decs not centa.in significant acactar i. A 4;a ti e 95 commonly acerpr.c4 Loci exercised by solin cnnincers. .. Q.. '({e na nil data betvcen 95 rercent and 94 percent are ennstdcted Therefore, .?;e, T,._-"".the intent of 95 percent uttC compaction and will withfn discussed. not be further . y... c - Data near the nurtnen f all within the zona *vhere r reconditioning vill he required before placement of new fill emoval and (only 3 canen:.TM *, TbE ....:-TB-h-NPet p compaction ahnold increano a,fter reconditioning and passagThe de the 50-ton roller aquipment. e of Figure 3 shown plots wh'ere ocensional percent com ~ than 94 percent vere encountered. paction less These some bortn:*.n nee indicated with a hexagon on lina. amount to 10 borings. nura 1 and i All the above 10 ennon in Tinure 3 were butween 90 95 parcent compaction. parcant and the form of npiken in the percent compaction vThe valties below 95 por Further. they coprenent one valua between 90 percernus depth corrolttion . per 5000 cubic yntdn for ncethennt dika. 3200 cubic yards for w ent nnd 95 parcent Plant dike. M30 cuhte. ynrds in north plant diko p at scattered Icentions as can be scen from hexagonn in Ti V These occurred nurc 1. Furthernere. Linen of averar.c percent compact ten for .e percent enr.paction above ?5 perenet the holes show propertici vary within n largo ranna(Tin +.co 3). T.xcept when noil

    • detcentned by the nycrne,e pertinen't property timn by the abth maximum er tbn abrioluta nintmum.

solute ,,..g. meets the int ent of n 95 percent decroc of compa ested !!odified p. err.htel !!cthod. y tha ~ ~ e o /. o *... I c G

- - - - ~

c.

g J' O l Ta BWlbrguglio, C-220A 'm Fsto DEllorn, MidlaEd $$i-CGRE!MSIG l one October 31, 1978 $[Qf l suasccv MIDLAND PROJECT - NRC EXIT " ~ INTZRVIEW OF CCTOBER 27, 1978 File:

0.4.2 Serial

280FQA78 $dyk,,,,y cc SAfifi, Bechtel - Ann Arbor JI.Corley, Midland WRBird, JSC-2168 GSKeeley, P14-4083 RLCastleberry, Bechtel - Ann Arhde DBM111er, MidlanC, TCCooke, Midland 'JFNewgen, Bechtel The following people were in attendance at the subject exit interview which 'uas . conducted at the end of G.'J. Ga11agher's' inspection of October 24-27, 1978: CPCo Bechtel NRC ~ RCBauman WL3$c1;.y RJCook TCCooka ABoos CJCallagher JLCorley RLCastleberry Dehorn LADreisbach GSKeeley PAMartinez ~ DBM111er BHPeck ,y, ^ RMWheeler "7 n ~ c .-.y Mr. Callagher stated th:c the visic was d follow-uion 50.55(e) report of the diesel generator settlemeat and that it wa's'also a fact finding visit. The in-spection consisted of a review of past data, activities in progress and planned activities for future work. Inspection was perfor=ed by revlew of the FSAR ccm-mitments; Specification C-210; Specification C-211; PQCI/IR C-1.02r Dames and Moore Report of Forndation Investigation and Prelim 16ary Exploradons for Borrotied Materials dated JunC23,~ 1Sd8 and supplement to this ieport dated March 115,1969; preliminary data on diesel penerator set 21ement problem including boring plan, cross sections of fill, blow' count versus the elevation' graphs, lab data, sectie'- ment data, boring logr,' dutch cone logs, Osather data and penetrt. meter reedf.ngs in test pits; design drawings C-45, C-109; C-117 and C-1001; soil tests taken s in the ' diesel genera' tor building area during construction compiled by B. T. Cheek, Bechtel QC; observition of soil testing at the test lab and in the field; and discussions nith Bechtel Geo-Tech, Project Engineering; Fielet Engineering, Aunlity Control Engineering, U.S. Testing, Consumers Pover Company, PM0 and QA personnel. y Mr. Gallagher stated that he would not handle the findings as n1ncompliances, however, they could become items of noncompliance when they are deviewed by his management. ~ His findings /observaticus were as follows: N 7 i 1. The FSAR states -that during operation, settlement readings vill _ be taken every 90 days. Because of the diesel generator iettladut prchlem,, ands frequency should be re-evaluated foh adequacy. -%,3 ?V 'c \\ { 3 i A s s N \\ g: T + e .{ x

O G 2 2. FSAR Table 2.5-14 " Summary of Foundation Supporting Seismic Category I Struc-tures" identifies the supporting soil materials under the diesel generator building as being controlled, compacted cohesive soils. However, construction drawing C-109, Rev. 9 and C-117, Rev. 6 identifies the material in this area as Zone 2 material. Zone 2 material is identified as random fill described as any material free of organic or other deleterious materials. In the field a variety of materials have been used for the diesel generator foundation material, in particular, sands, clay, and lean concrete, silty sands and clayey sands. The apparent conflict is that Tcble 2.5-14 identifies cohesive soils where, in actuality, cohesionless sands have been utilized. A review of the records indicate that sands have been used between elevation 594'-608', areas of elevation 611'-613' and areas between 616'-268'. This indicates the ex-cent of the variability of the material placed under the diesel generator building foundation. Mr. Gallagher did not feel it was good judgement to use random material under the support of a structure. 3. FSAR Table 2.5-21 " Summary of Compaction Requirements" identify random fill to require a compaction effort of a minimum of 4 passes with the specified equipment in this table. This requirement has not been an imposed requirement of Bechtel Specification C-210 nor an inspection requirement of Bechtel Quality Control Instruction C-1.02 for backfill. 4. FSAR section 3.8.5.5 states that settlements of shallow spread footings founded on compacted fill are estimated to be on the order of " or less. Site Survey Program has identified settlements in the diesel generator building foundation - on spread footings to range from 0.55 inches to 2.30 inches and in excess of 3.0 inches for the diesel generator pedestal. 5. FSAR figure 2.5-47 indicates the foundation of the diesel generator building to be at elevation 634', according to design drawings C-1001, Rev. 5 it is indicated for the diesel generator spread footings and pedestal foundation to be at 623'. 6. A. Specification C-210, section 13.7.1 requires all cohesive backfill in the plant area to be compacted to not less than 95% maximum density as deter-mined by ASTM D1557 method D which requires an effective compactive effort of 56,000 foot-pounds of energy per cubic foot'of soil. However, section .13.4 Testing requires testing of the materials placed in the plans area to be performed in accordance with tests listed in section 12.4. 'This section, in particular section 12.4.5.1, " Cohesive' Soils," ~ requires maxi-mum lab densities to be determined using ASTM D1557 Method D provided a compactive energy equal to 20,000 foot-pounds per cubmic foot is applied (Bechtel Modified Proctor Density). To date, the Bechtel Modified Proctor Density for determining maximum proctor density versus optimum moisture content has been utilized. This conflict results in an.unconservative method of determining the maximum proctor density and method of assuring that the required percent compaction is achieved, In particular, the actual in-place compaction would be-less using the Bechtel Modified Proc-tor Density as a reference than using the standard ASTM D1557 method D. This is due to the fact that the compactive energy exerted using the 3echtel Modified Method is less than the effort exerted by the standard method D - example: -20,000 foot-pounds versas.56,000 foot-pounds..

d... - O E

o o -^?? 6. B. Bechtel Quality Control Instruction C-1.02 section 2.4 testing identifies the applicable inspection criteria and includes Specification C-210, sec-tion 13.7 and 12.4 which includes the apparent conflict as described in detail in Part A above. C. A further review of the original subsurface investigation performed by Dames and Moore and documented in report supplement dated March 15, 1969 page 16' indicates that the recommended minimum compaction criteria for support of structures be 100% of maximum density using a compactive effort of 20,000 foot-pounds (resulting from Bechtel Modified Proctor determina-tion). However, this 100% of Bechtel Modified Proctor corresponds to 95% compaction according to the standard ASTM D1557 method D and not 95% com-paction according to Bechtel Modified Proctor method which has been utilized for the entire plant fill area to date. Furthermore, Dames and Moore Report, page 15 states that all fill and backfill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content in near horizontal lif ts approxi-mately 6-8" in loose thickness..Bechtel specification permits a maximum of 12 inches which affects the compactability of the naterial. 7. Piping,condensagt. lines, duct banks, and other utilities under the diesel gen-erator building =ay also be affected and must be evaluated. 8. Mr. Gallagher stated he was leaving not having seen design calculations and ~ will be discussing design calculations, assumptions made, and conflicts with the FSAR with Licensing. 9. The inspector observed the structural concrete crack that has developed in the etst exterior wall. The crack was observed with members from Bechtel G'eo-Tech and Consumers Power Company. The crack extended full height of the wall and continued down.through the spread footing as seen from the inside of the building. The crack is expected to have been induced flexurally caused by differential settleuent. Discussion with Bechtel design staff has indicated that this crack is under study and is currently being evaluated. ACI-318-71 in the commentary section 10.6.4 limits flexural crack exposed to the outside to 0.013". Corrective action may be required if this limit is exceeded.. 10. The following tests were observed to be performed in accordance with the applic-able tests standards by U.S. Testing: A. Lab Test ASTM D1557-70 i B. Field Test ASTM D/1556-64 ' 11. Calculations should be evaluated on the increase and the rate of increase of the pond fill and the effects of the water in other areas. 12. Mr. Gallagher stated that the NRC does not view preloading of the structure to be a fix or resolution of the problem at this time. 13. Seismic loading calculations should be determined for the type of material existing in its present condition. 1 ee m g o. g. *een.

  • es e
g. A Question G You propose to fill the borated water storage tanks and measure the resulting structure settlements.

(a) On what basis do you conclude a surcharge no greater than the tank loading will achieve compaction to the extent intended by the criteria stated in the PSAR? What assurance is provided by the technique that residual settle-ment for the life of the plant will not be excessive? (b) A similar procedure is proposed for other tanks, including the diesel fuel oil ~ storage tanks, and shculd also be addressed. (c) The borated water storage tanks have not yet been constructed a'nd are to be located upon questionable plant fill of varying quality. Provide justification why these safety-related j tanks'should be constructed prior to assuring i the foundation material is suitable for supporting these_ tanks for the life of the l plant. For example, can the tanks be removed with reasonable effort without significant impact?

===% M*- ee 'm 3-

l 9 Response (to 6a) 'Yj gh The results of field explorations in the borated water storage tanks area generally indicate satisfactory fill. To date, 18 borings have been taken in this area. Three of 1 3V M.i s these borings indicate some soft materials. However, based 48 on three borings per tank, there has been no identified unsatisfactory material directly beneath the borated water tanks. M p p,....: r* -u u IC A.-f) ,/ CoMusthe.~. eval =;6'W-the fill in the area is satisfactory, a. a..x a n. e~ an earthen preloadjon the west borated water storage tank area w-i.H--b; ps u. ed prior to construction of the tank. EO N ~ The existing tank ring and valve pit will be monitored /ito g" / ....,/ predict future settlement, and to allow remedial action, if j/ - any, before the tank is constructed. For the east borated water storage tank, a preload (either using earthen materials or filling the tank after construction) will be performed. The selection of the method chosen will be based on the results from the preload of the first tank. .I' 7 ~?. c f[p j It is expected that the preloads, together with the majority . l.~ . g \\, of the boring results, will confirm the adequacy of the p .'j g '/ <. .: -- ~ i foundation materia'Is in this area. The preloads will also allow prediction of the residual settlements expected for e \\ the life of the plant.

