Text

Rept on Review & Analysis of Soil Backfill Densities in Response to NRC Concern 7
	ML20096B229
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/31/1984
From:	; EBASCO SERVICES, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20096B223	List: ML20096B218; ML20096B229;
References
	NUDOCS 8409040051
	Download: ML20096B229 (105)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:., -. . ?.ed ~ i REPORT ON THE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES IN-RESPONSE TO NRC CONCERN NO. 7 FOR LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD STEAM ELEC1EIC STATION UNIT #3 EB'JiC0 SERVICES INCORPORATED AUGUST, 1984 8409040051 840827 ~ PDR ADOCK 05000382 A PDR i [. s- _-

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL ~ BACKFILL DENSITIES ~ NRC CONCERN NO. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Table No. 1 - Study-Plan Flow Chart 1 ~ 2.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 1 A. Test Records 2 B.' Inspection Reports 2 3. STAGE I - LOCATION OF~ EXISTING DATA 3-5 Document 1 - Ebasco. Specification, LOU-1564.482 3 Document 2.- Ebasco Quality Control Inspection 3 Procedures, QCIP-2/WQC-1 Document 3 - J.A. Jones. Site Inspection & 4 Testing, Procedure for Backfill C Testing, W-SITP-12 Document 4 - Soils Laboratory - Class A Backfill 4 Test Index Document 5 - Soils Labora,cory - Class A Backfill 4 Field'and Laboratory Test Summary Document 6 - Ebasco Statistical Studies of Class 4 A Backfill Relative Densities Document 7 - Class A Backfill Samples Forms 5 4. STAGE II '- RF. VIEW OF SOIL PACKAGES FOR COMPLETENESS ' 5-12 A - Test Records 5 Document 8 - Class A Backfill Test Index By Fill 6 Number In Ascending. Elevation Document 9 - Class A Backfill Relative Density 6 Overlay Plots B - Inspection Reports 7 1. Description of Inspection Forms 8 2. Completeness and. Distribution of Inspections 9 Table No. 2 - Inventory of Soil 9 Inspection Reports

REVIE'J AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table No. 3 - Evaluation of Soil 10 Inspection Reports by Surface Area Coverage Table No. 4 - Relative Distribution of 11 Inspection Reports to Density Tests 5. STAGE III - REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SOIL PACKAGES FOR 12-21 TECHNICAL ADEQUACY AND SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE A. Test Records 12 1. Testing Frequency and Distribution of 13 In-Place Densities Tests Table No. 5 - Comparitan of In-Place 14 l Density Test Fesquency and Distribution 2. Frequency of Laboratory Control Tests 15 Table No. 6 - Frequency Check - Proctors / 16 Sieves to Densiries o D Table No. 7 - Nonconforming Intervals - 16 Proctors / Sieves to Densities Table No. 8 - Analysis of Nonconforming 16 Control Test Frequencies 3. Performance of Sectistical Studies 16 Tabla No. 9 - Schedule of Relative Density 16 Correlation Testing 4. Class A Backfill Relative Density 17 B. Inspection Reports 19 Completeness 19 Distribution 19 TABLES - 1 THROUGH 9 APPENDIX A - In-Place Density Tests - Fill 5 EL -41.75 to EL -36.25 DOCUMENTS - 1 THROUGH 9 w

I REVIEW AND ARALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 1. INTRODUCTION .In the NRC letter of' June 13,.1984, the following Concern No. 7.was expressed relative to the Soil Backfill Densities: ITEM NO: 7 TITLE: BACIFILL SOIL DENSITIES NRC DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The staff found that records are missing for the in-place density test of backfill in Area 5 (first 5' starting at Elevation -41.25')' These documents are importar.t because the seismic response of the. plant is a function of the soil densities. LP&L shall (1) conduct a review of all soil packages for completeness and technical adequacy and locate all records and provide closure on technical questions, or (2) conduct a review of all soil packages for- ~ completeness and technical adequacy and where soil volume cannot be verified by records as meeting criteria, perfonn and document actual soil conditions by utilizing penetration tests or other methods, or (3) justify by analysis that the soil volumes with missing records,. or technical problems as defined after the records _ review, are'not critical in the structural capability of the plant undar seismic ~ loads. In response tc the above stated concern, the Ebasco Civil. ESSE Department. implemented a three stage program to resolve this concern. The review and evaluation of soil test. records was conducted in accordance with approach (1) of the concern while the review and evaluation of inspection reports was conducted in accordance with approach (3) of the concern.- The study plan depicted in Table 1 and described herein, was implemented to determine if the deficiencies that do exist in the hol1~ packages.will critically effect the structural capacity of the plant under seismic loadings. Stage I of the program consisted of a data acquisition effort. After the data was located and collected, the Stage II effort consisted of a review for completeness and data. compilation. Finally, the Stage III-activity consisted of an overall review and evaluation of the soil packages for technical adequacy and specification compliance. The program effort was conducted under the direction of M. Teachin, the Resident Sr. Site Soils Engineer, who was present during the performance of the majority of the' actual backfilling operations. 2.'

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS As a result of the study program described herein, it has been concluded .that: 1 - -.. ~ - -- ~ 7 _:; yy.- ,, - -.. -. _ n7,.... n 2 _.- -,- _2 : _ - -g

JP REVIEU AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL =; BACKFILL DENSITIES 4 NRC CONCERN NO. 7 2 ~ A. Test Records d (1) The Class A Backfill soil test records are ce=plete. I (2) Field and laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the e specified frequencies. In less than 8% of the cases reviewed, the laboratory control tests were run at intervals slightly larger than the specified, one set per ten inplace density test criteria. The backfill placed during these periods was randomly = located throughout the fills and the rclative densities obtained [ during these intervals were found to be accaptable.when compared to the specification requirements. [* 9 (3) Field tests were located in accordance with the specified random f-distribution. In less than 5% of the tests reviewed, the location coordinates of the inplace density tests were found to 1-be in error. These tests were still a valid indicator of the j-relative density of the backfill at a random spot at a known elevation in a known fill area and were therefore found to be a. acceptable tests. ?- (4) Statistical studies of relative density were perforced in ] accordance with the specification require =ents. ?-- (5) The Class A backfill soil densities are in accordance with the 3E apecification requirements and will provide the design structural s capability to the plant under seis=ic loads. 2-k B. Inspection Reports ([ s (1) The distribution of the existing documentation throughout the backfill is essentially identical to the distribution of the field testing effort, thus indicating a one to one relationship S-between inspection and testing activities. Since the field testing activity is known to be complete, the inspection activity is also believed to be complete. S r The majority of the missing inspection reports are therefore believed to be misplaced. Inspection trends based upon = evaluation of inspection frequency and distribution indicate enat the majority of the missing inspections were performed. (2) 80% of the volume of the backfill has a sufficiene quantity of each type of inspection report to fulfill the require =ents of the specification and inspection procedures. (3) For the remainder of the volume of the backfill which has missing inspection reports: V_ (a) 16.0% of the volume of the backfill has an average of 81% of the quantity of inspection reports required with at least one of each type of inspection report on each fill at each i elevation in its volume. 1 - &k s A .~.e i.. q_

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 -(b) 3.8%lof,the volume of the backfill has a partially complete representation of inspection reports with one or more type of inspection missing on each fill at'each elevation in its volume. (c) 0.2% of the volume of the backfill has no inspection reports at the fill locations and elevations included in this volume. 'he effect on each of these types of deficiencies has been . evaluated and found to have no effect on the structural. capability of the plant under seismic icads. - 3. STAGE I - LOCATION OF EXISTING DATA The primary emphasis of the Stage I activity was the collection of soils data which in addition to specifications.and procedures, includes test records and inspection. reports. To accomplish this task, a detailed review was performed of the following data locations: Zbasco Quality Assurance Records Vault Ebasco Engineering Files Ebasco Waranouse On-Site Laboratory Files (G.E.O.) Contractor Quality Ass'urance Records Vault (J. A. Jones) As a result of this effort, several key document packages were located and are attached to this report for permanent storage. A brief description of* each of these document packages is presented below.' The hierachy of the documents is depicted in the Study Plan Flow Chart, Table No.1 attach;d.- DOCUMENT 1 - Ebasco Specification LOU-1564.482, R7 Filter and Backfill. This is the latest revision of the specification under which all soil backfill was selected, placed, compacted and tested. The document presents the design requirements of the backfill activity and served as the basis for the development of the two Quality Inspection Procedures summarized below. 7 i DOCUMENT 2 - Ebasco Quality Control Inspection Procedures, QCIP-2, RH and WQC-1, RA These are the Ebasco Quality Control Inspection Procedures under which the soil backfill material was selected, placed, compacted, tested, documented and approved. _ 4 e m ...m.

~ y ' REVIEW AND. ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC' CONCERN NO. 7' DOCUMENT 3 - J..A. Jones Site Inspection and Test Procedure for Backfill and Compaction,.W-SITP-12, R8 This is the latest revision of the Contractor's Quality Verification procedure under which~all soil backfill material was selected, placed, compacted, tested and documented. Each of these documents required-the performance of routine' field and. laboratory t'esting of the backfill material. The actual soil testing was performed by an onsite laboratory in accordance with these requirements. The following control documents were generated by the soils laboratory in ~ addition to the standard set of test reports. COCUMENT 4 - Soils Laboratory - Class A Backfill Test Index This index was developed by the test laboratory as a working. record of each Class A' test performed. This hardcover, bound notebook lists the . test number, location coordinate, eleve-ion date and type of test performed. It was developed as a system of assigning numbers to and documenting the completion of all Class A tests. DOCUMENT 5 - Soils Laboratory - Class A Backfill Field and Laboratory Test Summary This summary was developed by the soil testing laboratory as a daily tabulation of the results of soil testing performed. Contained in this document are.the lab test number, fill number, test location, field density, lab density, grain size and relative density test results for each day of work, recorded on a single page for supervisory review and study. Utilizing these records, Ebasco performed the required periodic statistical studies of'insitu relative density of the backfill as described in brief in- ' Document 6 below.~ DOCUMENT 6 - Ebasco Statistical Studies of Class A Backfill Relative F Densities 4 This document contains all of the seven statistical studies performed on the Class A backfill relative densities which document the . backfills overal,1 acceptability. It also contains letters to the' earthwork contractors regulating the percent compaction' criteria based upon the results of.these studies. 4. .v M ..---......t..... 7.;. .y,

N ~ REVIEW AND ANALYSI3 OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 DOCUMENT 7 - Class A Backfill' Inspection Reports-In order to review the large quantity of inspection reports which make up the soil packages in the files, nine basic types of forms were identified. Document-7 contains samples of the_ typical forms found in .each of the soil' packages in the vault. These forms are discussed in ~ detail in Stage II of~the report. ~

After locating-and collecting the data, Stage II activities concentrated on a_ review of the documents for completeness and on compiling the data into a format compatible for review of NRC Concerns.

l In order to perform this task, the 17,000 existing soil documents were divided into the following two types: (1) Soil Inspection Reports -(Forms 1-5) (2)' Soil Test Records (Forms'6-9) Since ti. test records provide _a direct measure of the capability of the backfill to provide the required structural support to the plant island under seismic loadinsa, they were the first records to be reviewed. The i remaining inspection reports were reviewed after the completion of the test record study.' The details of these activities are presented below. ~ 4. STAGE II - REVIEW OF SCIL PACKAGES FOR COMPLETENESS A. Test Records The first step in the review of the documentation was a detailed review of all soils laboratory Jocumentation on site for completeness. Included in the review were: In-Place Density Tests - ASTM D 2167 Form 6 Proctor Tests - ASIM 1557 Form 7 Moisture Content Tests - ASTM D2216 Form 8 Sieve Tests - ASTM D422 Form 9 Relative Density Tests - ASTM D2049 (Off Site _ Lab) By comparing the Class A Backfill Test Index (Document 4) and the Field and. Laboratory Soil Tesc Summary (Document 5) to the actual files of soil test data at the onsite laboratory, a complete set of field and laboratory test records was found to exist *. 1 In direct response to the first paragraph of the NRC Concern No. 7. attached in Appendix "A" are copies of the 34 in-place density tests performed in the first 5.5' of fill placed in Fill Area #5 from Elevation -41.75 to EL -36.25.. In addition to the density rests records, Table A-1 summarizes the elevation of the test, the test coordinate, the test number, the date the test was performed and, documents the number of the reference . proctor and grain size lab tests used to determina specification compliance. Each test location and relative density are plotted on the corresponding overlay plots in Document 9 of this report. _ p F = N :.- u.. _ 7 ._._;.._._g .... ~.

V REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 Utilizing the complete set of backfill density test records and the Class A Backfill Field and Laboratory Test Summary (Docu=ent No. 5), and keeping in mind the goals of completeness and technical adequacy, two new documents were developed for subsequent evaluation. A brief description of each of these documents and methodology used to prepare the documente is presented below. DOCUMENT 8 - Class A Backfill Test Index by Fill Number in Ascending Elevation This document is a complete listing of all Class A density tests categorized by fill area in order of ascending elevation. It lists for each fill area, the field density test location number and date of performance in order of ascending elevation. This tabulation served as the basis for the preparation of the overlays of relative density by elevation, Document 9 discu: red below. - D0cUMENT 9 - Class A Backfill Relative Density Overlay Plots By ~ Elevation In order to evaluate the frequency and distribution of field test and relative density, the following procedure was used to constract the overlay plots: (1) All Class A density tests were regrouped by fill number in order of ascending elevation (Document No. 8). ~ (2) A key plan drawing of the plant island eveavation was constructed containing the soil backfill grid system. One original sheet was used for each one foot interval of backfill. Relative density overlay plots were then constructed from EL -44 to Elevation +20 to encompass all Class A backfill density tests. J (3) Using Docutent 8, each density test was plotted on the form using I the test coordinates and elevation. A diffgrent sy=bol was used l for each respective fill number. The test number was recorded adjacent to each data plot. It should be noted that the boundaries of each fill area are not represented. This is because the boundaries were somewhat arbitrary and changed in f-exact location at different elevations in the fill. In addition, backfill activities typically involved areas smaller than the numbered fill area, and in some cases, was carried across fill boundaries. (4) The test number was then recorded in the test schedule on the side of the overlay along with the relative density value for each test found from the Class A backfill Test Su= mary (Document 5). (5) For Class A backfill placed above Elevation +13 (See Statistical Study No. 7, Document 6), the percent co=paction value for each j field test was found in the Class A Backfill Field and Laboratory J Test Sucmary (Document 5) and recorded in the.est schedule with ~ as asterisk. ~ ?_.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL i BACKFILL' DENSITIES I NRC CONCERN NO. 7 (6) ~Once the data was plotted and tabulated, the theoretical surface

boundaries of the backfill were approximated utilizing the fill boundaries' and the Nuclear Plant Island exterior-walls. The surface area'of the backfill at each elevation was then calculated with a planimater and recorded on the overlay.

.(7) 'In cases where the actual distribution of the plotte'd density tests indicated backfil1~ placement outside of the theoretical boundaries, the' fill' boundary was extended to include that material. 2 (8) By dividing the surface area by.20,000 ft, the minimum number of density tests required by the specification LOU-1564.482 was calculated and recorded on the overlay. (9) Finally, the actual number of density tests performed at each elevation was recorded.. completing the overlay. - The completed overlay plots are a graphical presentation of the density test frequency and distribution,'and most importantly, they tabulate and display the final insitu relative densities and/or percent compaction of the backfill. ~ These plots were utilized in the review and evaluation of Test Records for technical adequacy and specification compliance in the Stage III-A of the ' Study Program. ~ B. Inspection Reports In the review and evaluation of the completeness of the inspection documentation, the following factors were considered: 4 The requirements of the Ouality Control Inspection Procedure in force at the time tha work was done. Three different Ebasco procedures and one Contractor procedura existed during the eight years of placement. Each procedure was revised numerous times. Therefore, different inspection report forms were in use at different times during backfilling operations. The location and elevation of the fill. Some forms were used to I b document inspections of activities which were not common to all fill placements. Therefore all forms were not required in all packages. The frequency of inspection. Some backfilling activities required 100% Ebasco inspection and others not. Since the work was done by a contractor that had an acceptable quality assurance program, Ebasco inspection was designated as "once per day, by Checklist, when work is in progress." (QCIP-2, Section 8.4.2 - Document 2). c i ) a.. -~ n---- --- + - - - - - --~~----y

~ REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 ~ (2) Completeness and Distribution of Inspections During the Stage II review' activity, the total file of inspection reports for Class A backfill was inventoried and combined 'into compatible soil packages as exemplified in Document 7. Included in the inventory were approximately 12,000 inspection reports ranging from EL -44 to EL +20 throughout all seven fill areas. The reports were grouped and. compiled by fill location, elevation and placement date for each of the five types of inspection forms summarized above. The resulting inventory of inspection reports is presented in Table No.:2 and discussed below. The evaluation of these inspection reports was further divided into two 1 phases; the evaluation of the inspection reports to determine their overall completeness and the evaluation of the frequency and distribution of . inspection reports to determine their content. The following discussions summarize the results of these evaluatiens: a. Completeness of Inspections In the evaluation of the completeness of the inspection documentation, it must be noted that the exact numbers of inspection' documentation required by the governing procedures cannot be reconstructed. Certain of the five' types of-inspections were required on a daily basis (100% coverage - Forms 1, 2 & 4) while others were required on a partial coverage basis (Form 3 & 5). For this reason several comparitive analyses were performed to evaluate relative completeness of the documentation. When eval'uating the total number of forms existing for each type of inspection (Table 2), it is found that Forms 2 and 4, which are representative of the required 100% inapaction, number an average of 2900 each, and that Forms 3 and 5, which are representative of a partial inspection, number as average of 2000 each inspections.. The Form 1 inspection (J. A. Jones Daily Inspection Report) which was performed at a 100% coverage and' thus should have resulted in approximately 2900 forms, appears to be incomplete. It must be noted, however, that the Form 1 daily inspections by J. A. Jones and the Form 4, Daily Inspections by Ebasco, were duplicate inspections of the same placement and t compaction activities. Since the missing Form 1 data is found on the duplicate Form 4 Inspection Reports, which appear to be complete, the missing Form 1 Reports constitute no loss of quality documentation and have no further significance to the inspection report evaluation unless the corresponding Form 4 is missing. Thus the existing inspection documentation would I indicate that 100% inspection coverage consists of 2900 inspections. In order to evaluate the validity of this number, consideration j was given to the complete set of field density test records l presented in Table No. 5 (which will be discussed in more detail in the evaluation discussions of density testing). This table indicates that 3076 Class A density tests were performed when _9 y..

=-. ~

.1 1

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL' BACKFILL DENSITIES. NRC CONCERN NO. 7 .(l) ' Description'of Inspection Forms Considering these variations in procedures, fill locations and inspection frequencies, the following basic inspection report forms were found to - exist, samples of which are found in Document 7: -Form #1 - J. A. Jones Daily Backfill Inspection Reports -W-SITP-12;(11-R8) These forms summarized the overall acceptability of the daily backfill operation including material acceptability, excavation, backfill placement and compaction, and field testing. They were completed by the contractor on a daily basis for each backfill area of major earthwork. Form #2 - Ebasco Borrow Material Inspection Reports

QCIP-2-1/WQC-1-9 These forms summarized the acceptability of the borrow material used-

~for. Class A backfill including the material source, moisture content 4 and gradation check test results. This inspection was performed by Ebasco daily. Form #3 - Ebasco Excavation and Stripping Inspection Reports j QCIP-2-2/WQC-1-17 1 These forms summarized the acceptability of the activities performed in preparing the fill area for the new backfill placement. Included on this form are drainage conditions, stripping, excavation, cleanup and moisture and density testing of exposed materials. The form was primarily utilized for excavation stripping and grubbing when the 4 Class A backfill abutted and joined the natural. clay slopes (below EL -5). Above this elevation, the use of this form was up to the discretion of the Ebasco Inspector. Form #4 - Ebasco Daily Backfill Inspection Reports QCIP-2-3/WQC-18 -~ 1 These forms summarized the acceptability of the daily backfill .~ - operation emphasizing the backfill placement, compaction and field

~ ~ '

testing. It is very similar to the Form #1 completed daily by the J. A. Jones, quality verification inspection force and was utilized daily by Ebasco for all major Class A backfills. Form #5 - Ebasco Backfill Acceptance Report QCIP-2-4 This form summarized the findings of the Ebasco inspection report forms #2, 3 & 4 and the soil laboratory test results resulting in the overall acceptance of a particular fill. The form was discontinued in revision H of QCIP-2 (12/6/77). l' - L F'. .= =_.

F REVIEW AND ANAI,YSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DINSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 on{y858testswererequiredbasedupontheonetestper20,000. ft specified frequency. Thus approximately three times as many tests were performed as the. fill surface area would require. Sincethespecgfication'alsorequiresonetestforeacharealess than 20,000 ft placed in any one day, the existence of so many extra tests would indicate that the large majority of fills 2 placed were less than 20,000 ft and thgt the testing frequency ~ was governed by'the less than 20,000 fe placed in any one day criterion. This is further substantiated by a review of the

density overlay plots (Document 9) which clearly indicate small fill placements at the upper elevations and around specific construction items. This bging the case,.since each small fill area of less than 20,000 ft worked required a test, it would also require a set of inspections for the same fill area. Noting that the 3076 field density tests. constitute a complete set of test records and considering.the correlation developed above it

-is reasonable to conclude that the total number of inspection report packages for 100% coverage'should also number around 3076. Taking into account that a small percentage of fills had more than one density tgst per fill, because their surface areas exceeded 20,000 ft, the number of required inspection packages should be slightly less. By comparing the 2900 existing inspections that represent the 100% inspection frequency to the 3076(-) packages which should have existed. It is concluded that based on this comparison, the inspection documentation files are ~ substantially complete. To further' evaluate and better define the completeness of the, inppection reports, a comparative analysis was performed of the surface area indicated on the Inspection Reports to the total surface area of the fill areas. In this analysis, the surface area recorded in each of the daily inspection report packages (Form 1 or 4) was totalled and compared to the total surface area of the backfill at each elevation as calculated on the overlay plots (Document 9). By comparing the actual surf ace area of backfill inspected to the total surface area of backfill placed, the percenrage of~~ - ~ " - -- ~~ inspection coverage was calculated. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table No. 3 and discussed below: (1) The actual inspected. surface area in some cases was larger ~ than the theoretical surface area (overlay plots). This'is because many fill areas were constructed on more than one day, thus generating two reports for the same area. (2) Evaluation of the percent of inspection coverage column of Table 3 indicates that for 80% of the volume of the backfill, there exists a sufficient quantity of each type of inspection to document the acceptability of the backfill represented by the inspected surface area. - 1 ...y

.( REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL. ~~ BACKFILL DENSITIES' NRC CONCERN NO.=7 i (3): For the remaining 20% of the volume of the backfill which' was found to have missing-inspection reports..the average - percent of inspection coverage was found to be 81%. As a result of these analyses of the completeness of the inspection documentation, it is concluded that the documentation is basically complete.with 80% of the volume of the ' backfill. 1 documented with complete soil packages and the remaining 20% of -l the backfill containing partial deficiencies in'the inspection reports. b. Distribution of Inspections As part of the evaluation of the significance of the missing inspection reports, the distribution of the existing inspection documentation was evaluated. To consider the distribution of the existing inspection reports throughout the fill area. Table No '4 was developed. It compares the distributica of the inspection effort to the distribution of the field testing effort which is known to be complete. By. comparing the percent of inspections on each fill area to the percent of-field density testing on each fill area,.it is found that both the inspection and testing activities have essentially identical distributions of effort.. This observation further supports the correlation that approximately one inspection report should exist for each density test and strengthens the conclusions that the inspection report documentation is basically . complete.- In the further evaluation and definition of the distribution of the types of inspection reports shown in Table No. 2, two l distinct trends sie immediately apparent, with the division in trend at elevation -25.00. (a) Between elevation -25 and the bottom of the excavation, there exist $3-fills-with partial-distriburierof inspection report documentation, or none at all. Of these 53 fills: J. - 25 fill areas have some types of inspections by both I - ~ - 'the Contractor and Ebasco. These fills constitute 6.3%' of the total number of fills constructed and account i for 1.8% of the total volume of Class A backfill constructed. 21 fill areas have inspection documentation by both the Contractor and Ebasco. These fills constitute 5.3% of i the total number of fills constructed and account for 2.0% of the total volume of Class A backfill constructed. - ~ l-i;... z,.-...-..-~.

a REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 6 fill areas have no inspection documentation. These fills constitute 1.5% of the total number of fills constructed and account for only 0.2% of the total volume of backfill constructed. (b) For the remainder of the fill placements between elevation -25 and plant grade with minor exception, the data in Table - 2 indicates that each type of inspection was performed at least once en each fill area at each elevation. In some cases as many as 60 inspections of a particular type were performed on one fill at one elevation (Fill #6, EL 13.00 - '13.99). Thus, a review of _ the distribution of the types of inspection reports that are missing indicates that the 52 fill, areas with an incomplete distribution of inspection documentation are concentrated in 13.1% of the total nunber of fill areas constructed and account for only 4% of the total volume of 4 backfill placed. The impact of these findings on the evaluation of the technical adequacy of the inspection reports is discussed in Stage III-B of this report. 4. STAGE III - REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF SOIL PACKAGES FOR TECHNICAL ADEQUACT AND SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE A. Test Records The review and evaluation of the technical adequacy of the Class A backfill to provide structural capability of the plant under seismic 4 loadings was based upon the design requirements as stated in the Ebasco Specification LOU-1564.482. Those sections pertinent to the Class A backfill soil density are as follows: In-Place Density and Testing Sand materials and clam shell to be used as Class A backfill shall have an in-place relative density of 75 percent. The variation for Class A fill from the above specified degrees of compaction shall be a maximum of one standard deviation less than the specified relative density.- The numerical value of the standard deviation from Class A fill will be established by a series of field tests to be conducted during the initial compaction operations and will be reported in terms of minimum allowable density required. The minimum allowable density for the basis of field control at the start of work and until establiahment of the standard deviation for Class A fill shall be 95 percent of Modified Proctor. The required percent compaction will be adjusted either up or down, Jepending upon the results of statistical studies which will be made during the I backfilling operations in order to maintain the 75 percent relative i density requirement. s ' { l = p w, -.... ~. _. - -. ~. -,

REFIEiJ AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 " Clay macerials to be used for Class A backfill shall have in-place density of 90 percent of the. maxi =um density obtained in the Modified Proctor Compaction Test. All materials to be used for Class B backfill shall have an in-place density of 90 percent of the maximum density obtained in the Modified Proctor Compaction Test. The variation from the above specified degrees of compaction.shall be a maximum of 10 percent of the density test results falling a maximum of 5 percent less than the specified density in a random distribution as determined by the Cugineer. .1 Control tests of densities and moisture contents shall be made by the Engineer as the work progresses, to assure that required densities and moisture contents are being achieved. .2 The in-place density shall be tested in accordance with ASTM-D1556, ASTM-D2167, ASTM-D2922 and any other method suitable in the judgment of the Engineer to insure that the backfill has been properly compacted. One test shall be made in each layer ? for every 20,000 sq.ft. of compacted class A fill area and one test for every area of less than 20,000 sq. f t. placed in one day. .3 The optimum conditions for both moisture and density will be determined by the Engineer for the fill materials. One laboratory densitt test (ASTM-D1557) and one mechanical gradation test (ASTM-D422) shall be performed on sa=ples taken from in-place density test holes for each ten in-place dens'ity tests performed. The results of these tests made during the backfilling operation shall be made available to the Contractor." In summary, the basic criterion of the specificaticn were to: Obtain 75 relative density in the Class A fill. To check the compaction of the fill with field in-place density and moisture tests and laboratory density and ._._. -. ~ gradation tests at specified frequencies. ^ To perform periodic statistical studies of the Class A e-backfill relative density in order to evaluate the results. Compliance with these requirements is discussed in the following sections. (1) Test Frequency and Distribution of In-Place Densities By using the completed density overlay plots (Document 9), the frequency of Class A in-place density tests (ASTM D-2167) performed for each one foot elevation of backfill was compared to the backfill specification criteria stated above. Since each in-place density test includes a moisture test, verification of moisture tests was simultaneously developed with the density review. ~. es,. .+. %.-.a

' REVIEW'AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 In addition to this criteria, inherent in the requirement for the performance of_ statistical studies is the need-to demonstrate a ' random distribution of test data.~ By studying the location of tests on each fill, an evaluation of the random distribution of thei test pattern.vas also performed. Table No. 5 and Document 9, the overlay plots present~a summary of the results of these reviews. The minimum number of field density tests required for each fill was tabulated along with the actual number of tests performed and the distribution of those-tests by fill number. Since the relative' density overlay plots. vere constructed-at even one foot intervals and the backfill was placed in 15" lifts, density. tests at an elevation ~one foot above and below each plot were reviewed to determine specification compliance. In addition, backfill placed in adjacang' fills was also evaluated since each test represents 20,000 f t of backfill. Thus, by superimposing three overlay sheets (36" of compacted fill), a three dimension test distribution was reviewed for each lif t of backfill. The results of a simultaneous review of Table No. 5 and the overlay plots indicates the following: t (a) A comparison of the total volume of the Class A backfill shown on the tverlays to the neacline quantity.shown on the design drawing (LOU-1564-G-497501, 36) indicates that the overlay Class A soil volume is 33% larger than the design quantity. This is due to the actual expansion of the Class A fill boundaries into Class S fill areas at the higher elevations during construction (as shown on the overlays as indicated by actual test locations). Taking the expanded backfill boundaries into account, the following evaluations were made: (b) Basedonghetestingfrequencyofonefielddensitytestper 20,000 ft of fill, 2794 in-place density tests were performed in fill areas requiring 858 tests. Thus, approximately three times as many density tests were run as the surface area of the fills required. This was'due to the placement of numerous smaller fills each day at the higher j elevations. (c) On only one fill of the 385 fills studied, was there an inadequate number of density tests performed in the 3 foot wedge of backfill reviewed (Fill #2, EL -19). In this case, the size of the fill was small and the relative densities of the fills on both sides and above and below this fill all met the specification requirements. Therefore, it is concluded that this deficiency will have no significance on the stability of the Plant Island under the event of scismic loadings. _ I L r.a.._. -

l REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 (d) Visual analysis of the location of the density tests shows them to be completely random and distributed without pattern throughout the backfill. It should be noted that some test locations on the lab forms were found to be in error (approximately 5%) when plotted on the overlays. This is certainly due to the inaccuracies of visually. locating ones position in the field off of sign posts hundreds of feet - away and tens of feet above the actual test elevation. Since these test locations were still indicative of the relative ' density at a random spot on the fill, the density values were accepted as valid and included in the density analyses. Taking these factors into consideration, it has been determined that the specification requirements for in-place test frequency and distribution have been complied with. (2) Frequency of Laboratorv Control Tests By using the Class A Backfill Test Index (Document 4) and the Field and Laboratory Soil Test Summary (Document 5), the frequency of the laboratory density control tests performed (ASTM D1557) and the mechanical gradation control tests perfor=ed (ASIM D-422) was compared to the specification requirements. Table No. 6 prespnts the reruits of a detailed review of the laboratory testing frequency compared to the number of in-place density tests performed between laboratory check tests. Using the specification requirement of one set of control tests per ten in-place density tests, all nonconforming test intervals were tabulated in Table No. 7. An evaluation of the data presented in these tables indicates the following: (a) From the start of Class A backfilling operation in January, 1 1976 to the present date, a total of 3137 Class A in-place density tests have been performed. Of these 2794 tests are in backffil subject to potential liquefaction iwhile the I remaining 282 test are above this zona. During the same period of time, 361 sets of control tests (Proctor, Sieve and Moisture Tests) have been performed, thus averaging one set of tests per 8.6 in-place density tests compared to one set per 10 in-place density tests as required in the specification. (b) During the performance of the 361 sets of control tests, in only 27 instances were the tests performed at intervals larger than the specification requirements. Thus, the control test frequency was adhered to 92.5% of the time in the last eight and one half years of backfilling activity. 15 - N- .p = e ma w. w w%. =.e, - ew-4

^ RETIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL i BACKFILL DENSITIES ] NRC CONCERN NO. 7 (c) Analysis of the nonconforming intervals indicates that in 20 7 of the 27 cases, the test interval was extended from 10 to a maximum of 13 field tests per set of control tests. Since 3 in each of these cases, the extra in-place density tests I included in the extanded interval were in material on the same fills, already tested in the allevable 10 density j tests, the intent of the specification was complied with in i these cases. By accepting these intervals, the intent of i the specification requirement on control test frequency was ] adhered to 99.8% of the time. ] (d) In the remaining seven cases, where the control test [ interval was extended from 15 to a maximum of 29, a review of the test locations and relative density test results presented in Table No. 8 indicates that the test intervals a are completely random through the fill as a whole and that the relative densities obtained during these intervals are a all acceptable within the statistical tolerance of the specification. n Taking these factors into consideration, it has been deter =ined 9 that the specification requirements for the perfor=ance of laboratory control tests relative to Class A backfill in-place = density testing, has been complied with. N (3) Performance of Statistical Studies 7 4 Document 6 presents copies of all seven statistical studies f performed during the actual backfilling operation, in addition to j letters to the backfilling centractors informing them of the ] results. In addition, Table No. 9 presents the schedule of a relative density correlation testing showing the periodic updating of these correlation curves during the major period of i beckfilling operations. From these documents it has been concluded that: (a) The specification requirements for the periodic performance of statistical studies during the backfilling operations has 1. 7 been complied with and that; i (b) The value of the field control (percent compaction) was adjusted either up or down, depending on the results of the statistical studies, i Taking these factors into consideration, it has been concluded i that the statistical review of the relative densities of the Class A backfill was perfcrmed during the backfilling operations in accordance with the specification requirements. 1 1 - -__- l_ _- __w _-_---__=___-_.c~-:=---------

. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL' BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 (4)- Class A Backfill Relative Density In' analyzing the relative density of the compacted Class A backfill as a whole, 'the following statistical approach was adopted to comply with the specification requirements. The' specification required the in-place compacted C1 ass A backfill to have a relative density of 75' percent. The allowable variation for the Class A fill less than the specified density was a maximum of one' standard deviation.' The numerical value of the standard. deviation for this material was periodically _ established by conducting a series of studies on field tests and was reported in terms of minimum allowable proctor density required to yield the required relative density. During the performance of these statistical studies, the field densities were converted to ralative densities by the use of the correlation-curves. The correlation curves were constructed using cumulative test data from random samples taken from the fill. The following procedure was used to develop these curves. -For each fa=11y of materials: (a) A representative 300 lb. sample was obtained f rom the fill for every 200 to 250 in-place density tests performed. I (b) A 100 lb sample was sent to the field lab and a 200 lb' sample was sent to the home office lab (Peabod'y Testing) for parallel testing to determine a modified proctor compaction curve and percent finer than a #200 sieve. (c) The parallel results were compared. The Proctor densities were found to agree within 22 pcf and the percents finer than the #200 sieve within 13 percent. -Therefore, the home y o ice lab proceeded to perform maximum (O max) and minimum ( min) density determinations on the material. (d) The following equation was used to plot the correlation curves. f.- (5nin) { max.) x Dry Density = { max.- Dr ( f aax.- d[ min). i Where: Dry Density field dry density = t' Dr relative density = hfmax, 5 min. = measured in the home lab for this material

type, i

.xw. .- =

? ^ REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN NO. 7 n-Each curve.was established by assuming various D values and calculating Dry Densities. Cumulative Statistical Study No. 6 (Document No. 6) was performed in August of 1978, and represented all Class A backfill placed to that date. Statistical Study No. 7 was performed in. July,1984 and includes.the remainder of Class A tests in the backfill subject to potential liquefaction. For both studies, correlation . curves of field density to proctor density were developed for three family of materials. The results of these studies are sussiarized as follows: Study No. 6-l Based upon the standard properties of the normal bell curve, the cumulative Study No. 6 was performed on 2499 Class A backfill tests. The density values of the original failing Class A density tests (that were ratested).were not included in this ( study since those tests did not represent the final density of the backfill which formed the seismic support of the Plant Island. The study determined that the standard deviation for all Class A backfill was 12.4%. The specification tolerances were then defined by this standard deviation (in a three standard deviation universe) as: (a) 13% of the Class.A backfill tests could have relative densities ranging from 62.6% to 75.0% and (b) 3% of the Class A backfill tests could have relative densities ranging from 50.2% to 62.6%. Using these definitions, cumulative Study *No. 6 concluded that the Class A backfill was constructed in accordance with the 75% relative density requirement. In addition, those tests which fell below 75%, were found to be within the specification tolerances when compared to an allowable tolerances of 16%. Therefore. the backfill was found to be in compliance with the r-- specification requirements. ~ ~ Study No. 7 Study No. 7 consisted of 251 in-place density tests taken in backfill placed since August 1978 up to elevation +13.00 (the upper boundary above which liquefaction will not occur, see Study No. 7. Document 6). The results of this study indicate a mean relative density of 91.7% with a standard deviation of 18.6%. O % 4W=e=Meme W*

- r***** * - " '

1. ]_______

M*

N9'69'~-----
D18

'N--- - ---- " - ' - - - - '~ ^ ^ - - - - - - - -

---.~ E REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL BACKFILL DENSITI2S NRC CONCERN NO. 7 The mean relative density is well above the specification requirements and is somewhat higher than the mean relative density from study No. 6 (83.8%). The standard deviation for the current work is larger than for previous studies. This is certainly not surprising considering the large variation in compaction techniques utilized to construct backfill in the six years of operations included in this study. The actual number (12.4%) and values of in-place density tests in Study No. 7 which fell below the minimum density of 75% was found to be within the 16% allevable tolerance. In summary, the backfill included in Study No. 7 was found to be in conformance with the specification requirements. Taking this into account and considering that: (1) All the bac'kfilled placed prior to this study also was in compliance with the specification requirements; and (2) Study No. 7 completes the series of studies on backfill subject to potential liquefaction; it is concluded that all backfill was placed in compliance with the specification requirements and that the final insitu soil densities yill provide the required design structural capacity to the plant under seismic loadings. B. Inspec' tion Reports The results of the Stage II evaluations on completeness and distribution of the existing inspection documentation, deter =ined the following: (1) Completeness of Inspections Although no exact method exists for determining the quantity of inspections that were required during the backfill operations, two comparative analyses were performed to evaluate the relative completeness of the inspection documentation. These analyses e j; concluded that the existing documentation is basically complete and that 80% of the volume of the backfill is documented with complete inspection packages while the remaining 20% of the backfill has some deficiency in the inspection packages. (2) Distribution of Inspections The distribution of the existing inspection documentation throughout the backfill is essentially identical to the distribution of the field testing effort by fill location, thus confirming a one to one relationship between inspection and testing activities. _ 0

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SOIL- - l

1 BACKFILL DENSITIES NRC CONCERN-NO.-7;

. i For.the 20% of the inspection packages found to be incomplete, three distinct types of discrepancies were found to exist. The following discussions and conclusions are presented relative to the effect of.these discrepancies on the technical adequacy ~ of the inspections. (a) 16.0% of the volume of-the backfill has an average of 82% of the qucntity of inspection reports required with at-least one of each type of inspection report on each fill at each elevation in'this volume. For example, although there are 28 existing Form 2 Inspection Reports,.in the vault for Fill No. 3 at elevation +12 (Table No. 3), 6 Form 2 inspection reports are believed to be missing. In all these cases however, the.81% of existing documentation of each type of inspection clearly establishes that the Quality Control and Quality Verification processes were implemented during the construction process.. In addition, the backfill relative y density study documents that the required density tests were performed and resulting relative density for the fills ' included in this 16% volume were found to be within specification requirements. Thus the existing inspection ~ reports coupled with the satisfactory density records indicate that this deficiency will have no significance on the stability of the Plant Island under seismic loadings. (b) 3.8% of the volume of the backfill has a partially complete - representation of inspection reports with one or more type of inspection missing on each fill at each elevation in this volume. Included in this volume of backfill are: 25 fills which have inspection records from both the Contractor and Ebasco. Although so=a of the five required inspection reports are missing, there exists a sufficient quantity of data on the existing reports to determine that the Quality Control and Quality Verification processes were implemented during the construction of each of these fill areas. In addition, ~ the design specified relative densities were achieved within the specified tolerances (Section IIIA) for all the fills affected. Therefore, it has been concluded that this deficiency, which effects 1.8% of the backfill, will have no significance on the stability of the Plant Island under the event of seismic loading. Also, included in these fill areas are 21 fills which have documentation of inspections by either Ebasco or the Contractor. Since Ebasco did a 100% duplicate inspection of the contractors inspection, the f act that contractor inspection reports are missing does not i weh g>_ rO4

- - evs.*-

e m ow ness me'e me e*ee e.- ee= w ,m~- aw ,,... = -,. _. q

l

n fREVIEW AND~ ANALYSIS OF SOILL y

b BACKFILL DENSITIES ~ .NRC CONCERN NO. 7 1 necessarily. lead to a. loss in the documentation of quality. As stated before,Lthe existing. inspections on-these fills clearly establish that the quality control process was implemented during the construction ' process.- In addition, it,should be noted that in accordance with the Quality Control procedures (Document 2 &.3), the in-place _ density tests performed on each of these fills;were ordered by_and. directed by the Ebasco Q.C.: Inspector. He witnessed and evaluated each field test.for specification compliance while the test was being performed in the fiela.- If the percent compaction was not in compliance with the specified-minimum, the Ebasco QC Inspector directed the Contractor's QC Inspector to implement rework (recompaction). The rework was witnessed _by the Ebasco. Inspector _and at its completion, ratests were taken at his. direction. Thus, the existing inspection documentation, coupled with the complete file of test records for each fill involved (indicating acceptable relative density and quality control involvement) indicate _that this deficiency, which effects 2.0% of the backfill, will have no significance on the stability of the Plant Island under the event of i seismic loadings. (c) 0.2% of the volume of the backfill has no inspection reports at the fill locations and elevations included in this volume. ,) For these 6 fill areas, there was no inspection documentation found onsite. The material in these l_ fills is found to be concentrated below elevation -37 in small drainage ditches and trenches which have very little volume or in fills. As stated above, the complete record of density testing testifies to the tot,al involvement of the quality control inspectors and to the achievement of the relative density. The fact that the majority of the missing reports are clustered 1 together in groups on three fills indicates a high probability of lost folders of soil packages. Thus, i even if the records are icst, the acceptabilit; sf the relative density, the indication of Q.C. involvament, and the fact that the affected fills account for for-only 0.2% of the backfill placed provides sufficient t L evidence to conclude that this deficiency will have no significance on the stability of the Plant Island under the event of seismic loadings. Considering the discussions above, it has been concluded that the deficiencies.found to exist in the inspection documentation are of minor significance and will have no effect on the structural capability of the plant under seismic loads.

y O en e O l l l l f l l l l 4 k~ l i TABLES G g e o 9 0 e ee' eB 6 em eh e e 6 l g 9 ~~ d - _.... .n_

b ;, I I i erme z n ersee u ,J srsee w w 1 LCCMTKW CFE%971hQ D\\Tr\\ ANALYSIS FOR COMPLETENESS Yl EVALUATION WD47:4 Y* l CONPILATION Of DATA %.ma. s, c l Lou lK4.482 l } INSPECTION TESTING l 3, 1%%o !.W JA.xnes AMV' OBotAS 12x37 1 t'ROCECURS MOC20UM6 FFDCECU/CSD lE@EhD ' "'P~C IVM ~C M MS ANALYSl3 FOR ouGRtA%9 of D- @ ATACH491ThtR t QD b I COAIPLETECCss ResAT/v6 DEtet17 CA :AtHCKFILL TABULATION ~

0151RIBUTION

~~ DY ALAVATMrs 1l TE9T/MCEx 0FDENSITY TEST ggygg m l

DATA BY
FRAGLAENCY INSPECTION CLAh9A &%CKFEL FILL / ELEVATION
R0 YY" NOA

? l' REPOR TS TEDTSUN'MT ~ EVALLIATION or TECH M l ,Q l N'*"_' 'AL*Y 's; c..c o A e v x?zt. l STArtsTtCAt. sTUDres = l i. l ,p 4 REsPOMsg l l m ma coryceAN487 QA VAULT Soil PACKAGES } b OYAYi AL E T OF ATA L ANALYSIS FOR 4 goggyAcy COMPLETENESS i 1 db LOUIStANA POWER S LMiHT COMPANY-I 1RATEAFORO S.E.S. IJNfT N113 4 1985 565 HW e6TALLAID4

d o Ty UU* 7 4,v 1

seasco senvers me.-rutu sCAgg RELEASED aut Drl NR a[ )!e. FIELS saETCH s,. 4 # gfj sw. ess TABLE 1 " M 7-d _,_ ] ta l suit I nrictS40f4 l DY l Cat l RELEASED k 0 o

'4 i 1 l l l l itC7T K il ~ [t +Q 02 hoi 0ioi RF f f f ft t G Z/ D 4 G 9 G G Z o o a c a o ifll 9[f 2 33 3 3 2 2 2 /cr3/ ~ocrGI- ~ G 3 t f *+ FY t @ ~l B B D f G G G ff + G G 551C 2 32 G G /O 'g/ - -oo'tt - N CI2R h ~ G 4 % Gil F.55 + D 4 %C G G CTIG G G F y Gf f 3 Z 3 3rd 5 3 2 / 2 /O E/ ~o6'6I~ ~ f3 ff5 E G %4 b Gb5 5 C FWf l 5 D K 5 ? 1 ~1 7 Til 5 7 2 5 i /Of/ - ~oo *G/- ii RMR SDMi?N ~ 4 4 ClGTG G"C G ? D +F~H D G3 G ? C 4 T% i g C C Gr4 4 f C 7 ? Io of- -oo L i- ' 5155?2 ii ~ ff ff '5 f f f f b +f ~t I f V f5 F f G G4 4 4 3 3 ^ G Q 5GT l. ~l l l 5 b G C C D f G D b b 4 G i ~4 i E G G GlG Z & z 3 G IOLI. - oo f - U FIN C N 2W E & 3 f /09/ ~ b6$/T