Response (to 6b) The diesel fuel oil storage tanks have been filled and are being monitored for settlement to predict future settlement and assess the need for remedial work required to ensure limited residual settlement. These tanks are supported on medium to very stiff sandy clay and clean sand fill. These tanks are surrounded with backfill consisting of very loose to dense clean ~ sands and very soft to stiff clays. These adjacent materials do not meet PSAR requirements. Locations of borings made in this area are shown in Figure 9-1. A cross section summarizing the results of these borings is shown in Figure 6-7. If results of the evaluation made on these tanks cannot enusre limited residual settlements, the tanks will'be surcharged or removed and reconstructed. The C tt is loose snad fill will be grouted. o nc. ev - .=> m :c s

.ny. : e--

1)c u & C'^ 4 C' - 'O & py/? A w t, it G 3 ci-r UU #

  1. ~

~' Response (to 6c) ~ m= **- Gr;' 7' v';'**y

s. c c-r r f,u,i c ~

6 1"o ca i+7 e.sr entc c+- L.<m vf* Cc 7 t,./t w.3* w yc.v.oJ As described in the respons'e to Part a, one or both borated water stcrage. tank areas will now be preloaded before the tanks are constructed,.using an-earthen surcharge load. No significant foundation problems are anticipated, and the - preload on the west tank is expecte'd to confirm this.. If 4 1 necessary,'an earthen preload will also be-performed on the east tank.. Although removal of the tanks after construction would be both costly and require a_schedulo del'ay, the tanks j i l wy-

( are. accessible-and removal remains,a viable alternate if - unexpected future foundation problems in this area necessiate remedial actions. I e s e 9 O f i 1 4 I I t ? i i d i' i 1 1 t- .I e e b ,k. e 9 a s ~l + r o p . - -._._.___.,_v.

-a. 4 Question 2 Discuss the consideration given to, and estimate the cost of, grouting any natural lacustrine deposits (sands) upon which safety-related structures are founded. 7 _Th/. f ,l

Response

,'/',', c / /, sf sf ,,_i rs -4,r f5 l 0 Cons-ideratiorr wiII-be given--to-grout-ing-enr natural lacustrine unint AriC= 4.rc re As~= sand deposits $ es:.iculMe-susceptible to liquefaction. NE /'s /v .i... n 0 G. ' Bo2 ings made to date ind eate,, Mthese-mater-ials-.are-i b inclated and---have-onli been Ideu l[ red--in one-boring at the ns sir..,. -@ y u..; e p.= Wfj,,; ;/;,w,:_ (,,_.iL ;5 ,a.. e (.,qg. ~;J e service water pump structures; Borings will be made to o sh identify the extent of this material. A. grouting program would cost an estimated $250,000 for the cantilevered portion of the st:.ucture. '*ld.' Y. ln. s-

,\\. / v. -

.\\.. / -r V Y, j \\ \\ 8,...., b

1. A '

) '.' h . \\g _ - I / 1 I I

x Question'5 To what extent will additional borings and-measurements be taken after completion of preloading programs to ascertain that the material has been compacted to the original require-Inents set forth in the PSAR. T

Response

.j pf A,J =? It is not expected that material properties of the surcharged fills will reach those properties associated with compaction requirements set forth in the PSAR. Material properties will be evaluated based on settlement-rebound measurements made during and after removal of surcharge loads. [ or these D reasons, it is not planned to make borings or associated measurements after surcharge removal. 7 m ,et',ce-vl d i.T n.c u nis g.:,,,; c,e,,z.n,4, l E S 7-j)=f fHE PSA/d id /t-L- 2 E / CHitMf ED SC 5a, _

n..

.s,~7 ~ g tv m n r.e r a e f t'-g 'r "*7 L 7 %i .m, .g,:p: < c-s:S e c, : a v-! c 7: s ' <- G l +-

9 t , ;..,s Question (4 Specify and justify the acceptance criteria which you will use to judge the acceptability of the fill, structures, and utilities upon conclusion of the preload program. Compare these criteria with that to which the material was to have 1 been compacted by the original requirements set forth in the PSAR. The response should consider all areas where preloading is either planned or in progress (i.e., diesel generator building, borated water storage tanks, diesel fuel oil storage tanks, Unit 1 tiransformer, condensate storage tanks, and others still under evaluation). Describe how conformance to these criteria will result in assurance that unaccept:ble residual settlements cannot reasonably be expected to occur over the life of the plant. 'For each such area, state the extent of residual settlement which will be permitted and the basis'for each limit. A 5N Y \\ od W9Mpf f t~ 6 n g h. 7. l 'Q / i '. M - t/. g eA)I 4 P C O C g%pt.LI a [M f.) , y Resconse cp n pu a'D S 90 ( ec 3, > \\, f,,. L 6:7g Acceptance ofg each curcharge. program will-require that the AfJ ' g \\ j *. \\r c, structures and. utilities withstand the dynamic design criteria ,).@.' u -, % <'~ p '\\' established in the PSAR he predicted.long-term [f '. t total and differential [settl This may require redesign .f',['_- yy of foundations and/or other remedial work. The.resulting long-ter= settlement and bearing capacity predictions will W be compared to the requirements set forth in the PSAR(after

st N Tb Ig6 completion of the surcharge programs) Surcharge programs l /gf/ d are not expected to compress the fills to the densities associated with the compaction criteria set forth in the PSAR. N d O EID /# pecuMEJT tr7E /26"5 *P "E S**"*[f'sm 7{ in W tu b> t> ( Wit 1 /-hitaric tc ic used-te-determine-the-ascep)tabi-i-ity-of-the 'd j 144s, -.a..,,..,...- ,c,-,..,,,...< . :.;, e

p. p, --

gfg g g ~ i structures, and utilities upon conclusion of prelcad ,g / TNF f:f4[' . ', '., ', programs will be based on their behavior during proloading. y j -. -.c,- , ~, )+; l This behavior will be monitored by measuring movement of the x Nl structures and/5r' borro,s anchor sectlement rods and settlement z a . y sve o w. u.

2. r c.c p,c:w..m r,. e platesplacedinthefillandIthebuildupanddissipationof 8s o,+)

f-f excess pore water pressure measured-bywcem~etes rr-placed- ,/ -t-hroughout. the-f 1-1. Movements of selected piping will be J M monitored before, during, ' and after proloading to ascertair. \\ /' ..r i . y 'i the effects of loading. g_ x.,s,nks will be evaluated based /'t,- Duct ba P-t ev.n. <u~ u,new.cese 6; s s.* >:,:. r.- n-i on verification that they are functional by' field testa.ng. Vg.! -,..u.ey-Y- l /~{ Rate of settlement will be evaluated based on consolidation-l / rebound curves to predict additional settlement that will ,,.,;,.,a..,.,.,. / occur e-f ter surcharge-.remova-i-undar final loading conditions,j z,c es i w 'r l f~ e Expected dynamic soil-structure behavior will be evaluated fA7 based on stress-strain moduli at low strain levels maa.sured during rebound and shear wave velocih.y measurements from . cross hole tests to be conducted in the fill material. [{ - ' L. - ,,,,3 ,-r. -p

n *: rni< U-

~ ~ ~ \\ \\ ,, h i fif$ 5 ~ ./ The extent"of'residG~al~lifettlMent that will be allowed!for / / / l I cach structure W be surcharged will depend on the extent of settlement each structure experiences during surcharging, ?g _= g g,..., w..,,s s a 6, WW" ~~~ [ /I !'

~ peqG TC-A /l -~ 3 r ahd therefore cannot be established at this time. This \\ / information will be forwarded to the NRC by .\\ i The surcharge program, for the _d. ie_s_el. generator building is.. 'd..>k.a-Y.^ / ' i;a u,:.:1 ! w.M' l q-in progress. Sands susceptible to liquefaction will be Lv-u$. :r: l ~. _ 1;?

g..,

grouted, densified by other means, removed, and replaced, or v..J / ' N ', gravel diains will bc installed to prevent pore pressure ,ngu.~ ir rs$, ~s-1 buildup after surcharge removal. The location of surcharge [CA-a )J instrumentation is shown in Figure 4-1. Soil and building response data from the measurements performed to date are summarized in Figures 4-2 through Results of monitoring selected utilities are shown in Figure Y ~ QJE$i}010 [.'., A preload program is planned for one or both of the borated /[" < I ') ' i water storage tanks.d The condensate storage tanks [will be. c '# _a q-) constructed, filled, and monitored for settlement. The -f'f'R Unit 1 transformer area will be surcharged prior to completion of construction. The diesel fuel oil tanks have been filled and are currently being monitored to determine any need for surcharging or other remedial action. Acceptance of these diesel fuel oil tanks will be based on a design to withstand those settlements experiencad, plus double the future predicted settlement. If' designs cannot allow for thi e ttlemen.5, ] the tanks will be surcharged prior to making piping connections or removed and replaced. Q ,[f NI 7. - /.::r v': r,VA*i~ ~~) { agt e u k3 r, U'-.'OA'& - c,, x..... v.e-994 e. 1, / - v.< a. ' - - p.. ~; }.5 ';; ;- - v ' .A. '. r .;- / ;~ L..' ' c .' :t 7 O:% r'.'j WT 4 7 5 ~~ a ^^~k ,0fj')f7 ~ ~ 's : aj

u. c -

- / / -b

V: '- 7.'< -=='

/ x.'

r. ;p-c 3

i s /

4 >=

    • ~

V %h&M % m H9-60 / PREl.lMINARY 1/10/f0 Cuestion 4 Specify and justify the acceptance criteria which you will use to judge the acceptability of the fill, structures, and utilities upon conclusion of the preload program. Compare these criteria with that to which the material was to have been compacted by the original requirements set forth in the PSAR. The response should consider all areas where preloading is either planned or in. progress (i.e., diesel generator building, borated water storage tanks, diesel fuel oil storage tanks, Unit 1 transformer, condensate storage tanks, and others still under evaluation). Describe how conformance to these criteria will result in assurance that unacceptable residual settlements cannot reasonably be expected to occur over the life of the plant. For each such area, state the extent of residual settlement which will be permitted and the basis for each limit.

Response

Acceptance Criteria a. Fill - The acceptance criteria for the fill are based on predicted residual settlements and differential settle-ments after final connections are made. These predicted values are listed in Table 4-1. b. Structures - A structure is acceptable if it withstands 5 specific load ccmbinations without exceeding allowable code stresses: 1. Load combinations specified in FSAR Section 3.8 2. Special load combinations due to the variable stiffness of the support media (refer to Cuestions 14 and 15) c. Utilities - Systems and components subject to the preload program will be acceptable if proven by test. or analysis to perform their intended function with sufficient margins of safety for all loading conditions. ~ 1. Duried Piping - Buried piping must withstand specific load combinations compared to the following allowable code stresses: .nAS^,eg__ a) Applicable ASME criteria $ A_ b) Special(Enna'd:::'onsduetothevariable settlement of the f1 (refer to Ouestion 17) me m ~ Revision 5 1/60 ..f

/ ~ PRE IMINARY ~ \\ I/tugo l l 2. Electrical Duct Banks - Electrical duct banks must meet the seismic design conditions of the response to Question 13. Justification and Comoarison to PSAR a. Fill - The compaction requirements set forth in the PSAR were based on the premise that significant engineering properties, strength, and compressibility are related to the degree of compaction. The relevant engineering properties have been established by more direct means during the preload program. The surcharge and the completed portion of the diesel generator building produced stresses in the fill that exceeded those that will prevail when the structure is operational. The surcharge was maintained until the rate of residual settlement became sufficiently small to allow a conservative prediction of residual settlement by extrapolation. It can then be concluded wi;h assurance that the rate of settlement will be considerably less than the prediction. Because of the initial variability of the degree of compaction of the fill, it is unlikely that the compaction requirements of the PSAR will be satisfied at all points; however, because of the ensured favorable settlement characteristics due to the surcharge, the design intent of the PSAR has 5 been met. Rebound measurements of the diesel generator building were made during surcharge removal to allow estimates of the dynamic stiffness of the supporting medium. Following removal of the surcharge, shear wave velocity measurements were also taken to provide further supporting information on dynamic stiffness of the fill. Shear wave velocity measurements were also made in the service water structure area, condensate tank area, and borated water storage tank area (BWST). These data show the shear wave velocity of the fill material exceeds the 500 fps used as.tte icwer bound design basis. The analysis of the sand fill indicated a potential for liquefaction in limited areas. A permanent dewatering system has been selected as a positive solution to eliminate the liquefaction potential. / b. Structures - The Iustification of techniques used to evaluate the diesel generator building has been described in the responses to Questions 14 and 15. e Revision 5 1/80 w

y ~ PREllMRY Ilio /go Utilities - The justification of techniques used c. the responses to Questions 13 and 17.to evaluate the b Extent of Residual Settlement I Diesel Generator Building - The intent of the preload a. program for the diesel generator building has been achieved, and removal of the surcharge was started on August 15, 1979, and completed on August Curing the July 18, 30, 1979. R.B. 1979, meeting with the NRC, program as follows:Pech summarized the adequacy of the surcharge The results of the preload procedure have been convincing. The observed pore pressures were smaller than actually anticipated, and they dissipated rapidly. Hence, primary consolidation was accomplished quickly, and the curve of settlement as a function of the logarithm of time became linear shortly after the completion of placement of the flll. Therefore, it is possible to forecast the settlement that would occur at any future time by simple extrapolation, on the assumption that the surcharge vill remain in place. Even this amount of settlement would be acceptable. However, the projected 5 settlement determined on this basis is an upper bound because the surcharge will be removed, and the real settlements will certa 1 be s Settlements can also occur as a result of densificatio of sand filleq These settlements were gyaluated using the approach described by Seed and Silver g onmy}}idirectionalshakinggivenin nd recommendations Chan , Seed, and (SSC) acceleration of 0.12 g and soil borings madeTh through the fill in the diese prior to the preload program.l generator building area which are the design basis for the diesel generato building area are tabulated below. These are based on predicted on the basis oftan evaluation of the settlement magnitudes 'a ) for static loading and b) the surcharge program earthquake conditions. shakedown calculations for o O Revision 5 1/80

1llUSO Differential Settlement Settlement (inches) contribution (inches) N-S E-W Building III Static, 40 years 1-1/2 3/4 1/2 Earthquake shakedown 1/2 1/2 1/2 Pedest'ls a Static, 40 years 1-1/2 1/2 1/2 i Earthquake shakedown 1/2 1/2 1/4 Diesel engine 1/2 1/2 1/4 foundation vibrations III May also occur along the northeast part of the building 7 3 SettlementsDue ring from elevation 62F to approximately to 600' will be small (approximately 1/2 inch), essentially elastic and uniform, and will take place before final connections are made. f 5 ,w The above values are acceptable upper bound values for the following reasons. 1. The 40-year contribution of 1.5 inches is based on stresses in the fill during the surcharge program which are greater than the magnitudes which will be experienced during operation. 2. The 40-year ' contribution of 1. 5 inches is the highest value among 32 predicted. values in which 30 values ranged between 0.4 and 1.1 inches anti 2 values were approximately 1.3.and 1.4 inches, respectively. The larger values were predicted along the south wall where more clay was encountered in~1he borings. 3. The shakedown contribution of 0.5 inch is based on -~ the assumption that the sand is dry, which ignors the benefit from capillary action due to moisture. In summary, the future settlement of the diesel generator building and pedestals will be a combination of the above values. Revision 5 __. _. - 1/80 j ~

L.l.*.c ; W 2 ~. 4 . :- c ... d e a f der. - % M <; c:..., - p.. :- (: y <.; a:K PRELIM;HRY ~ ~ I /lo/'60 b4 Borated Water Storage Tanks - Soil borings within and around the BWSTs show the conditions are satisfactory for support of the tanks. A comparison between standard penetration test results for the borings within and around the tanks and the borings taken at the diesel generator building before surcharge shows the conditions at the tanks are better than those at the diesel generator building before surcharge. Based on the size of the loaded areas occupied by the tanks and the more favorable conditions at the tanks, it is estimated that the residual settlement of the BWSTs will be less than the 40-year prediction for the diesel generator building. It is estimated that the residual setAlm.ca L un tnMZT; t will be on the Ehr 9 1 inchd The actual value will Tned based on the full-scale test to be performed / by filline the tanks-wi-th "2t r and mon i toring__them 'unt1A the rate of movement becomes small, thus allowing prediction of residual settlement by extrapolation. The minimum duration of the test will be 4 months. No significant sand fill was encountered in the borings below and around the tank and therefore settlement due to earthquakes is not applicable in this case. Emergency Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks - The emergency c. diesel fuel oil storage tanks are buried structures that have already been subjected to a full-scale loading by filling with water for 8 months. The test was terminated because settlements under these test conditions were minimal. Furthermore, based on the 5 preload program at the diesel generator building, it was observed that primary consolidation for plant backfill material was accomplished in 3 to 4 weeks after the surcharge load was applied. The test for the tanks lasted 8 months and has been judged sufficient to achieve, the desired primary consolidation of the backfill under the full weight of the tanks and to obtain sufficient settlement data which can be extrapolated to the 40-year life of the tanks. Based on these measurements, the residual settlement of these tanks is expected to be less than 1 inch. To confirm this estinate, measurements will be continued. Based on the borings within and around the tanks, no significant sand fill was encountered below the tank foundation elevation and therefore settlement due to earthquakes is not applicable in this case. d. Unit 1 Transformers and Condensate Tanks - The Unit 1 ~~ transformer is non-Seismic Category I, but has been preloaded with 5 feet of sand and monitored. The non-Seismic Category I condensate storage tanks will also m.m -Revision.5 1/80

PREUM E RY ~ ~ l/lo/go be monitored. In addition, the design includes a flexible connection detail which will allow relative movement between the tanks and the attached piping. Estimated settlements for these structures are given in Table 4-1. Assurance that Unexpected Residual Settlement will Not Occur The preloading at any structure serves the following purposes. a. A primary benefit of preloading a building is that most of the settlement and differential settlement occurs before the ' building is put into service. Connections to the building can then be made after most of the differential settlement has already taken place, which will ensure a reliable design for the connectians affected by dif ferential settlement. b. The preload is also a full-scale load test of the foundation soils. Cata obtained during preloading will provide a reliable relationship between settlement and load, which will be used to predict residual settlements of the structure. c. The preload consolidates soft areas of clay fill, resulting in improved engineering properties of the fill. As a result of the improved properties of the fill and based on the full-scale load test characteristic of the preloaded fill, a reliable prediction of upper limits of static residuel settlement can be made. This will provide the assurance needed that unacceptable settlements will not occur during the life of the plant. These settlements are conservative because they are based on stress levels in the fill beneath the building which are greater than the actual stresses imposed by the dead weight of the building alone. 4 The earthquake shakedown settlement estimates are conservative because the calculations assume that the sand is dry. Because the sand will never be dry, the presence of. capillary forces in the partially saturated soil will reduce actual settlements below those predicted. v' / I Revision 5 1/00 m .a -mn n--m- - - ,y -e p-y

PREllMINARY I/I0/'to 9'z. A -Settlements due to permanent. dowatering will be smal gwill i.aNO7elacc DCIore final colisww ulana asu mace? TITi3-Miti r ' i "" f::.T.eklus permaneui. aars-*~ nee :: reTUTE"t!N A;m 1;ng-t::.7 spcreLivo ~ Lhe E h l v ,A _ T ?., uib Li ~.-& .,,n.. 1 ~ (1)!!. D. Soed and M.L. Earthquakes," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and FoundationsSilve Division, Proceedings of the A.S.C.C. (April 1972) pp 301-397 5 (2)R. Pyke, II. B. Seed, and C.K. Chan, " Settlement of Sands Under Hultidirectional Shaking," Journal of the Gootochnical Engineering i Division, Proceedings of the A.S.C.C., (April 1975) pp 379-401 Vol 101, G. T. 4, l e a, mese@w-Revision 5 1/80 + .-v.-_ ..y

~ ~ ~ ~ ~' PREL MiliAR~Y I/ws0 TABLE 4-1 RESIDUAL SETTLEMENT (S) AND DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT (AS) CRITERIA Contribution to s and aS (Inches) l Facility static 40-year Earthquake Consolidation Shakedown as as S_ u-s s-w s_ N-s s-w Diesel generator II) I4) Building 1-1/2 3/4 1/2 1/2(3) 1/2 1/2 Pedes tals ( 5) 1-1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2I3) III 1/2 1/4 5 Borated water II2) 1/2 1/2 N/A N/A N/A storage tanks Diesel fuel tanks III) 1/2 1/2 N/A N/A N/A Condensate tanks 1-1/2 3/4 3/4 N/A N/A N/A Transformer pads 1 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 Il Based on full scale tep( measurements. D t 2:. d'Gea meahuc m 5 % k A.i & ) .m m _... (J (2)W=d on evaluation of settlement measurements at the Base generator building. To be verified by direct measurements on the tanks. I3I Calculated f Could also occur along the northwest part of the building These pedestals will settle an estimated 1/2 inch because of foundation vibrations during operation of the diesels. e /! f ' J e \\ 9 Revision 5 1/80

~ k Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation TELECOPY Inter-offlCe Memorandum e BEBC-2835 To J.F. Newgen Date April 4, 1979 Subjec Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 From R.L. Castleberry Job 7220 Maistura Requirements of Engineering for Plant Area Backfill Copies to File: 0274, C-210-PR, C-2645 At Ann Arbo' r= * { W. Barclay D."Himmelberger Q i L. Basinski L. Stornetta S. Blue L Wiedner A"' 5 19 7"4 L. Dreisbach Com Log EECHTEL POV/ER CORP.

Reference:

BEBC-2694 dated 2/5/79 g This me=o clarifies the instructions found in the referenced Ere=o and calls your attention to Specification Change Notices 7220-C-211-9001, 7220-C-210-9001, and 7220-C-208-9003. This will also resolve CPCo's con =:itmant made to the NRC regarding moisture content and proctor tast-ing. The following is a brief description of the requirements for controlling backfill and moisture content in the plant area as identified in the SCNs. 1) The =oisture content of 12% of optimum is the controlling value te be implemented only at the time of density tesring. 2) Infor=ation moisture tests are to be taken prior to and during compaction at sufficient intervals to ensure that the =oisture content will be within the specified range when density tests are taken. 3) Density tests are to be taken immediately after an area has been compacted unless otherwise directed by the onsita soil engineer. 4) An area is to be reworked / rejected at the time of density testing if the moistura requirement is outside the 12% of optimum range, even if the fill.has obtained acceptable density. 5) All cohesive soils ara to be compacted to not less than 95% of. maximum dry density as deter =ined only by ASTM D 1557, Method D. s M

a Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation T5LECCPY IOM to J.F. Newgan \\ BEBC-2835 Page 2 6) The actual uncompacted lift thickness of the backfill material shall be determined by field personnel after evaluation of tha proposed compaction equipment. However, in no casa shall the uncompacted lift thickness exceed 8 inches for heavy self-propelled equipment, and 4 inches for hand-operated equipment. 7) Cohesionless material shall be compacted to not less than 85* relativa density as datarmined by Asti D 2049. M h a.t. Casciaba.m % ) JGH/pd 3/27/16 9 4 o e 9

    • mm a

g, gg 6.* W 'M 6

u.: .\\ 0 r ( / OM CMhnA/wdkvQ ( h S (0 ?. Y sw %A Y e e 9 m M

g? =O = ^ @bm.6, ygg s v AUG211979 L M @ @ N ASSURAe% W0lANO, MICHIGAN lFf*mt, Of7ALIFICATION5 Y a. ta part of the ce=== anelygte the conention and erperience of perisennel 4-=a l-a l in **** molte operatione st the Midland Job site trere reviewed. '58* 'rav few f ewt4*9t=4 that during the corrrse of the MidIsad Project soils l -r-* M aa (7/D to does of rarciew) 51% of the pereennel eenimped to soils had I ac 1*a=et an .3. fa ctrti ae soils 4 or a 3.3. pine one or more yeere of sot! ---a r W =. en -twivate,e e*==htngtf an of e beetties and ewperiencap This includne '*-heal QC ta paaeara, O*aheni QC Feenennel doing reviewe onlyn Canonie QC, U.S. ?--a ta:t tachni e tana, heheel Fiald Fnetineers, and 3 chtel oopervisore. ma laeticm t-g that the poemann+1 involved in the seile operations had ~"Je f-nt daesting on1 espartaace to carry out the tasks seeigned to them. In dditfan. the revi.w indient.d that emewet for the initial period (7/n - 1/73) wh =t all personnel==re 'new u=plore ', an everage of 39% of

  • Sa 'aCar saile p=atie (de*e.r4b=1 fe the previews parasenpha) continued on
  • ~"a r-* M l to the newt.