Ml '

& ERCIs ~ G 'G 4 G 4 $$ 5 ii i i l'.T? i IXi i f ? 5 52 2 5 i z 3 : G lo*G/ ~ coo;- 12C2 /2 ~ F2 ~ 7f D Gif f Fr F ~g 9 VM $ b ffbi b~7 t= $ G G G f TT Fs f G G G t IO'/3 ~Oo*:Z- ~ 4 4 4 45 Ff i5 N T6iG G s b 3l?Q i 4 G G G G 2 3 5 54z i i i f loc:- - oo'if-~ M 6 ^ IEOTMN I I I I E /O*25~~~ oo *C5 31MRd?R ~C Z 5 2$ $ $ f G $ 6 V 5 ?D t f i f % 4 t 'd Q R f G4 4 G ~ z]~i ~~ lTZ~ f i G $ $ G & 5 2 G 3 4 i C ^I f i f V6+ 1 i ~i i 12 iT~f lo*G2 ~Ootz-II:12 5ti? ~i2 9 5 3 p pb 6 h ~'~~~~ I ~ 7 5 345 2 ~ T s/ I ] ~i i ] 1022. -oo g:- ~ I i 7 7 i ~~ l i G G Z # Z 7 T 7 7T1 E i 2 loVZ: :odGi: 2if1lCl ii T7 ~ T T F 7 + f a t i d ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ Z ~ 2: 2 / / / / / 1052- ~ oo O" l ~i G 7 G D L ^L L i 2 53 5 5 5 ~ D C91HI T ,/ I i I / I to o; ~ooz:- G 07Zl C)91 ~ ~ ~~ V 4 f f f i+ ~ ~ ~~~ ] 1 f f CF G 21 li tl [119/: lRF 7 G ffff ] ~_: 1 ^ 1 FFet t i 1: 1.L1 ? -. L L ]! L - 1993- ~cw ;- LiGI LI ^1t9/ Z G G G2 t v / I 1 l l / Of GlG G 9 ~~ ~/ I.2 log: - - 00 0 ^- / / L ot'll li'Gi E f CG G $ ~1-1 It ' l / +5I5 G ~t Z H I T i Ooi- -05 5 ~ O l'CTV9) ~ G + 2 5 's z 2 ] ~ ~ ~ ,T T~ 1 2' HFF + !z G 1 53 1 ~~(lo '/G - - 05:g-E N 5/61[ / / f I C fj 5 f4 2 ~1 I 7 i ~~ 7 I fif t h 7 7 Ill 7 / / / / lo*26- - bbWT % llGi li pt I / 9 I t F f f [ g G 2 22 2 ] [s'i.~l l 3 ;f*2 + / / / / 2 ~ ~ ^' T lo'N - -c&G# I IO *EG- -co tf Dhitfibi ' ^TC ~ f 9 Z it o S / / /7 7 i ~t i t FCf 4 i~i7 72 iiMT2 9Tm 2 i G GD G G G I t a 2 t z ol oi li G G / 2 z z z logg. ~ 0a 92 55Mfi ~ l Z /~~~ t WZ ~Z Gl?i ~DC C ~f b G~ ~ 4 b D 6 1 # 1. ~7~ ~ ~ 4 2 ~~ ~q 1022- -CO55 / G fiIN/Gi di ft / l'] i 2 'f 10 02- ~ OOl& 55 li r/tG n i 5 g~z ~; Z []a 5 5 5 b D 5 6 i T ~ C tG Yt,i 52 liFiill 2/ ~~ ~ ~~T '~] $ 5b i h & ~ 4 ~~~ ~' if ~; b } ^~ f ~, ~7,C ~ ^- ~ ~- ~ 55, ~i3 56 5 5 G ~ f ~j % ~% ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ 'G, T6'9G : o6c?-' tl 12fitl5; 2 1 2 S G L ~ ~}6*6f~ ~~~O65 i 9; +cy6j oi g~ 4, ~ 7 7,~p i 4 loyt. - oopt-ctw/n2c>w.Lov 4 o oa61 ~ iV~lY~T # ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Wd5 vf V V 3]~'~2 g ~'x 4 ~ -> ~ ~ lo;;tGOO'if-9 L pie c ] $ F V 5 ~ ~ W & 3 ~~~s ) p 4 % is' ~ ' ~ #^X~~ % ~.4 t f-W ~~ ~- ~~T6'GF ~ 07tF~~ FL*lGl21/ GiftGl31/ S'flGul / GirifiJ! I f_flGi2I7 Si fifl;j]/ fil f16121/ F!fiGl21/ ctAGM,00 av AM1/ av wod OVIWOJ CXINWOJ OViMOd ONINCh OyiMod OM twoj h/CLLH1273 97VLO.L / TTid 0 7'Ud S ~77/d 77/d G 97/:/ 377/d I ~77/d l. GLYCWEb' AKY.LO3dGV/ 7ADG dO C/CL7VNV L CKt //WBOVOD LW z.d o /.g h j lCN EW

1 W e e oN O a e'. l n% $JR WR 4 Ri% % s'IE 2 0 $ R @BG@@l@ % ?M G 410 Cle

W/

R 1 R;R 4 2 :t M MN ete p h3 RIMA' T! 9 M MBE Jim fM E) e RRt E t R E Ma .v i::: @ M eLUt G G1H NG O2 4 4 :21 % N Lt Ei m M R m i me M3! f:::181WR E8 M mlGG B WIPM N t um u= y mm mie m.m m m am se t i i i i I III I I l-i e s tm s4m moyc =su s4 4 ulu o u mi h t.v4e1 % wir e 64 + # Ot3 g 4 tbleib h t h Qid404 Q41 W Q BR RE URI% R UM /9E D_ e % wm s wasu m== ae we e m ou za: S 'M E b to Ni thh QlMi t 04 SliDiGISM Q!a Fd M DIM -T hiWtl C4 7" 5-t- ! Ninicists u 4 w slw wiu ululul i I t-i i r.41414*

4:

09/ r..$ GNSIN 4814 OgG 414 =fb 44W G t:f Q!2:'ItdW'Ol'9lCilC4lNICJ N KlM6 GZr < 4 6b hits Web %Qt QiQ 'tW bj0 tiQl'31MQPJQtWtll@MJQ o I. 709 L3

* *) M N W tl41 d b c9 Qir n + n m
O wi= W =!4tm Wfult!Disim m u u $ p. m 4

i'q u mistW twin r AlutcJa-4th 't44pe W(lla #g-Ti@G15Re'? Q s /G4 ts A EWimls wie NWsidN HNmlalLl& Ol4MiWCitMist htt99 O Al l i 65 gy) o!% m 4% d $m4.*G$4 tl $$4 AN.gr 10 QiO!h.f 4 N4lh citO4 44 ti4l

1W #61# 92 i)

C 3 thith%

SIN S hlto = N 44 Q!OlQ90 ulQINLD N

D g a g 3.5 m++u o,.- - smeede tem os s - uz 9 r%d % %e4mn wameis = wwas4 +wuQmase s-A I Nwols 41o trJ8rvien. bin U himi%itnicisjetNki-MolmiNo N 992 h$ N=3to Qi4 S 4 4 C'::l=$ ilQ s Nlb 10 4 %l0lMilfMOlbithihlCl4 4 43M T-988 e Q v m e = =ng= m esowsusemesau eos, %y he ww = 2 tt:miU u o o!

tn 34e cI* e oldcim w*
e_ faz o e 8 T g 5 si= elc)!Qi4 =luimait!O4 ofcimlo c14 $ NicioS DitwGA

.?( lD is. ic e W e m a,w w w s ei<.s ~ s s o w = N s s eia wi~ w a s o % CV4.0Wel=4 Q:QlQ:04D!S GlD QihlOQ b WO WUltdo til iK15:l#17 Kin GD-qD e D '1W410ihitol=lQidQ!D M!R GISSlOlkryt n (;a gmijg gig.jojW gg g 4 wel4'Wolt!Qm!Gt B W4ttla a m!t De O 4 9!S ulinimieu e 6 15 rcS G d si enemN=tomisma 5%einA wt-a n n Manmsou as U w c ouweiei~%e,w~~~,eism ule eme,.x w g Not!et 4iu 34Wes%g mittlete m:w$cini 4JslAJSiwkigeils sJsJ 4 k x fa tl C } %C4lM TN %l444hM LNu% h hl4 Ml410lhl'il4l0 C SSh_4 sl-M -*~ [ a 4 swu +u +m w3mw woe m ww + m ms weic u u es wiei x $ 4c a s. N. M E %lN 4 tl i hh41% 4 th N4 m it) 4 0 4 4 Lf) $1r) Olco,a Qg et4 99/ k s 1 ~ E twu 4 ta 4 % A t!i%44 th E b 4 M 5 EtrsLt S M tojtr 6T N Ulu 9u o y} me et m!o ewWN= e woiemie.Ot+w mi eainicakmu ::c * +* s/ C '1 Nim o Nim 41%54 4 N= 0 col %el% E4 QIm oimQiol9 014'R ff; s y M Al4 4 N}O 4!LD d% 10)b=D Q}OlOI=lh % Wgthu g clu @,y %.( $ y gg/ N { E c!mi4Nxo to tem +b = o 4101010l% = 8othib.O olcl=pt Qlu .cdq k,,,, ) unlueme us ws Q 4 a ~ww.r. a,%tn, s irunieei, iz: s D Q. Y0 Ykll o w.%'g le 8 m w o u y e .t ) e i 7 -i e r i s e p'R N r i i r e t > > r ? m,8s88888l880 8 8 8 8 8 8g ea i, 5 $.w$!8888)mw 8 eg 88 .R988 n m ec% em m e -T-- ,,,,me...e-.