For the Iowar level solle personnel, 38% continued fast

    • a 'Ct N t r*e tal reer ints the 1/73-10/76 parfori, but only 82 continued on into f o/74-re=a -it perted.

6= %iv==nJae eatJa raeannaal ware retained diaring the 1973 slowdown trut ' - = = = n-~4 en raataf f with asetly new lowse level parwonnat in 1976 to - *=-et e.% e+ae_tivettom of soils activittee. This reocited in some decrease in the ~ eat ===carf **e* Im1 of paese, eel, but esfficient qualiffed, erynetenced perosenel N

  • ** swellshig at all etw. ear =elally when reectnising that the mejor portion of da aattg war % had ha*ss micaMy eWlaced.

Fa-e4 en th= foe-vtotag,== have ceneladed thee the Pselsfication/ewportenee te,t of p.eea-t a.,*ga.4 to che M1,itan,t Projoet soils ope-scione wee eet a =~ ham a feantrik'tf n't) ee*** af ths ettlee**tt prohic= st the Midland Je691te. C** * * *

  • A***

i s* * * *

  • a d saue nc M t. ** CoJ *fek /
  • propre. '. a.,

+ *' t S w'. Ls w s tL'C.

  • 4 ci o

. /3 7..a.m. a m Fu %+l % ~ " p,y %es. : te ), ri ( A - W AAJ & M~~ AMs c A. ;A~c. msf~ g~p=,,;'c sg_ ':% Af Al-*dCA a ^ 5 g in- _n urir f c A sc uoSc.r ,,,sw s w f T & x c n ' s :- a mf ,f T'/ / f ffC-c, Cyfs+~6[ y;;;erl* A*M 7' 7~~M 7 ?~Y di'l I"? Sag- ,.CLC w //cypWS NWW W f l't~:pric.cr.f c.,,i ry 7 'c~ b.'."& *W-- 5_ ~~~Y, is=s @. t'< %~ ~p, ~~a.-% ep /.e.%- =-j i 4 ~ (A s~ff'} iud W G Q k i r/227 A'~w CA A ?,,,,. gCf.,*g

X stion 2 Discuss the censideration given to, and estimate the cost of, grouting any natural lacustrine deposits (sands) upon which safety-related structures are founded.

Response

Consideration will be given to grouting any natural lacustrine O sand deposits that would be susceptible to liquefaction. Borings made to date indicate that these materials are isolated and have only been identif)4 .ed in one-boring ar the M* ?% service water pump structure.4 Borings will be made to identify the extent of this material. A grouting program would cost an estimated $250,000 for the cantilevered portion of the structure. ~ i-

. -. _, = W" Question 3 I During the meeting on March 5, 1979, you stated that on August 21, 1978, construction survey data indicated a settlement , approaching the maximum value given in FSAR Figure 2.5-48. However, your response to staff request 362.12 by FSAR Revision 18 states, "In July 1978, the settlement of the diesel generator building exceeded the anticipated values shown in FSAR Figure 2.5-48." Clarify this apparent incon-sistency.

Response

g An error has been noted in the response to Question 362.12 l in FSAR Revision 18 dated February 1979. This response ~ derived from the MCAR 24 interim report dated September 29, 1978, states that "the diesel generator building settlements were noticed to exceed anticipated values in July 1978." The " anticipated values" referred to in this report were not . the " estimated ultimate settlement" values given in FSAR Figure 2.5-48.. Instead, these " anticipated values" were merely values of settlement that were igreater than the i. F amount of settlement which would have been expected under usual conditio for the ela ed time. The preparer of the ,+.c. % r ".ft % 3fa. w FSAR revision erroneously ccabined these two unrelated A values. i I l . ~ l-

~. . ~ a The actual cours'e of events of'the diesel ge$erstor building settlementareasfollowU. l On July 7, 1978, construction survey pers'ennel noted difficulty W in closing a level circ. it when lay 4out survey control u markers for continued construction of the diesel' generator building. A-survey check'*was made against existing survey control maika in the building on July 10, 1978, wita a 7 settlement of' inchos being the largest noted. On Jul ) 1978v the first formal 60-day settlement reading required by Specification 7220-C-76<for the diesel generator pedestal was taken. This survey indi. cates that the' diesel generator Number 4 marker has settled 'O.135" foot as the worst case. 1 ~ In processing thi.s data, Bechtal surveyors noticed a larger settlement than anticipated. The processed survey data was ) l transmitted te project engineering on-July. 26, 1978.,,The %S 2 t combined results of the July.10, 1978, and Juli 22, 1978, readings prompted construction survey personnel to monitor the building settlement in excess of Specification 7220-C-76 frequency requirements. On Atgust 21, 1978,, a construction 1 survey check of the elevation of the northeast anchor bolt top on.the eastern diesel generator pedsstal showed a settle-ment of 3.25 ' inche which is in the range.cf the estimated ultimate value in FSAR Figure 2.5-48.- ~~_ FSAR Figure 2.5-40 shows estimated ultimate settlement in the interior of the diesel generator to be 3.2 inches. The . north corners of the diesel generator lauilding have an . ~.,. - -

I estimated ultimate settlement of 3.0 inches, while the south corners have an estimated ultimate settlement of 2.8 inches. l Based on the survey results of August 21, 1978, Bechtel nonconformance report NCR 1482 was issued on the same day. The NRC resident engineer was immediately advised of this settlement condition on an informal basis. An exploratory boring program was initiated on August 25, 1978. An evaluation of the preliminary boring data was made by Bechtel engineering on September 6, 1978. This evaluation indicated that the settlement condition was reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR 50. 55 (e). Cn September 7, 1978, CPCo made an oral A 10 CFR 50. 55 (e) report to the NRC, followed Q written interim reports submitted to date. Settlement of the diesel generator building and pedestals are being monitored by using preset markers and not using anchor bolts whose elevation may have been dislodged during the placing of concrete. Therefore, we do not consider the settlement readings based on the anchor bolts a true indication of the settlement. This was the data used on August 2L 1978, and identified on NCR 1482. l S 9 -l l

-,n_ w g- \\' ~., V s ,n 3: s. Ouestion ta ~ ~ ~ A.. s Specify and justify,the acceptance criteria which you will s use to judge the acceptability of thexfill, structures, and ' ~ utilities upon conclusion of the preload program. Compare these criteria with that to which the material was to have z been compacted by the original require

  • merits set fdith in the t

8. PSAR. The response shou [d coitsider a.11, areas where preloading. is either planned or in progress (i.e.,' diesel generator s building, borated water storage tanks, diesel fusi oil i storage tanks, Unit li transformer, aondensate storage s S tanks, and otherf still under evalustion)4 Describe how s y conformance to these criteria will iesult.in assurance that,. s unacceptable residual settlements ca:psot reasonably be( .y expected to occur over the life of the plant. 'For each such t ~ area, state the extent of residual settlement which will be permittedandthebasisfpreachlimitI^ ,s w t

Response

w g; .& O. - ~ 2g, e !., /, g x ...a, Acceptance of each surcharge program wilf-require that_the A a s structures and utilities withstand the dbr,ti,y.' design criteria ' 1. w q s established in the PSAR,anditwice th" 7, ed.' ted long -ters '.'_ - total and differential settlements. chis..?.y require redesign y of foundations end/or other remedial work 2 The resulting ~ s m. 4 long-term settlement and bearing

  • capacity; predictions will' be compared to the requirements set forth.in the-PSAR'after

~ 4i sN i g s. g[i 's p-4 *o { 'g,, ,, h t, g l .\\ s 4 )f* ~

a-3 completion of the surcharge programs. Surcharge programs are not expected to compress the fills to the densities associated with the compaction criteria set forth in the PSAR. Criteria to be used to determine the acceptability of the fills, structures, and utilities upon conclusion of preload programs will be based on their behavior during preloading. This behavior will be monitored by measuring movement of the structures and/or borros anchor settlement rods and settlement plates placed in the fill and the buildup and dissipation of excess pore water pressure measured by piezometers placed throughout the, fill. Movements of selected piping will be monitored before, during, and after pralcading to ascertain the e'ffects of loading. Duct banks will be evaluated based g on verification that they are functional by field testing. Rate of settlement will be evaluated based on consolidation-rebound curves to predict additional settlement that will occur after surcharge removal under final loading conditions. Expected dynamic soil-structure behavior will be evaluated based on stress-strain moduli at low strain' levels measured during rebound and shear wave velocity measurements from cross hole tests to be conducted in the fill material. _.. l The extent of residual settlement that will be allowed for each structure to be surcharged will depend on the extent of settlement each structure experiences during surcharging, i +. - _ - -y e

~ and therefore cannot be established at this time. This l I information will be forwarded to the NRC by The surcharge program for the diesel generator building is ~ M in progress. Sands susceptible o liquefaction will be i grouted, densified by other means, removed, and replaced, or gravel drains will be installed to prevent pore pressure buildup after surcharge removal. The location of surcharge instrumentation is shown in Figure 4-1. Soil and building response data from the measurements performed to date are summarized in Figures 4-2 through Results of monitoring selected utilities are shown in Figure A preload program is planned for one or both of the borated The h ensate storage tan M will be water storage tanks. constructed, filled, and monitored for settlement. The Unit 1 transformer area will be surcharged prior to completion of construction. The diesel fuel oil tanks have been filled and are currently being monitored to determine any need for surcharging or other remedial action. Acceptance of these diesel fuel oil tanks will be based on a design to withstand those settlements experienced, plus' double the future predicted settlement. If designs cannot allow for this settlement, the tanks will be surcharged prior to making piping connections or removed and replaced.

y- ~ X l Que'stion 5 To what extent will additicnal borings and measuremente be taken after completion of preloading programs to ascertain that the material has been compacted to the original require-ments set forth in the PSAR.

Response

It is not expected that material properties of the surcharged fills will reach those properties associated with compaction requirements set forth in the PSAR. Material properties 4 M4 EMa will be evaluated based on settlement-rebound m Se ents made during and after removal fsurcharge loads./}For these F56 R o reasons, it is not planned to make borings or associated measurements after surcharge removal. 9 1 + i

T..~.T_ _... ~----- .9, Question 6 You propose to fil'1 the borated water storage tanks and measure the resulting structure settlements. (a) On what basis do you conclude a surcharge no greater than the tank loading will achieve compaction to the extent intended by the criteria stated in' the PSAR? What assurance is provided by the technique that residual settle-ment for the life of the plant will not be excessive? (b) A similar procedure is proposed for other tanks, including the diesel fuel oil storage tanks, and should also'be addressed. (c) The borated water storage tanks have nat yet been constructed and are to be located upon . questionable plant fill of varying quality. Provide justification why these safety-related tanks should be constructed prior to assuring the foundation material is suitable for supporting these tanks for the life of tdun

r. ant.