== w e s.

m e i TAISLE NO. 3 PAGE IOF 2 .i NRC CONCERN NO. 7 ? ANALYSIS OF SOIL-(HSPECTION REPORTS BY FILL SURFACE AREA (FT ) 2 ELEVATION FILL NO, TOTAL SURFACE AREA (FTM % COVERAGE BY COMMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 -G 7 mspecn0N RG%e DENSITY 0VERLAYS INSPEC710H REPORT 5 1 - 44.00 ~ - 4 5,.01 E M' N/A W HOT REcusREO l -43.00 ~ - 42.0 I w Mt A W 4700 100 4800 N/A -~ 4 2.00 ~ -41. 01 A 200 W 3500 .100 3800 il/A A APPROPRIATE - 41.00 ~ -40.01 A W 25800 200 2450 100 28950 N/A INSPECTION REfDRT5 } - 40.00 ~ - 39.0_1 6800 25800 10800 A 5900 lJ400 G3900 55000 Il6 MISSING. t - 39.00 ~ - 38.01 G800 A 26100 300 A 10050 48700 91950 G5000 14 8 j- - 38.00 ~ - 37.01 300 A 30500 10300 500 2200 45G00 89400 11800 125 1 - 37. 00 ~-36.01 1550 300 27700 10G00 850 5400 G0100 107300 80000 134 -36.00 ~-35.01 16350 1700 84600 1000 1500 19200 Gl300 185650 44000 19 8 I -3 5.0 0 ~ -34.01 32000 7700 48000 400 500 8000 42200 138800 108000 129 -34. 00 ~ ~33.01 I6000 7700 29500 5000 7150 33700 Gl500 160550 99000 155 -33.0 0 ~ - 32.01 2000 2300 29000 5000 18000 33000 10000 159300 108000 14 8 - 52.0 0 ~ -31.01 16000 7700 50500 8450 17500 21000 50500 151G50 114000 133 ~ -31.00 ~ -3C.'11 15000 IG700 50000 5000 l'l500 4000 G0500 IG8700 131800 12 8 -30.00 ~ -29.01 15000 IG100 48000 2500 17500 G2000 60500 215200 14G000 14.1 l -2 9.00 ~ -28.01 1G000 25700 43000 5000 35000 35000 51500 211200 133000 IGO t -28.00 ~ -27.01 lGOOO 9000 77200 9700 35000 21000 14500 82400 158000 les -2 7.00 ~ -2G.Ol 1G000 9000 54000 5000 35000 3575o 73500 228250 163000 14 0 -2G.00 ~ -25.01 16000 9000 41500 c)9fD _18000 11128 68500 186600 168000 11l -25.00 ~ - 24.01 2l00 9900 52000 5000 69500 39928 72500 250950 181000 139 l -2.4.00 ~- 23.01 3000 ?950 95100 70G00 G8250 70000 57000 3GGa00 183000 200 -2 3.00 ~ -2 2.01 4100 5600 54000 47100 33750 58000 57000 259550 147300 13 2 -22.00 ~- 21.01 5000 5600 52500 41000 G'iS00 34200 57000 262800 219800

20

- 21.0 0 ~ -2 0.01 5000 4600 62000 37500 101500 12300 57000 270100 238500 113 -20.00 ~ -19.01 4G00 3100 52500 3G300 11500 3000 57000 226c00 247900 92 ~ - I 9.00 ~ -16.01 2G00 3100 $2500 T DUO 35750 39700 40000 218050 2G5700 '82 { - 18.00 ~ - 17.01 3700 3700 52500 3c500 37100 I4900 58200 207200 2Gl500 79 i - I 7.00 ~ - 1G.01 7G00 3700 112000 41000 35700 ll GOO 15000 226600 215400 a2 - Ifo.00 ~ - 15.01 2G00 37 c0 iI2000 37000 35700 39100 47000 227100 304100 9i - 15.00 ~ -14.01 2000 2000 96950 38100 57000 12800 14300 223950 293500 7G '- l4.00 ~ - 13.01 4G500 10000 69500 51000 5050_0 40000 47800 315350 298000 IOG 1 - 13.0a ~ - 12.0 I 21300 iG500 G9500 47000 10000 G0000 25700 250000 316500 79 I. 4 1 0 g g

i p 1 i D TABLE NO.5 iPAGE 2 0Fi NRC CONCERN NO. 7 L ANALYSIS OF SOIL-INSPECTION REPORTS - l BY FILL SURFACE AREA (FT.) 2 i' ~ l ELEVATION FlLL NO. TOTAL SURFACE AREA GTM % COVERAGE D(. E "'ENTS-1 2 3 4 5 G 7 INSP m l0N M M IS MNN. N E M I5 - iz.00 ~ -11.01 4soa 3o000 49500 sG000 3s000 $s000 -55100 2G87oo 4G1000 so - 11.00 ~ -10.01 3800 18000 77500 G9400 38000 G4000 GG000 336700 - 3G9000 4 1. .. - 10.00 ~ - 9.01 51000 18000 88500 19800 37500 104500 92000 477300 32G500.. _ -. I 4 G. - 9.00 ~ - 8.01 32000 18000 128500 19000 37500 94000 403000 492000 327000 150 1 - 8.00 ~ -1.01 19000 27c00 109000 138000 19 500 G3000 G2000 43750o .325500.. ._ 134 - 7.00 ~. -G.01 35000 48000 86500 183700 14800 18000 .96500 464800 ._. 332000. 14 0. - - 6.00 ~. : 01 34000 39000 814800 95000 '18000 13G000 4s500 505300 415500 122- - 5.00 ~ -4.01 70500 88500 180200 85300 10000 13G350 108600 539450. 421500 teo ? .4.00 ~ -3.01 81500 8500 73950 s05100 10500 140850 87G00 508000 421800 l19 L - 3.00 ~ -2.0I 72000 27500 89300 94900 10500 162050 18900 52s 50 -439500 Igo - 2.00 ~ - 1.01 18000 9500 94450 180 500 _13100 98350 81000 484900 444000 109 - I.00 ~ -0.01 1G000 20500 9G100 139300 4G200 189250 47000 484350 469800 103 g O.00 ~ C.99 138000 44100 13:500 108800 47200 128300 15900 -G73800 484G00 139 l.00 ~ f.99 137800 34500 138050 14G000 47200 187400 65300 749250 484000 I tis - 2.0 0 ~ 2.99 l17700 32600 148G50 148 700 40900 s28600 77300 694450 45G800 152 3.00 ~ 3.99 188400 14G00 IG8150 151000 48000 167700 85000 772850 429800 180 g 4.00 ~ 4.99 35800 11400 IG7800 830100 56900 80150 4G 300 529050 456000 lis. f S.00 ~ S.99 41000 24400 226900 88600 69500 95850 90700 G3G250 464500 13 l 6.00 ~ 6.99 32900 G4600 219000 l13G00 88500 103500 80200 702300 451100 - 155 7.00 ~ 7.99 36700 55800 148200 l16000 48850 152550 41900 600000 445100 135 8.00 - 8.99 4G800 92500 142300 804500 58150 140950 189700 105000 397200 n1 9.00 ~ 9.99 10G200 8G000 147600 145500 22 600 151350 7G200 735650 3Gl100 203 i l aOO ~ 10.99 12GB00 114 000 82200 13G000 2GG00 l&3950 104100 783650 342700 22 8 I l.00 ~ 11.9 9 133100 134000 98G00 12G G00 29100 198850 83800 197050-397700 200 12.00 ~ 12.9 9 101000 142500 '78800 G9000 22 000 159900 93400 ~ ~ ~ GG590 0 ~ ~ "~ 319103 ~J .208' 13.00 ~ 13.99 279100 14G250 61300 150900 35000 250000 _93100 1013650 '55G900 '284 " 14.00 ~ 14.9 9 75800 14400 GG100 28400 8000 82450 _73000 404150 503500 - '*134 i' 15.00 ~ 15.99 84000 77050 3G900 90400 8 500 101450 398300 275000 145 ~ ? 16.00 ~ IG.99 56750 51500 28800 1G450 8500 53400 -A 215400 ~ ~ 281300 ' ' 76 - n.oO ~. n.99 -m SM-R. W 'W 37650 WA . ls.00 ~ 18.99 .e N/A MA ~ 19.00 ~ 20.99 -A- -W W M N/A WA . SUB TOTAL. 2413050 1725850 4794600 5657175 185500c 43201s0 3515800 2234razs la.547200 15 I x

l k~ D l E M O. 4 - /YRC CO/>CER/Y AC. 7 ~ REL+TIVE DBTRIBUTDIf OF//Y3fEG7/OIY MtCMTS 70 ( WYSITY tcSTS pitt_ m cp To o f no of "/oCFTOTN COYPry%7/2 % tio titsrecTione TorAL DEMITY MS/TY iic w i m 7Ec75 //YSPECTDNS TEDTS TESTS / /C07 a.3 24G 8.o D.3 5.0 E 78 5 G.7 ./78 Eb G.7 5.8 3 23GO 20.1 5 70 l8.5 701 16.5 4 /502 lb.5 8 75 12.2 lb.5 IZ,2 3 /18 8 l0.2 33G /O.8 10, 2 /O.D G 20ZG 25.& 820 .%.D 25.5 ZG.D 7 IGD 4 /4.4 545 IZ7 i.64 17 7 TOTAL ll 7 5 2 l00.0 2079 /00.0 /000 /CO.O t e' O ~ i b .-..n., I

TA % E -M O 5

.mee wz MBC CO.NCE/TN.190.7 ~ coMf9+RISON 'OF hY-/*l ACE CENS/7Y TEST FREGUEtYCY AMO D/37RIDu770M FREQUENCY O!57 RIB U TIOt1 5!.5VA'T/OtY BUS = ACE M O,O f TE 5 73 F/' '- NO /TO]~53' AREA two'0 \\ACTUAt. / l2l3(4 5 G 7 u.co -40.o/\\ N/A N/A l ( 5 G V c !A e s L f k t-nv nekc@ s w o S u M r. -M.oc-- SD. 0/ 55.'000 h SZ: 5 0 2 / 4 /8 Z -Mno --As.a G5,000 4 44-E o 7 5 7 /3 7 -38'.oo~ - not! 71. 800 4 > 75 7 G 7 4 D IG ZG -% ~.50.01l 80, 000 4 AD' G3 G G ;D /2 7 -3G.co ~ -95.01 DJ 000 5 88-Z 2 D D G // 5 -biso ~ -24 0/ 10A. coo G 18-I / 5 / 4 33 -55.co~-&&oi 99.000 5 /b O l/ 21/ 2 3 4 -23, cow Moi 108.000 l G 1 I7 / \\ / ' 3 l / l S l4-l 5 -32.co~ SI.0/ //4,000 G /8 /l2 ?l/ lZ Z G -BI,co~ Pool /3/. 800 7 Z/ / O l 4- / 5 6 4 -20.00~ 290/ IA-G,000 8 2/ ' O /!D /\\Z 5 D -29.00~-28.0/!/b3.00 0 7 i /5 / /12 / / 4 5 -7A.co~ 270/158. 000 8 /4 / / l 2. / 9 4 2. i -2700 ~ 2Got /G3.00 o D ' /7 / /l3 / Z 4 5 l -26.oo ~ 25.oi168.000 l 9 /G / Z!2 O l O 7 l4-1 -25.00~ -2 +.0/ 1 8 1,0 0 0 l /0 /5 /l1 \\ 4-1/ \\ / BI 2. 4Aco--29.0/ /83000 l /0 l /7 /\\/14' Z l 9 : 3131 -23 co~-22 ot 197800 l lo l2S /l/\\3 bf8l4l5l l -22.cc~ -2/.c/ f/9.800 ( // l24 4lZ\\3'8iG18 3l l -2 hoc-20.0/\\Z98.500 /Z \\/D 2l/l7 8l5l3 8 l ~2000-~ -/90ll24^h 90 0 lb i-2C* 2l/lDl3l4 4 3 \\ -I co ~ -/S.oll2G5.700 /4 l ZZ /\\/ 3l515 3l4l -/8.co~ -/70/ '26/.500 14 ZG Sl/ SI5!G lGlb ~ i 1 7. 0 0 ~ / G. o / '2 75. 4 0 0 /4 l25 bi9 8l5l4'? 8 -IG.co~-/5.01 N4 loo /G l22 Z / 14 Bl5 4 3 -/S.00~ /4.01298.500 /5 ?8 3 / G 4 lG 4- ? -!4.00~ Ib.o/lZD8.000 l /5 ZD 0 & 4 Gl6

4. d.