For example, can the tanks be removed with reasonable effort without significant impact? ,.,,.w n-r w

  • ? {U e

s-4r WW Response (to 6a) a The results of field explorations in the borated water storage tanks area generally indicate satisfactory fill. To date, 18 borings have been taken in this area. Three of ] these borings indicate some soft materi owever, based on three borings per tank,-there has been no identified unsatisfactory material directly beneath the borated water tanks. 4 To further evaluate if the fill in the area'is satisfactory, an earthen preload on the west borated water storage tank area will be performed prior to construction of the tank. The existing tank ring and valve pit will be monitored to predict-future settlement, and to allow remedial action, if any, before the tank is constructed. For the east borated water storage tank, a preload (either' using earthen materials or filling the tank after construction) will be performed. The selection of the method chosen will be based on the rusults from the preload of the first tank. It is expected that the preloads, together with the-majority of the boring'results,.will confirm the adequacy of the foundation materials in this area. The preloads will also allow prediction of the residual settlements expected for l the life of the plant. -. m ~.v-r -.-e ,y%,_y. y. ,.w-g,_., w-,y-j

-. ~ -.. _ ~ j Response (to 6b) The diesel fuel oil storage tanks have been filled and ara being monitored for settlement to predict future settlement and assess the need for remedial work required to ensure limited residual settlament. _These tanks are supported on medium to very stiff sandy clay and clean sand fill. These tanks are surrounded with backfill consisting of very loose to dense clean sands and very soft to stiff clays. These adjacent materials do not meet PSAR requirements. Locations of borings made in this area are shown in Figure 9-1. A cross section summarizing the results of these horings is shown in Figure 6-7. If results of the evaluation made on these tanks cannot enusre limited residual settlements, the tanks will be surcharged or removed and reconstructed. The loose snad fill will be grouted. Response (to 6c) As described in the response to Part a, one or both borated water storage tank areas will now be preloaded before the tanks are constructed, using an earthen surcharge load. No significant foundation problems ~are anticipated, and the preload on the west tank is expected to confirm this. If necessary, an earthen preload will also be performed on the east tank. Although removal of the tanks after construction would be both costly and require a schedule delay, the tant j

are accessible and removal remains a viable alternate if unexpected future foundation problems in this area necessiate remedial actions. O e D t 4 9 .emm. l w y m w

g 6-Question S What tolerance is placed upon the alignment of the diesel generators and upon what is this limit based? How will the present differential settlement of the diesel generator pedestals be corrected? Discuss the extent and rate of residual settlement of the diesel generator pedestals predicted over the life of the plant. In view of the variability of the foundation material indicated by Bechtel's Interim Report 4 to MCAR 24 which was forwarded by your letter of-February 23, 1979, how can long-term differential settlement be predicted with sufficient confidence to assure reliable start-up and operation of the diwsel generators when needed? What surveillance program (and inspection frequency) for the pedestals do you intend to conduct to assure detection of 4 misalignment before these limits can be reached? What corrective action, and the basis therefore, do you propose if these limits should be approached?

Response

l

1 The tolerances of the shaft alignment of the diesel generators are based on the manufacturer's recommendations.

According to Delaval Turbine, Inc. of Oakland, Californ3a (the manufacturer of the four identical diesel generators), a 5-degree combined tilt and roll will have no effect on thq performance of the r i i 1 y ,7-y- _o -- w w r-

englne and generators (confirmation awaiting). The present tilt and roll ia less than 0.2 degrees. The diesel generators at Midland are similar in design to marine engines designed and manufactured by Delaval Turbine, Inc. which are subjected 1 to tilt and roll larger than 5 degrees at more frequent cycles. The effects of the differential settlement of the pedestal on the fuel oil drip return line could cause oil to leak C 1 around the fuel oil injectors. This is a housekeeping problem and not a safety problem. i The established nozzle allowables (force and moments or displacement) for the piping system at the interface of the diesel generator are within acceptable limits and are not I expected to exceed these allowables based on a maximum tilt and roll of 5 degrees. Instrument tubing and electrical I wiring have sufficient flexibility to not be a problem for the specified tilt and roll. 4 j Figure 8-1 is a graphical representation of the time settlement rate'of the diesel generator pedestal corners. Weekly settlement values are indicated on.the chart. As of March 16, 1979, pedestal 2 had the greatest tilt at 0.089 -l and 0.087 feet and the greatest combination of tilt and roll at 0.078 and 0.089 feet. Pedestal 4 had the greatest roll at ~. -

~~ I 0.558 and 0,034 feet and the greatest settlement of 0.449 feet. Figure 8-2 identifies settlement values at their respective corners along with tilt and roll. The engine and generator are located on one contin :ous independent foundation. The dimensions of the four identical foundations are shown in Figure 3. The foundation for the diesel generator is a reinforced concrete structure having a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. The dimensions and composition of the pedestal are such that it has enormous bending and torsional stiffness. Therefore, the pedestal will act as a rigid body, with the top of the pedestal j within one plane and not a warped surface. As evident from Figure 8-3, all four corners of the pedestal lie on one plane i within the survey accuracy of.01 foot. l Following is a list of options available to correct the differential settlement of the diesel generator pedestals. 1) Use as is. The shaft alignment between the engine and generator can be maintained with no adverse effect on i safety because the engine and gener.ator are in the same plane. j 2) Add a layer of grout to provide a horizontal drive I shaft position. This option is limited by the maximum ( f grout thickness. l l

1

3) ~ Remove the first few inches of concrete from the pedestal block and replace it with a top layer of concrete to provide a horizontal surface.

This option may be used when the grout limit in Item 2 is exceeded. 4) Pressure grouting under the pedestal to bring the pedestal up to a horizontal position. The actual method of modification will be determined when the settlement data are evaluated after the preload is j removed. The weight of the pedestal and the surcharge load now being applied on top of the pedestal area is at least two times the total weight of the operating diesel generator and pedestal. The purpose of the surcharge operation is to consolidate the i fill material in and around the diesel generater building and reduce the residual settlement during the plant life. Based on the settlement data recorded during preload, the maximum differential settlement is expected to be within the original design requirements. -The points presently being monitored for settiment on the pedestal corners are the same points to be used for the foundation settlement data survey. It is required that these points be monitored on a 60-day cycle throughout

ggk T S p. 7 the construction phase and for the first year of operation. cp After 1 year of operation, the frequency will be reviewed and possibly modifed. If the actual settlement exceeds the estimated settlement, realignment of the diesel generator may be necessary. muur 6

-~_ e Question 9 I Based on the information provided in your Interim Report Number Cr it appears that the tests performed on the exploratory borings indicate soil properties that do not meet the original compaction criteria set forth in the PSAR and specification for soils work. Provide assurance that the soil under other Class I i structures not accessible to exploratory borings meets the control compaction requirements. j

Response

Soil proporties of fill beneath Class 1 structures not addressed in Interim Report 4 have been evaluated by making additional borings in selected areas. Results of these borings indicate 1 i that backfill beneath a portion of the service water i building and portions of the auxiliary building do not meet i l [f *we'&paction requirements set forth in the PSAR. com In the auxiliary building area, borings beneath th Q 1ectrical pene RL S u .and railway bay indicate that remedial work as discussed in the response to Quest, ion 12 will be required. Other portions of the auxiliary building are currently being studied. Nk N SW A %. A M $d we+ A te w. A. O i e e6 e e go. 4 von a 4 e e*O 9

    • me se e e, e e

e oee+ e e e 6eep a .m - ~. -, - ,-m ._..,n._,.

- _ _ m, __~_ / Question 10 ~ f You have stated that the fill is settling under its own weight. What assurance is provided that the fill has not and will not settle locally under structures with rigid mat foundations, such ao portions of the auxiliary building or service water pump structure.

Response

i } If the potential for settlement of the fill under its own 1 l weight exists, remedial measures will be taken to provide adequate support. The service water pump structure and I electricalpenetrationroomwillbeunderpinaedb it 1 ] Other portions of the auxiliary building on fill are still a under investigation. 4 / r i 1 j. s

>s Question 11 l 1 l In view of the variations indicated by present borings, what l assurance exists that vertical borings taken adjacent to i structures are sufficiently representative of fill conditions under the structure?

Response

The initial borings were intended for an early evaluation of the overall plant fill. These borings were generally in more accessible locations (i.e., i$mediateli" adjacent to, I rather than within, the structures). During the last 6 weeks, additional borings were made through the structural slabs, which allows an evaluation of foundation materials directly beneath the structure (e.g., borings taken were within the l service water $Op % structure, electrical penetration areas, %.~ = control area, and railroad bay of the auxiliary building). O g These additional borings, correlated with the previous borings taken from the structure periphery, will be used to define the. fill conditions. 4 4 I e em. D 4 6 i I I _.. _ _ - _ ~,

- - - ~ ^ ' ^ :-- - J., - D o s. Question 12 t' Document the condition of soils under all safety-related structures and utilities founded on plant area fill or j natural lacustrine deposits. Based on the results of investi-gations, compare the properties and performance of existing foundation materials under all expected loading conditions with those which would have been attained using the criteria i stated in the PSAR. If the foundation materials are found to be deficient, discuss measures that will be taken to upgrade them to cirteria stated in the PSAR. 1 / -m j

Response

3 o N Soil conditions beneath safety-related structures and utiliH -- 7 are summarized on Table 12-1. This table refers to evaluations and/or remedial work to,be done in each area. ~ Remedial l measures may not necessarily cause PSAR compaction criteria i { to be achieved, but will provide adequate support for the structures and utilities. i i Table 12-1 references which borings were made in each area 4 and cross sectioN summarizing these borings that are attached i in Figures through ~ s ~ ~~ 1 e m m

t d TABLE 12-1 Other Remedial f Supporting Remedial Work Under Material Measures Planned Consideration Auxiliary Building i control Tower Clay and/or Being studied Underpinning and/or sand fill and grouting concrete { Unit 1 Penetration Room Clay and sand Underpinning Grouting fill Unit 2 Penetration Room Clay and/or None Underpinning and/or sand fill c '6 nit 1 Accans Shaft 32 grouting Clay and sand Underpinning None fill j Unit 2AccessShaft_[])) Clay and sand Underpinning None I fill North End (Railway Bay) Sand fill Grouting None Service Water Building Portion Adjacent to Pond Natural soil None Hone Cantilever Portion Clay and sand Underpinning Grouting fill Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Clay and sand Surcharging Removal of tanks fill Service Water Pipes Clay fill Hone Removal Retaining Wall Clay fill None None Diesel Generator Building and Clay and sand Surcharge fill grout Connecting build'ng i Associated Utilities fill and loose sands and pedestals into concrete a mat foundation i

  • Tank Farm (Borated Water Tanks)

Clay and sand Being studied j fill Surcharging

. = -. =. Question 13 I How ahs the lack of compaction and the increase in soil compressibility affected soil-structure interaction during seismic loading and, therefore, the seismic response spectra in design?

Response

.i seismiccategoryIstructuresfwhichwherefoundedfullyor partially on compacted fill were reexamined to determine the impact of lack of compaction and increase ih ~ soil compressi- ~ bility on the soil-structure interaction and the seismic responses. The results of this evualation for each building and the underground t 2 follows: i 1) Diesel Generator Building i The diesel generator building foundation rests entirely on compacted fill. A seismic reanalysis was conducted to account for the effect on soil-structure interaction i due to both the degree of compaction and increase in soil compressibility. i The technique of analyris, as well as the computer programs utilized, are. the same as those specified in l ~ l

^ [ ~ L. T '~ ~~ ~ ^^ -' ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ the FSAR. The structural and soil properties are also the same, with the exception of shear wave velocity (V ) and l s soildensity(g). l The analysis considered fill ranging from soil with V, = 400 ft/s and g = 120 pcf to soil with Vs = 1,359 i f t/s andg= 135 pcf (natural soil). i Floor response spectra were generated and response i spectra envelopes were developed for soil with a shear wave velocity in the range of 500 to 1,359 ft/s. Typical response spectra envelopes are.-attached in Figures to L L Review cf equipment qualification and diesel generator l building design will be undertaken to the enveloped seismic responses. I 2) service Water Pump Structure 4 t The service water pump structure foundation consists of l j-two portions. At the lower elevation, a foundation mat 4 (73'-11" by 90'-0") is founded on natural soil. At the higher elevation, a foundation mat (36'-1" by 86'-0") is founded on sturetural backfill. 4 4 .a. s amenee.. -,w .a ,+-, n ,wv-- --n- - > - - -, - - - - + - - - - - - - - -,,-----,---r,-

~ o 0 9 A seismic reanalysis was condu,cted, taking only the foundation founded on the natural soil for soil-structure interaction computation. For the purposes of this analysis, the soil structure interaction effect from the higher elevation foundation media has been ignored. The portion of structure founded on the structural backfill was assumed to be unsupported and as an extension of the major structured system founded on natural soil. A nominal soil dynamic modulus of O elasticity of 22,000 ksf and a P/isson',s, ration of 0.42 were used as uniform foundation media properties to compute the soil impedance functions for this foundation. The seismic analysis technique, critoria, and programs used follow those specified in the Midland FSAR. Torsional response due to the eccentricity presented was estimated to be small in comparison to the response contributed by rocking and translational actions. Torsional ic4 ding will be considered in the design of the structure by the application of the design horizontal seismic loadings obtained form the decoupled seismic system at its eccentricity. A 15% increase in both magnitude and spectrum widening at the calculated torsional frequency was used to generate the floor response spectra. N Ii u i i inu i i

o Comparison of the seismic loading and typical floor response spectra between the modified foundation seismic analysis and those used in the original equipment qualification and structural design are shown in Figures to 1 3) Auxiliary Building The structural backfill is only situated under a portion of the auxiliary building foundation, under the control tower and its adjacent wings. The rest of the auxiliary building foundation is founded *on a natural foundation media, wf :h a nominal shear wave velocity of 1,359 fps J used in the analysis. A composite foundation lumped parameters, taking account of both compact and natural 4 i soil, was used for the soil-structure interaction f analysis. An evaluation of the compacted soil properties f which varied from V, = 850 fps used in the original analysis to 500 fps, indicated that the impact to the overall lumped soil parameter is insignificant because its effect would be enveloped by the spectra widening. 4) Underground Utilities (Later) l l l t

.a - - 9 o:estich.1-ror all coism:.e Cs.-gor,' 1 s7:cet tres i i.nclu-ling, but 11tacad to, the diesel generator building) ca:n ars ic: 1:ac on fill provi.de the esaults of an evalua.taon shcainc,;himi 1*::uctura you prediet may experienes..attlemen c 2.n exese a

e. that :::iginally intended, ar.?. provi*a an 2vslaatio.
he abtlity of tnese structures to.sithstand tha

'.n cr e :.:-d differential settlemenc. ?or th.: dia.wt ganar. tar build;./.- 2..d/or c sota: c :st.egory 1 structure cnich e.chiliit: c sching, v21u:ta tho ef"e:ts c ' the e: i' ting end/or :.t:.:i a. A s

acrr cc. u.s p2rf. r snce of the intanded Junction Of

.hz. 2 01.:.e d:.:2

'ha cabula c.c stresses for ccis?.1: C.:.t.2g:1,-

..ett4res at c:1.cie=L lecttiens chcui ma tata:ated a.v1 ti si uc n of c.itoaacia stresaas a s ::. m-d in.r.e .,v.... 5 <, u e n. Co,d.a s. Re:*r.~ <n Tha E72.nnic Category I structures loc:ted cc-.p4 ate'.y ;, p. p*-url'.y sn fill *re identified in(Figars u-1. C C.' : 's - .c:avidea the dats recarding thw present m ucare ..tr.:c e.t ei the Pt.xtr.us predicted citimate sattle': ant !cc cl.a. str:c'ere.. h'oto that :rassured v lues de.. : v; r.:..n; - a . ~. :ul settleman of the hui diaq fre n the Oc c h o' :nsir v,..a n n : e n. T.e.y only rerr.:sar.t 4: acti+=e: '. c'.r.:o r. . v' a >,.are in.c t 'l.1's dari.v.:.. >.. a r..:.m.. i o... .s t s: :...u a.:

. ~.... tieing made to obtain estimates of total settlement from the initial building construction stage based on construction . records of scribes and/or anchor bolts. As evident from the data presented in Table 14-1, except for the diesel generator building, the recorded settlements of other structures do not approach the ultimate settlement values. i The, ability of these structures to withstand differential i settlement is discussed in response to Question 15. No formal evaluation has been performdd for diff'arential settlement l within a structure. All Class 1 structures except the M amal annarator bnf idi _; wusiasbad co me rigid)d on will therefore undergo rigid body motion without evidencing j critical stresses. The differential settlement within a building as shown on FSAR Figure *2.5-48 does not include the effect of building structure stiffness, and therefore is not relied upon for building stress evaluation. The diesel generator building, serv water building, and parts of the auxilliry building ailroad bay and roomarophavebeenavaminedforcracks.ihthemainstructural elements. M e identified cracks have been mappedJ They are presented in Figures 14-2, 14-3, and 14-4. Also shown on these figures are the possible location of the anticipated structural cracks and their cause. .~ _ +.

'a A ~

  • ~.

ai The structural cracks in the diesei generator building are in the areas around the vertical electrical duct banks. They were caused by the estimated 1,000 kips of load transmitted to the duct bank. Since then, the concentrated load has been eliminated by cutting.the duct bank and providing a 12-inch slip joint. For details, refer to the response to Question 7. In the service water structure, the cracks are probably caused by the cantilever action of the northern part of the structure as shown in Figure 14-5. It is theorized that the cracks on the roof slab are due to the bending tension and on the walls are due to principal tension caused by shear. No significant cracking has been noticed in the auxiliary i building et. 4 A crack in' concrete indicates that the tensile strength capacity of concrete has been exceeded. Because no reliance is placed on concrete tensile strength in design for bending and axial tensile and calculations, the strength of the structure is not affected by the crack to resist these forces. The compressive forces can.be transmitted through the crack by bearing and shear force by aggregate interlock or shear friction. Moreover, the stresses in these walls ~ ~. are small and only a fraction of the permissible stress is s=mmarized in Table 14-2. Therefore,.the cracks do noti adversely affect the safety of the structure.

A large crack, especially when exposed to weather, can cause corrosion to rebar and consequent damage to the structure. To prevent damage, cracks larger than _ in exterior walls exposed to weather and inside the building will be repaired using approved material and procedures per project specifications. The limiting widths of the cracks chosen for repair are based on ACI _ recommendation and industry practica. A preliminary analysis has been performed based on the present deflected shape of the diesel building taking into account the different stages of coristruction when settlement was recorded. The stresses are summarized in Figure 14-6. A detailed analysis will be performed upon completion of the preload program to determine the stresses due to the differential settlement. For the a rvice water pumphouse and the auxiliary building, M $1cantdifferentialsettlementhasbeennoticed. s It is therefore assumed that the structues on inadequately compacted fill are cantilevering from the part located on original soil or properly compacted fill. The loads and structural capacities are summarized in Figures 14-7 and 14-8. However, the foundations of these structures will need o repair to provide adequate supports. The details are discussed in response to Question 6

.-~ ~ ~ ~' : - ~~ -7 ~ '~- ~~ -'~' ^ u-

=-i=-

Questien 15 For all seismic Category 1 structures which are partially located on fill and partially located on glacial fill or original soils, provide a detailed evaluation of the ability of these' structures to withstand the differential settlement. l The possibility of not having a contact surface between the l l structures and the fill due to settlement ocurring prior to i or during a seismic event should be considered over the lifs of the plant. l Response Response 4 An investigation is presently

  • underway to verify the foundation i

condition of all seismic category I structures which are i i } partially or fully supported by fill material. This investi-f. gation, which is sunniarized in Answers has shown that 4 i some areas (other than the diesel generator building) do not i have sufficient bearing strength.. These areas will be modified _to meet the required bearing strength by one of the following techniques. i 1) Grouting of the foundation material to cause compaction of the material and increased bearing capacity l i l e ,.m ,-,nm - - - e .-,,e ,.n y e

.- 7 3 _ __ _ ~ 1 4 2). Removal of existing material and replacement by a lean i 1 concrete mix. 3) Piling is being considered, but only for use as a vertical support member (it will not be relied upon to supply i horizontal resistance) i i I i j For structures which have sufficient bearing capacity, but a difference in foundation stiffness under various portions, analysis will be performed to determine the strains which may exist. Additional load combinations will be used which j include settlement offacts. These load combinations will be j used with higher allowables because settlement is a self limited secondary effect. It is cosunon to use higher allow-ables when self-limited effects are combined with real 1 (mechanical) loads. This is illustrated in the ASME Code, Section III, Division 2 when self-limited thermal loads are combined with real loads. l l For normal operating loads, which includes dead and live g j load, the structuras will be checked to verify that the l calculated strains do not exceed ng 905 of yield when real I loads are combined with settlement effects. For this condition, l all load factors will be 1.0. This requirement will ensure l serviceability throughout the life of the structure. 6 e o e -w ,r-e--- --r.---..r, w, --wr- ---w

s.e--+

-r-.>%

...T. L -- .;.j r e ,y -For extreme factored conditions such as. earthquake and tornado e steg in amant strains 11 be' limited to yiel D en cattlement effects are combined with factored real loads. This criterion is applied to gross structural behavior andisnotapplicabletolocalareassubdectedtotornado impact and pipe rupture effects.. For fill material that has been verified as acceptable by the boring investigation program, there is no expectation that it should settle during a seismi=. event for the following reasons. 7 1) The fill was properly placed as verified by the blowcount i measurement. 2) It was loaded by the construction of the structure with ] no unexpected settlement 3) It'was saturated with water after filling of tha pond. s. For clays with poor compaction this wculd have created compaction and settlement. t 4) The ground motion is small.(0.06g CBE and.0.12g.SSE) and the re'sulting strains frYm an sarthquakr.will be small. i .v 5) The increase'in bearing pressure due to structurair rocking and vertical seismic response will belsmall ~ 1 1 ww -ar v e -w> +6

a 1 compared to the compaction pressure used during construc-tion. ee. em S 4 9

X Question 16 Since the plant area fill is apparently settling under its own weight, what assurance exists that the fill has not and will not settle locally under piping in the fill, resulting i 'in lack of continuous support and causing additional stress not accounted for in design?

Response

eof The effect of fill settlement will be accounted for by evaluating the deflected shape of the pipes being' profiled. 'Stresseswillbeevaluatedas[desbribed in the response to Question 17. The local settlement due to. lack of support a from the plant fill will beccme apparent in the pipe profile and the profile will actually define the pipe responses to .;4 these local settlements, if any. 'Thus, the stresses developed from the deflected shape will represent the acutal stresses caused by load from local settlement and/or from lack of support. ghh The deflected shapes are.being measured before the pipes are placed into service. Therefore, to account for the extra dead load stresses induced by filling the lines with liquid, 7 j the deflected shape stresses will b,e to account for this liquid or the' deflected shape will be verified when the pipe is filled. %4 & 44. Ark n.