-/Aco~-/Z o /\\h/6.5CO IG l27 Z22 8l7 4-2. 1 -/fm -//.o/14G/. Coo 24 lSG 3 /1616 I G 19 I7 1 -II.m ~ - 10.0li&GD,000 /3 l56 3 2 h D \\ 8 I/G1/ l -10.co~ - SOI 92GE00 l /7 l 43 Z lZ 9 10 G lG l6 l -9. 00 ~ - 8.0 / b27,000 l /7 l 36 &l4 G 8 5 7 7 8.00 ~ - 7 01 225,500 /7 l40 G ZlG. 1% 5 5 4- -700~ -Got b32,000.l /7 -l 40 11 /c G Gl7 5 y ....... = = ... ~. - ~

~ iTA&!E NO 5 FA6E 2 of 2 MISC. CONC 5/KN.NO 7 COMicAR/50tY OF ~//Y i L.rCE~ C.~7tS/7Y TEST c FREGUE/YGY MO D/3TRIDUT/Oly i FREQuitVCY l O l 5 T R I S U TI O h/ ELEVAT/0/Y Sum %c5 /Yo,0 ? 75 5 73 F/U-tYO /YO72~3 t AREA n.=o'o l Actual l / 2 34 5 'G. 7 ~

G.co ~ -4.cl l 45,500 l 2I
\\ 45 lG A-D \\8 5 D '7

= ~R,06~ -40/ \\42/,500 1 22 GO '413 /2 /s 5 10 // ? -keo - b,01427 800, 2 2 58 3 3 // /2 / 10 lb ~

b.co - 2,0/ I489,9001 ZZ G5 0G 3 20 10 5 to II

-E.00 - /. 0/ \\ 444:000f 25 Gl l7 ? IB 10 / D '/2. i -l00- -0.0/ 4GD,800 '7.4 70 ~ /4 5 /7 /2 /0 /0 // \\ o.00~'ooo '484 GOO 25 73 8 5 16 'D 10 i // I4 I ? 't,00 ~ 'I, F7 148A. coa l 25 72 8+ ZO\\ D \\ 0 \\ // '/4- -2.00~ -2,99 ld56,800 l 2 9 l 35 C !b VZGlD 18 2018 = '9.00~ 'b,99 \\d20,800 l '2 2 80 7 5 \\/4 l5 lIl 121 17 -Aen~ M 99 W ~6.c00 i 2D l 82 -5 4 16l/0 l8 (25 /G l 'B.co ~ +ESDi4G4,5co 34 Ao l7 2 nl7 5 D Zi ID ? -G.00~ -G.D9!45/,7CO Y 23 l AS @ 5 228 7/9 /G ? '700~ +7 99i446.l00 l Zb 1 SG 73 IB G 5 28 l9 i '5,00~ -S,0DibD72OO l 20 96 54 258:7 27124 ( +D,00~+ 0, DD l3G/,700 l lD 111 '4 5 EG &lD 40 /D +10. 00~ +10,D9 \\ b42.700 i !8 l 155 7 5 l2+/0itoW3(54 [ -//.00 -//. SS l392 7d9 i 20 i f5G l7 8 Iff- /E /O !57(b6 "/Zm~'/20Ci3/D,7CC l /G l /74 l 7 6122 l/5l3 7/1/-2 "/3.o0 ~ -/3,59l256, DOCl /$ 17E/S2* I 9 l// I?zI/SI // I71Iz71 l -IA-nn~ +/A CDl308,600 ) /G \\b7/Go t l /Z /2 !/3l/3 l G \\b8l3 ll j -/500~ '/5991275000 i /d bG/GMl/4 /5 /3 I/7I/015/lo l' '/G,co~ '/G DD f Z819CO l /5 ZZIs9w \\ A S ll0l19l/0 'M!O ^ i "/7ss+ '/70Dl2 Ado 00 l /4 37/6 Y O / l4-!O ! S 13\\O l 0 VEDo~ -2/ecl Alk-l A//s. 5R l l l \\ ? l l l [ l i I i Bun Tw..L s \\Esmoo$858 risA/T8? 2As \\tu s7o sie sss en usi W, m m." k14 secYdla.u-.ec SG I mbib i i l s 1 Yet, De c44 ev.'4l 462. Coo IE4*4Sm2/ l 8 l l l l l-l l l 133 % i l l I I I I l l I [ 7dr4z5 l 1658 13/b7 ' I I I I I l [ l I I I i [ $ ~#l0 COMPAC 770 N - N C T \\MARTOF l57A7/6Ti&L57dOYk SE- { STAT /57/CA! di' DYivo, l7FOR.lOSTAIL5 U l l l \\ i ;.. _ + - - - - = - - ^ ~'

~' TABLE /YO G nna concenv no 7 R%l!?GUEfYCY CHECK- /*/'%DC70R&h/ EVE 5 TO OEh5/7/E3 LAS tro.or oset Ms no.cn' Mty Me no of GEtt t'A C C 7 0 A 7t". 3 *r T2373 DETH rwh TEST 7 ESC 96ETW Fm70A TE g 7E373 CETW CUAVE no AC, FAOcio)%3 cuAVfho tro PM C7098' cuaysho ho PAcc70A3 i / IS74,;'s /7 37 10 6 10 ~71 + B N 43N l 2 74 8 22 37 liv 9 ~72 3 9 '7 8 c. 795 5 39 l 12 9 11-72 408 8 3 809 1 12. 40 1:39 9 74 419 8 3A Bl6 4 41 14 9 9-75 429 8 7 Bl? I A2 IGI (2 76 439 8 5 935 29 44 17 o 8 77 443 2 ~ - 11 445 8 43 17 2 I 76 44#uy) o 12 951 6 45 . ls+(cuy) Il e 79 452. 7 I5 959 6 4G IBA>m) o 82 465 9 14 I 9 71 ll 47 l9G ! c> ss4 476 jo 14 1925 4 49 2io 13 86 494 15 16 l l 002. 11 49 220 9 67 50 0 4 \\"1 l lol4 (O 50 231 \\ C' ' 90 52 0 ' 17 17 10 2 I G 51 251 19 91 52G 5 19 103?- 11 52. c!ch.4 3 91 52 ?_ 4 19A lob 9 5 53 -65,fy l c 93 5213ey o Irlby i040 0 54 266 el 44 542 7 22 B0005A 4 55 271 4 97 556 li 26 15 9 56 272 o 98 56 6 7 27 22 6 59 22l 8 100 579 II Iwoy 23 l c F0 2 91 9 IC2 505 c 26 31 l 6 40 30Z lo los 535 9 _ 1 e3 42 to 61 312 8 lof> 6 05 lS 30 47 5 G3 526 10 loS GI5 6 1NDy 50 2 64 335 S 109 Gzo 6 5I 52 l 65 346 e ll0 Gil ".HDV O 32 62 c; i gc 35g 5 llz gg5 lc 33 69 l 5 i 6/ 246 7 l13 G43 s 34 77 l 7 474 37A 2 115 ess 3 1NDY 78 l 0 64 376 i \\\\7 643 3 35 I 87 8 69 377 zuof o 11 2 6 73 6 i 34 I 94-6 70 397 l 7 12 0 G55 9 ~

TACLE OO G % E Z O F 'A mo ccvyces/y no 7 FREQUE/YCY CHEC/<- PROCTOR.Sh/5VE5 TO DEh517/E3 us m.orcan ms m.cc cen me no ce can enocron res7 reers earH em rser rserseera esecrop, rear reers eerw convs m no. enocross cuAvsm no esocra w cuave m no ep~ roas 122 G94 9 I64 1052. 10 206 1629 10 ' 123 7 01 5 I6s 1o63 9 2o7 144) lo I25-TIS \\o IGG Ic76 \\ c> 209 14 53 lo 12.7 723 6 167 \\oga A 9 l90 1465 Io 12 8 737 9 200 lo67AA 7 (WP'/-) 19l 1476 9 130 746 8 148 110 0 3 209 14g2. 4 131 759 I lo 172 114s' l 12. 193 I4gs '5 132. 770 9 (73 flGo lo ?lo 1500 10 133 791 10 l

74 ll73 10 191 15l2.

10 i 124 7 93 l c' i 175 IlfG 6 211 15t.4 lo 115 904 10 t 17 7 1197 i 9 212. 1538 10 13 7 2l6 10 176 12.ll Ic> 213 \\65c) il 122 72G 1 6 18 0 12 23 lo Zl4 l562 la 13.9 837 10 )ga 12.14 l fo 215 15 74 10 I 140 64 8 9 174 114 6 9 c)7 1588 lo I41 Q55 MDy 6 ($5 12.5 9 lo 2l8 IGOf 10 14 2. ce&hh O I lg6 I270 l lo 2.19 f613 Io 144. 867 l9 I 197 l283 lc' 22.0 1625 S 146 878 9 lig 1 12S+ l c' 222. 1639 9 MS F91 9 Igg Isos 10 223 IG5l to 149 904 l 10 19o \\ 3ll 3 23 l&&B 10 150 915 9 19l 1s12. O 22G 1677 10 e'- 151 9 17 to les lai3 6 2z7 1689 I 7 152 940 l lo 192 1321 1 (INDY) 228 ' 1701 9 153 i 9 53 I lo 19 3 13z2. O /ccsant-r 29 ' 1712 lo 154 9G1 17 (96 I n2. 9 _ Esi 1724 10 [ l55 Cl73 l 9 ls ; 1344 10 23 2 1735 9 156 9S3 9 1 19 8 1357 10 233 1747 to 157

N G S

)99 1370 10 235 1756 9 i 152 1007 10 2 01 la 82. Io 23G I1794 C &.cca;.xm 'l 159 l 1016 I 8 202 1293 Io 337 1771 ! Ic IGO I 102.7 l 9 2 o3 14c5 1 10 _ zag 17f2 l 10 I 163 I 1o401 10 20s I 1417 to 239 I 1796 I lo

TADLE NO G iyRO cot 10ER/Y hO 7 19%EQUENCY CHECl<.~ /*M7Df%5ll3/5VE5 70 CEn&lT/58 .\\ LAS ric.cf can iss m.cn wn tAs ivo or oEn raccroA 7.".37 reers eerw MiA rfer ress eers,oxcrop, rger rests, eerw CUAVE140 ho. FAccioSg cuAVEM MO FM cuRVEh0 no PAOC7DA8 24 0 IBO7 IO 275 2 181 10 326 ?I548 l0 2 41 1819 10 E77 21.94-10 326 256l 10 24 3 18 61 9 2.98 2t06 lO 829 2 573 10 244 I842 10 _ 80 22.19 lO ,__93 0 2578 5 l 2 245 -1853 10 2s3 zzal 10 3?! 2586 7 24 6 1865 Io egg 2245 10 -353 2538 i lo 263 \\b77 l0 227 l 2 55 9 824 26lO IO 2!-5 I869 \\6 286,2265 3 5'3G 2G2B l0 249 l3 01 10 289 2262 3 5 57 2GG5 to 250 l9l2. \\0 290 2t-73 3 Co?2w 34l G46 9 251 1922 s 2 91 ZE74 C (3109) 2A2. 26 ss le 262 l 1934 10 2el2. 2286 10 Su-267l 10 253 194 5 10 2eJB E287 O /INot0 346 26 33 lo i 254-I957 IO 295 2300 10 .47 2635 IO 2.55 I9&E IO 2.sc \\ 2Li2. Io -249 270G \\0 ~ 2.56 1980 0 297 23f'4 I IC 350 l 2717 10 257 199l 10 233 ' 233G 10 251 r730 !O 25g 200 4 lO 3eo 2350 10 353 l2741 10 25S 2015 "10(evauH 201 la64 9 354 2754 Io 260 l 2026 lo (.T.Nv?) Sc5 2579 6 354> 2797 10 2GI ' 202M l o ao7 2392 10 157 277S le 262. 2032l\\0 Ec9 .e405 Io 5 se, 27si to 2x u u s u,.: 2 263 loSo I 10 3l4 'u' 4lg 10 354 4792. o /:Ncv/ 2f>4-2CSE \\\\ bl&r 2440 to 861 2905 lo' 2A5 2o74 9 .617 M43 10 3G2. 2s/s I lo 1&& 2076 10 2l8 24 s6 10 g65 2 g2,I 10 267 209F 10 319 2466 10 M7 2843 10 2G? Zlo9 10 32 0 24sl lo 369 2855 10 269 2121 10 32) 2493 10 372. ZSG7 IO 27o i 2.l32 I 10 3 2 2. 2506 10 373 l2679 I 10 271 l 2144 I 8 325 2619 10 375 l2892I Ic 273 2iSG ( lO ?Ld. 2GS4-Io 37& 29t4 l 10 E74 2/49 10 3 25 2535 6 F@/d0" 379 29I7 l 10