,7

c. _

r .t.,; i. ~ Question 17 W O f Identify and documenh a current condition of all seismic Category I piping founded in the plant area fill. Include all piping founded in. the plant area fill whose failure could adversely impact safety-related structures, foundations, and/or equipment. Also, discuss how code-allowable conditions will be assured throughout plant life. If any essential piping has now or should later approach code-allowable stress criteria or cannot be determined, what measures will you take to alleviate these conditions? e' .n. 6

Response

Figure identifies the Seismic Category I piping founded in fill, as well as non-Seismic Category I piping founded in fill, if the failure of such piping could adversely impact safety-related structures, foundations, or equipment. Table lists the current construction status and the current status of the profiling program for these lines. Several possible modes of failure were considered for Seismic Category I structures, electrical duct banks, and pipes (b f ai[)because of a failure in non-Seismic Category I piping. Jet impingement and~ pipe whip are not considered to be credible failure mechanisms because of generally low e w

piping pressures, separation criteria, and the restraining effect of the soil. Hydrostatic forces due to flooding are effectively considered by designing Seismic Category I structures for the probable maximum flood. The mechanism which remains and was considered in our analyses is that of erosion or " washout" of the founding soil for Seismic Category I structures, pipes, or duct banks. To determine which buried non-Seismic Category I piping could have a potential adverse impact upon safety-related structures, foundations, or equipment, the following procedure ^ was used. 1) Zones were established t encompass each Seismic Category I structure, buried pipe, and duct bank. These zones are shown in Figure 2) The non-Seismic Category I pipes founded in fill within each zone were identified and tabulated. ~3) A

  • zone of influence" was arbitrarily established for each non-Seismic Category I pipe so identified.

This zone of influence was determined by'a subtended angle of 90 degrees (45 degrees on each side of the pipe) extending from the pipe centerline upward to the surface and downward for three pipe diameters, with a minimum _______.-m-

-..v 3 distance of 1 foot below the pipe. Where there are buried elbows in the non-Seismic category I line, the extent of the zone of influence was increased to subtend an angle of 60 degrees on the outside of the band. 4) Each zone of influence thus established was then examined to determine the extent of its containment of Seismic Category I structures, foundations, pipes, and electrical duct banks. .5) Each Seismic Category I structu're, founda. tion, pipe, and duct bank was evaluated assuming that the portion which is in the zone of in' fluence is unsupported (i. e.,. the supporting soil has been eroded sufficiently so that it no longer provides any support). 'M 6) s evaluation shows that no Seismic Category I g o A h structure, foundation, or equipment is adversely impacted by the failure of a non-Seismic Category I pipe or portion of pipe (as evidenced by not exceeding those stresses allowed by the governing code when the coincidence of the Seismic Category I structure, foundation, or equipment with the zone of influence of the non-Seismic Category I pipe is considered to be unsupported), the failure of non-Seismic Category I pipe or a portion l of the pipe is adjudged'to have no adverse impact on safety-related structures, foundations, or equipment. 1 e -r i

If a finding of "no impact on safety" cannot be made, then the affected non-Seismic Category I pipe is included in the pipe settlement evaluation and monitoring program and is shown in Figure The pipe settlement evaluation and monitoring program... '(Detailed description to be provided by civil, including pipes to be profiled, pipes not profiled and justification therefore, application of the preload program to pipe monitorin~g, and basis for prediction of ultimate settlement.) .r When the extent of final settlement is predicted (following the preload program) for each Seismic Category I pipe and other pipes wLose failure could adversely impact safety-related structures, foundations, or equipment, a stress analysis evaluation will be performed for that pipe. The stress analysis evaluation for each pipe will be performed in the following manner. 1) For pipes wh ch have profiles available, an analysis will be performed using the observed displacements. 2) For pipes which are subjected to the preloading program and which will be reprofiled follo'wfng the removal of the preload, a second analysis will be performed using

L..;;. . -.. ~. - - - ~ ~ - ^^ ~ the observed displacements from the second profiling of the pipes. 3) Settlement data from the pipes which have been profiled twice will be used to predict the ultimate settlement of all of the piping founded in fill which is Seismic Category I or for which failure could adversely impact safety-related structures, foundations, or components. The method for predicting the ultimate settlement has not been chosen and will depend on the results of the preload program. 4) We use the allowable stress criteria in the 1977 version of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Articles NC-3611.2(f) and NC-3652.3(b) to determine the acceptability of piping analyzed for ultimate settlement. Based on our preliminary examination of the most severely deflected pipe identified to date, we do' not believe that any piping has been overstressed when compared with the proposed allowable stress. If the results of our detailed stress evaluation show that portions of the piping have been overstressed, then those portiens (probably elbows) will have to be removed and replaced. l l - - ~

. _..,_ _y T- ~ If it is determined that the predicted ultimate settlement will lead to an overstressed conditio.1, other corrective measures may'also be considered (e.g., pressure grouting to return the line to a less deformed state). J M me e t 9 l i e=. g

~ ~ ~ .... ~... sur se e Question 18 For all seismic Category 1 pipin'g and all piping whose failure could adversely impact safety-related structures and/or systems, whether buried or not, describe what evaluations you plan to conduct to assure that such piping can withstand the increased differential settlement between buildings, within the same building, or within the piping system itself without exceeding code-allowable stress criteria. The potential influence due to differential seismic anchor movement should also be considered. Discuss what plans you have to assure ccmpliance with code-allowable stress criteria throughout the life of the plant. _ Response Treatment of buried non-Seismic Category I piping, whose failure could adversely impact safety-related structures or systems, is presented in the response to Question 17 of this request. Failure of other non-Sesimic Category I lines whieti could adversely impact safety-related, structures or systems is addressed in Chapter 3 of the FSAR, and includes high energey line break analysis, jet impingement and flooding studies, and design criteria for pipe whip and separation. D

u l l l l l The'efore, only Seismic Category I, nonburied piping is r addressed in this response. However, the evaluations described l. may also be applied to certain non-Seismic category I piping as a matter of good engineering practice and in the interests of operational' reliability. Differential settlement between buildings has not been considered in the normal stress analysis performed for piping which traverses between the containments and the auxiliary building. However, it should be noted that most of these lines have not been connected at both ends yet, and are not normally connected until late in the construction sequence of the plant. Thus, most of the anticipated WN differential settlement takes place at the time of connection. Provisions are incorporated in the piping installation specifications which require engineering resolution of any excessive misalignments so that these ci:Inditions do not go unnoticed. t A differential seismic allowance of 1/4 inch has been consid-ered in the piping stress analysis. K reevaluation of the expected differential seismic movement is under consideration to determine whether the variance in soil properties will affect the seismic response of the structures. N l

~ \\ o A rinav==4 nation of the stresses in all of the Seismic Category I connecting piping between the auxiliary building and the contain==nts is planned. This analysis will consider stresses induced in the piping by differential settlements between the buildings after connection of the piping, and will also consider the additional induced stresses due to the maximum expected differential settlement. For this evaluation, we propose to use the stress criteria discussed in the response to Question 17 to determine acceptability. Any piping shown by this evaluation to have already been overstressed will be replaced. Any piping which appears likely to be overstressed by the predicted maximum differential settlement will be modified by redesigning the pipe supports and/or the pipe itself. Pipes will be rerouted for increased flexibility if necessary to meet the stress criteria. $p(M Differential settlement between the feedwater isolation valve structures and the containments is currently being monitored.[Thefeedwaterpipinginthesestructureshasa flexibility loop, so that exceeding the 3.0 Se criteria because of differential settlement is extremely'unlikely. However, a verification analysis'similar to that performed f i for piping connecting the containments with the auxi ry building will be performed. l l l w. b' ,m m

-~ ^ Except for the piping discussed above, Seismic Category I pipin; between-structures is buried st of this piping 1 i A as not been installed yet, and much of it enters the structures through sleeves which have clearances around the pipe. After connection, these gaps will be monitored to ensure that no excessive stresses are introduced into the piping systems. To relieve loads which are developed by differential settlement between buried piping and structures, pipe supports will be adjusted to relieve and distribute the loads. Any analysis of piping within the structures will be limited to the portion of piping between the first anchor inside the building and the buried pipe, and will be a part of the analysis discussed in the response to Question 17. pp/MM Within Seismic category I buildings, only the emergency diesel generators are founded independently from the building structure. Because this structure is currently in the midst of the surcharge program, no piping connections will be made between the diesel generator pedestals and the building structures in the near future. Most of this piping will be relatively small and will incorporate enough flexibility to I i acconunodate more than the expected differential settlement. The air intake and exhaust ducts have expansion joints which serve to isolate the ducts from the diesel generator pedestals. 9 e 5 e

(CIVIL TO ADDRESS THF FLEXI3ILITY OF STRUCTURES) Structure deflections due to settlement variations under the structure are not expected to be of significance to piping systems within the structure. No reanalysis of the stresses in piping systems within a structure is anticipated due to these deflections. The programs discussed are being initiated with the objective of ensuring that if settlements remain within the predicted range no further analysis, modifications, or monitoring will ~ be required to maintain the settlement induced stresses within the limits imposed by the ASME Code. Only normal surveillance of piping and pipe supports is expected to be necessary. No additional piping stress analysis has been performed yet. CPCo will give the NRC details of the plans when they have been developed, and will also provide smunaries of the results of the analyses. Anae

~ s Question 19 The piping in fill under and in the vicinity of the diesel generator building could have deformations induced either prior to or during the preload program. What is the present status of any deformation in the piping, and what ultimate deformations a a predicted. If any deformations are or will be excessive, what actions are being or will be taken to correct the condition?

Response

b Thehipes which are located in the fill subjected to the influence of preloading the diesel generator building are listed in Table 19-1. Methods used to assess the condition of these pipes and the effects of the preload are profiling pipes with pressure devices, gap measurements, elevation survey, and analysis. Following are discussions of each of these four categories. 1) Profiling Pipes with Pressure Devices The pipes shown in Figure 19-1, SK-C-650, were profiled using a pressure registering device to determine the invert elevation of the deflected pipe. 1 s,.... -.

.:4 3.;r A detailed discussion of the profili g technique n be found in the response to Question 17. The profile data from these pipes will also be used to evaluate other pipes in close physical proximity. The profiles taken to date were analyzed, and the stresses were low. The maximum bending stress was _ ksi. These pipes will be profile.d again after the preload is removed. The second profile will provide information to allow a correlation between additional overall settlement and l additional deflection in the pipe. Any additional stress due to change in curvature will be calculated. This information will provide a relationship between additional stress and additional settlement. This relationship will allow for the prediction of stresses for futura predictad settlements. 2) Gap Measurrinents The gaps between penetrations and pipe entering the i j diesel generator building were measured at the top, bottom, and each side. The measurements were taken 1 ) before the preload was applied and during the isolation of the electrical duct banks. These measurements did not change significantly, indicating that the pipes moved with the building during the building settlement subsequent to isolating the ducts.. At present, none of

the gap measurements indicate that the pipes are being deformed by the settlement of the diesel generator building because there are no cases where the gap between the top of the penetration and the pipe is zero. Additional measurements will be taken when the preload.is removed. This information will be presented after the,preload program is completed. 3) Elevation Survey M By standard survey methods (i.e., level and transit), L an elevation survey is being made of the condensate line, concrete encasement, and the line itself. Readings i are being taken at the north and south and of the encasement. A time versus settlement curve and 1ccation are shown in Figurc 19-2. 4) Analysis several lines which appeared geometrically sensitive to j settlement'and/or the preload were r.nalyzed for an assumed settlement of 12 inches by the diesel generator building. The lines analyzed were the condensate lines entering into the turbine building, the circulating water lines, and the nonsafety-related service water l line entering the turbine building. l l ? a

After studying the results of this analysis, the following changes were made. a) The condensate lines were disconnected at the turbine building to relieve the stress buildup j 4 cause by the differential settlement between the diesel generator building and the turbine building. b) The roundness of one of the circulating water i lines was measured to see if internal reinforcement is needed during the preload. c) Profiling of the service water lines was extended to provide deflection information along this section of the line. The roundness measurements taken to dats on the circulating water line indicate that the pipe is generally taller than it is wide, giving no indication that reinforcing is needed. Depending upon the performance of the backfill material during the preload program, the predicted settlement for these pipes appears to be small. The stress due to this settlement will be calculated as described in response to Question 17. The additional stress induced by the settlement which can.be accepted before exceeding code allowables will be compared to the stress caused by the existing deflections, thereby predicting the total acceptable settlement. v----.-- u-- ---g --.,,._..-.-----9 w e y

n. Q:' Excessive deformations will not be acceptable for any safety-related pipe. Safety-related pipes must satisfy the procedure 1 described in Question 17. For example, deformation ovalling in piping will be evaluated to determine if the ability of the pipe to perform its intended function or its structural integrity is imparied. Normally, ovalling of 2 to 5% is accepted for buried pipe. If a pipe cannot meet the applicable criteria, the pipe will be abandoned and relocated or reinforced to comply with the criteria. A complete evaluation of all safety-related piping, including the completion of Table 19-1, will be presented after computing the preload program. It is estimated that this information will be presented to the NRC in June 197'. 9 9 'l l 8 I e m

TABLE 19-1 Pipe Identification Safety-Related Pipes entering diesel generator building. ,_a, 1HBC81, 82 8"# Yes-F 2HBC81, 82 8"5 Yes 1HBC-310, 311 8"# Yes j 2HBC-310, 311 8"5 Yes r 1HBC-497 2"5 Yes 2BBC-2"# Yes I t lHBC-1-1/2"J Yes 2HBC-1-1/2"A Yes 2GBF-341 4" No g lJBD-437 8" No \\ lJBD-537, 538 3" No 2JBD-537, 538 3" No XHG 6" No OYBJ-13 12 No l 2YBJ-8 12 No Pipes in vicinity ORBC-27, 28 10 Yes OHBC-53, 54, 55, 56 26 Yes 1HCD-169 20 No 2HCD-169 20 No 1HCD-513 6 No 2HCD-513 6 No lJBD-1, 2 26 No i 2JBD-1, 2 26 No IJBD-437 8 No 0YBS-13 12 No 2YBS-8 12 No j CIP 6" No Circulating water 96" No Circulating water 72" No 011y wasta N No Sanitary sewer No ~ " mm j i M ~ - - - - ---p-

~ n o Question 20 Provide assurance that the stress levels of all components '(e.g., pumps, valves, vessels, supports) associated with seismic Category I piping systems that have been or will be exposed to increased settlement will be within their code-allowable stress limits. Also, provide assurance that deformations of active pumps and valves installed in such systems will be kept within limits for which component operability has been established.

Response

i The analysis of Seismic Category I piping' systems which have been or are expected to be affected by settlement will p,[ encompass the total extent of the gettle g t effect on the, m j y.g. I piping. Affected pump and nozzle loading 1 will be analytically checked to verify that they are within specified or vender-l accepted limits. Flanged joints may be disassambled if l necessary, and the nature of the resulting separation may be used to evaluate the loads transmitted by the joint. Equipment supports are normily designed to accept the allowable piping reaction loads, and therefore will be unaffected by settlement as long as the nozzle allowables are not exceeded. m /

.y ,p o. For piping systems which have been exposed to additional loads induced by settlement, piping support loads will be verified to be in accordance with th's design loads by analysis. The expected maximum differential settlement will be used to . verify that pipe support loads will not become excessive, or alternately, to' establish a requirement for future sup ort recalibratio & i hr%f' b For flanged pumps and valves which may have been exposed to settlement-induced effects, flanges will be disassembled to determine the magnitude of the reaction load. After verifying that this load is acceptable, the piping system will be p if necessary) to minimize the loads, and the I flanged joint will be reassembled. Using the expected esximum differential settlement, the system will be analytically examined to determine whether the potential induced loads are acceptable or whether to establish a requirement for future recalibration. For the few systems with installed, welded-in valves which may have been subjected to high loadings induced by settlement, an analytical evaluation will be used to demonstrate that the valves have not been subjected to deforming loads. If this cannot be determined, the valve will be physically examined to derarmine if it has been unacceptably deformed. ~ However, the valves are generally stronger than the piping to which they are welded, and deformation will occur first j in the piping system at areas of stress concentration, such as, elbows.

.-.=:se g.. =:2 Question 21 Your letter of December 17, 1978, on the settlement of the diesel generator foundations and building advised us that the use of a preload to densify the existing fill material in place had been selected as the major corrective action plan. Bechtel's Interim Report 3 to MCAR 24 forwarded by your letter of January 5, 1979, identifies six alternative plans for corrective action, from which your soil consultants have advised that only two suitable options exist at that time (i.e.,'the preload option or the option to remove and replace f .. r. i the building and fill material). We require the following additional information regarding the basis for selection of these two options: (c) Discuss for each option the probability of achieving the degree of compaction intended by the original i requirements stated in the PSAR. (d) What other significant factors influenced your selection? I Response (to Part 21c) i The preload option may not produce densities uniformily ~ meeting the PSAR compaction criteria, but will produce foundation conditions suitable for -supporting the diesel generator building as discussed in the. response to Question 4. 1 I

~~ -- --- 0' j Removal and replacement of the diesel generator building and/or fill would have allowed achievement of the PSAR compaction criteria. Response (to 21d) Listed below are other factors that influenced the choice of the preload over the replacement option. 1) Defining the Limits of soil (e. g. influencing the diesel generator building foundation) -r It might be necessary to remove soil from beneath adjacent structures (turbine building transformer pads, nd steam vate Removal of this soil could pose safety problems for the structures and the personnel working the the area. Even if it were not necessary to remove this soil, the excavation would be close.enough to these structures, requiring extensive 4 protective measures. 2) Construction Ease The large excavation required for the replacement option would interfere with other construction. In addition,'it would be difficult to do the earthwork because of the high water table in the area. -, +.

e 3) Interface Problems Problems would be encountered with compacting the new fill in the deep excavation. The high water table and constant dewatering would make it difficult to control the excavation slopes and fill moisture content required for compaction. The building and utilities would still experience settlement (originally predicted at 3.2 inches), whereas at the completion of the preload program, the building and utilities will attain most of the total lifetime settlement.. Utilities running from the fill which is left in place to the new fill could experience more deformations than those already experienced because there would be no gradual transition between the two zones. 4 9 p. ~ - e w e ,ovwa-

+ -v ..0 ~- Question 22e For those activities identified in response to Item d above, identify each which is significant in tarms of weight addition to structures founded totally or partly on or in fill. Response (to 22e) The construction activities within the various safety-related structures scheduled to be completed during the next 24 months are identified in response to 22d above. The estimated weight in place and weigNbs to be'Added during this construction period are compiled in Table 22e-1. The weights to be added to the borated water storage tanks are signficant. However, for the other structures, the weight to be added to complete the construction is found to be minimal. 4 2 8 e 9 g am 6- +e ; , tumum usegne m, a ~- s-m ,e,

m n :r__.. n.... 4 s 1 TABLE 22(e)-1 J Estimated Estimated Total i Total Weight Percent Weight To be Weight In Place Added To be Structure / Component (kips) (kips) Added 1. BWST 1T-60 860 4,340 5005 2. BWST 2T-60 760 4,340 570% 3. Auxiliary building wings Unit 1 7,700 350 5% Unit 2 -do- -do- -do-4. Auxiliary building railroad bay between column A and e' ~ m. I AA Between columns 4.55 and 5.1 3,800 80 2% Between columns 5.1 and 7.4 5,700 100 2% 5. Main feedwater ' isolation valve chamber 650 6 1% 6. . Service water pump structure 4,770 200 4% 7. Emergency diesel oil storage tanks

  • 3,'770 486 13%

i

  • The tank's are currently filled with water.

em t , ) 's x 5 s / s. i 'I-x i. .' k.

-y ~ ~.L.. _ ~- J"TT.**"P*' .g. Question 22f Identify all alternative solutions associated with the plant i area fill settlement which would be foreclosed by continuation of any of the above activities.

Response

/W As noted in the above responses, 9 ?

  • Seismic Category I structural areas, as well as the yard piping /, utilities, have been identified as safety-related structures or systems founded on plant area fill where additional construction f Ju M4 4 work is necessary to complete the facility.

These structural 1 areas include: ^ ?? 1,2) Electrical penetration areas (both Units 1 and 2) of the auxiliary building \\ 3) Control tower of the auxiliary building 4) Railroad bay of the auxiliary building l i.

l T

5) -

Service water pump structure 6) Diesel, generator building 7) Borated water storage tanks i 8) Emergency diesel fuel oil tank

9) f5 W UcW With the exception of the borated wcater storage tanks, all

~q structural work for the above items'is complat$) 'Howevery there is significant work remainind in thelmechanical and electrical areas, including the installation of piping, electrical trays'and cables,icabinets, other mechanical equipment, HVAC, etc. In the service watar pump structure, the large service water pumps must still be installed. A review of the alternative solutions which might be fereclosed by continued construction activities,:in these areas irAlude i the follcwing. i 1) ' Portions of the. Auxiliary Building, Including the e Electrical Penetration, Control Tower, and Railroad Bay Areas h G am; - N \\ 'e l' w m t T, x 'M ! w ~.,. [-

, ms _ _... sh as Any required corrective measures for these several areas will likely be performed using underpinning or l other repair methods installed from outside of the structure (i.e., sink an access shaft down from plant grade, and then tunnelling beneath the existing structural foundations slab). Because the added weight resulting from the remaining construction work to go is minimal (i.e., 5% or less, electrical and mechanical items, see Table 22e-1), there is'no risk that continued construction activity would foreclose on this option. r An alternative solution to provide corrective repairs to these auxiliary building areas would be to initiate repairs from within the structure. Continued construction activity would add congestion in the repair areas, and make this alternative more difficult to implement. However, much of the congestion already exists.

Also, if necessary, portions of the installed electrical and mechanical services could be later removed, albeit at a-cost and schedule pencity.

In summary,. continuing construction activities in-these severalareasoftheauxiliarybuildingdoes'noYforeclose S 0

a any corrective actions. \\ 2) Service Water Pump Structure The north and east sides of the service water pump structure are accessible for underpinning from outside of the structure. The continued installation of electrical and mechanical items, including several large pumps, would add to the congestion inside the building and make repairs from within the structure less desirable. However, similar to the auxiliary building areas, it is possible to remove such items.if necessary.

Again, continued construction activity in this structure does not foreclose on any future repair methods.

3) Diesel Generator Building This area is currently surcharged, and no construction activities are underway. No construction work in this area will be resumed unit 1 MCAR 24 is satisfactorily resolved. 4) Borated Water Storage Tanks A preload program will be implemented in this area as described in Question 6 above. At least one and possibly both tank areas will be preloaded before the tanks are erected. Upon completion of the tanks, the water loads will represent a five-fold increase on soils loading. ~ _... L_

6-. If the taak areas require corrective measures, the installed tnaks will not preclude grouting or similar repair methods. If complete soils replacement is required, the tanks are accessible for removal, although at significant cost and schedule penalties. 5) Emergency Diesel Fuel Oil Tanks Similar to the above comments for the horated water storage tnaks, the emergency diesel fuel oil tnak dation areas may be grouted, or, if soils replacement betanks'couldberemoved. under the tanks is required, ~ 6) Yard Piping / Utilities (Later) 4 Based on the above considerations, there is no risk in allowing current construction activities in these areas to continue which might later foreclose on any anticipated alternative corrective measures. M-wN eMe me 466 6* M L._.m}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20090K792&oldid=5497682"