TADLE NO G mee~'~a 's - i /yso co/yceny no 7 ?REGUE/YCY CHECK- /*/RDC7CMh/2VE5 TO CEMIT/E3 b d LAS no.cf ogty LAs no reers earH FKM rser rac.cn C64 M8 no of CSM i raccros "er s eers e. won. TEer raers eer" CUAVEtt0 /M, PAOC7083 cuAVft'50 tyo W cygygno no PAOC70A8 y 380 2949 lo-449 3341 10 1 392 294l l0 ASI ?B52. IO BSE 2955 10 452 3363 10 g y _326 2sG7 11 453 3374 10 ] 39I 2978 9 454 3325 I0 il 29z. 2996 IO \\ 455 3294 10 4 353 Eco2 I0 i 456 3407 \\o a 39G 3Cl4 \\o 45'1 341P3 10 b 297 3027 U l0 459 3436 ll Leo 2053 24(CTRM 4go 2443 12. 604 ScG5 10 4 71 3454 lo i 405 3076 A73 3464 9 4 4a9 Joss 10 4 74 3474 9 .= 4(o 3099 10 .475 3482. 7 i 4 12 sllo lo 4c31 3493 IO 5 4l3 Sl2l 10 495 3soG io a 4l& ElSb "Ss'M A22 2S03 3 ) 418 3165 l 10 dT# 3522. 12. t 42\\ 3176 l IO 490 8535' I3 5 42Z 3l87 I 10 4 93 as4:7 E ] 423 BISB l 10 493 3546 0 415 823 D i 49g 3556 6 ~. :. j p 42.G 32 2 10 499 3rG9 7 ALB SLEI I IO 500 SS76 4-429 3242 1 10 t sos 3s2I ~B 43o 3263 lo 5o4 3rga Il M1 3264 10 505 352.9 4 k izz az,s to Ses 3ssz i2. 424 3Z94 10 sc7 goo lo ?. 46@ \\8297 10 fM*mD son 3Gol lo ] i dal 13 cog I 10 509 3627 c 445 \\ 2319 l lo .gno 447 l 3Ls0 l IO f r~

TABLE /YO. 7 hna cmcemY NO 7 /NTERVArLS /*ACCTCRll5lEV2 ACMCONFORM/MC7 TO F/ELO CEN&lTY ivo orosty no or osv. no or cert. ?AXTCR LA5 .resiseers ikiA /Ab rESr5 acTh PA XTCR.lA8. TESr326T4 CUKVEAb TESTNO, FAO:~7645 UAVEh0Tc*.$7 Ab PAOC7CM CUAVEM 7?.SThO PACCTC% 14 '%*h ll 42 17016l A 12 1 frE#fms 17 (6 loo 2 Il 17 2 1148 12 2. 7sg 22 I9 1032. II AGO 3443 12. 5 935 29 39 Bol29A 1-1 48EA 3552 12. Si B0251A. 13 46 iT4 11 50(> 2592 '12 86 494 I6 97 556 il 3 12 9o 526 17 10 6 5*1.9 lI 400 3053 l12.4 2 13 1550 II 48 B02 loa 13 2% 2961 11 49o 3535 13 49 f430 il i L 50 4 55$2. l\\ i 2GA-2.oG3 i) l ~ \\ \\ 1 l i, L y 1, l l i L \\ l l l 1 l l I l~ 80 l/ 4 4 '

fMS \\ Oc'J TADEP~ NOB ivFc concemy No. 7 htYALYSIS OF MONCOMPORMINQ 'COYI?DL 72kW 1*MEGtusfCES

P%B LAEr FILL TEST RELA 7/g CURVE TE57 no WATION go 55gy g,gg,7,,

MM 1. LRWE 699 F4 45N ord 5B -416 1-21-7 6 78 70 o F4 90LO 28S.. 5B -as.6 i 21-7c 72 70l F4 44W 21! SB -403 1 21 76 74 7 02-F4 40W IGN SB -29 0 l 2176 84 103 F4 70W 17 4 5B -36.3 l zl-7 6 79 704-F4 43W los 5B -37.7 l 21-7 6 16 105 F4 42W lod 58 -3 G 4 1 22.-7G 78 7c6 F4 72W 55 5B -36 4 1 22-76 66 707 E2 6E 14 5 4 -36 4 12246 66 1 708 D2 IcN IGS 4 -35.I l 22-76 75 711 P4 EN 80W 56 -25 1 I l 22-76 GS 710 F4 "J5 57W 58 -35 1 1 7 2.-7G 67 llZ E2. ISS 7E 4 - 41.25 l 2? 7? 72 7I3 E7-6W ES 4 - 4l.E5 12.3 7G 73 714 Fe-EN aa.W EB -84.7 5 1 za 74 72. 715 F4 49W gN SS -g4 75 l 27 76 82 ~716 F4 6lw 12 5 58 -3475 12276 68 i-.... -. ^ l m. m.

pgf gg 6 Mt coivcERiv~.MO, 7 hMALYSIS OF NONCOMPORM/NQ

COY 1?DL 72S7* 19GG%2?CFJ PW LAB '

FILL TEST RELATM. CURVE TEST no M MIW MO E! "V %M ogetrY Z LRNE 720 C2 zoE ISS i - 39,75 l-26-76 Gz.5 721 F4 45N Sgu) 5A - 41 75 1-2 6 -76 8I 723 'DZ 13W 13 5 4 - 38,50 l 26 76 79 724-F4 G2H 48W Sh - 4050 1 2G 94 ~19 725 P3 7N 4sw SA - 39.2.0 l-2.6-76 79 72 6 F4 40W 53M 5A - 3920 1-27 76 77 727 EG 355 68E 38 - 42,50 lE776 81 731 EG 78N 6gG 38 - 42.50 l-27 76 97 733 EG 225 sow 33 - 41 50 1-2g 76 74 73 4 E5 7N 32W 3B - 41 50 l 28-76 Oi 7% F5 205 33w E8 - 4l.56 l.28-7G 85 75 4-R3 20E 305 C.8 - 43.25 2 7 6 72. 755 F4 20E 31 5 68 - 42.25 2-ll-76 72 757 Bd. 30N 35G 2 - SBs00 2 12 *16 - s7 758 B4-08 55E Z - 3 5.co 2-la 76 95 759 84-375 53E 68 - 38.0 0 2-l2 76 92. 76 0 B4 22.5 33E 68 - 36,75 2-12.-76 73 761 B4 7N 52G 2 -26.50 2Il76 ss 762 84 Ig5 56E GB .-36.75 2-12 76 eg 763 84 105 37E GB -3 5,50 2-12r76 94 766 Bd 29s 555 6B l -35 50 2 l3 76 es 747 24 on soE 2. 1 -35,50 213 7G e4 9 ~ l e ' " ~ * ---..7..

a mES o'.T yyp 3 g /ym co/ycssN /vo. 7 hMALYSIS ^OF~MONCOMPOM/NQ COYTAOL 725ST1%5Gtusw/E3 PW LAB FILL TEST RELA 7m cuRvs TEST no WMION %M go gi py gg,7y 5 LRNE aks F4 80W 8SS 5A .-37.25 2 26 -74

o 9 L9 E5 20N 30E 8B

-38.25 3 I-76 64-620 CG ESS l0N GA ~4 0.25 3-l 96 TS @EI E.5 25N 32E 38 -37.15 3l76 57 6 22. E5 SOM 20E 3B -36,25 3-l-76 69 848 CG 40S 35'E 7 -36.25 E-17 96 7I 966 O2 37S 15N I -39 75 4Z37f G5 ( 865 62 G8542E \\ -39 75 4,22 ~iG 56 i 8G3 R E TE ST 7I SG7 C 2-15 5 ISE \\ -3MS 42'376 69 6 69 C2 los SE i - gg,7_5 4 ;_f, 76 Bo 873 B2. 555 40E 1 - 3g.7 5 4 -24 76 68 375 B2. 90E 505 1 -3750 4 2776 Se 876 B2 40E EOS I~ .37.50 4 2776 9ll CE3 SON SN 4 - d0 25 ' 5 11-76 ; 69 9fE EB 5tN 20W 4 - 40.25 5 IB76 62 9 13 E3 80N 30W 4- - 39 25 5 I&76 69 915 E3 51N 80W 4 - 3700 5'-1 9 7 6 66 917 EB dom glW 4 -3700 51916 -31 918 E3 255 5'oe: 1 4 - 37 25 52076 SO 9 19 E3 275 48W 4 - 37.25 52076 70 520 D3 87d 20 6 4 - 35.25 5 20-76 61 91l ES M5 24 0 5/- - 36,25 5 20 24 qq. ~. 522 ES 25E 2aN ' Sh - - 36,25 52D-7A Go \\ 923 E3 605 ISN 5A- ' -3525 s 2176 ss 9?4 E3 22E 15N 5A - 35 25 5 217J 64-C62 CG 35M ScW G4 -39 25 G 2 76 65 9 31 CG 47W 3DN GA -39 25 6276 74 9 33 CG 52N sow 6A - 38,25 6374 Go 934 CG ON 45W GA i - ?7 Z5 6 s 76 6) l

Aceror.ro.4s /BoerC# SrArust i e.e w e e 1

e I =- ~m

e /yrc coycar</v /vo, 7 htYAl YS/9 OF MONCOMfor#WNQ CO177CL 7237" >=GGtugMES' P%iA LA& ' MLL TEST 55t_q77y. cuRvs 7557 no MT700 Mo Et "V MM csymyr 5\\ 60232FR2 BG .elN 655 6 -44 00 II s 7G S4.5 233 A. 86 94N 686 6 -42.75 Ilr 5-76 96 o 234 A BG 97N G2.G G -Al.50 lic 5 9 6 64.0 23sh nR. bG SIN 34E G -42.05 Ile s 2G 99 0 2.86 A 65 3N CSE G -40 75 lle6 7G lt6.5 237 A 85 GN 63E 6 -4000 lle6 76 10 8.o 23 2 A. 26 son GIE G -39 50 116 76 li!>l.5 239A. BG 93N Sg 9 6 - 4l.25 )lG.76 ee.5 24DA SC 93N 646 G - 39 00 11-G % l 61,5 24lARR 85 AM 55 5 G - 40,25 II -6 7G \\4 0.5 242 A BG $8N 432 G - 3775 1 Il-G 76 124.0 243 A 3G s!M 6dE 6 - 2 7. Es ll 7 7G 112.5 244 AR B6 SGN 55G 6 - as.50 it -7 7G sz.o o 45 AR. B5 3N 53E 6 -399-i II -7.7G 86.5 f46A BG S44 57E 6

- 37 00 11-7 76 97.5 El-7A B5 l8N 66E C

- N. 50 11-7 7G 905 M2A B6 45N GRE G -85.50 II 7 76 I48.o 2d9A EE-3N S6E G - 36.00 II g 76 I os.o i F_50 AR B5 66N G55 6 -37,25 Il E 7G sz.5 ^ O i 1 l

~ TABLE NO & /yrc co/yccmv no. 7 hMAl Y5/8 OF MONCOMPORM/NCy CCW77DL 7257 fYGECW=M/~-5 F%i< R lA6 FILL TEST RElATM CURVE TEST no WATION %M go g,_gy ggg,7., BC477 A E7 80N 966 3 - 27.3o 3 l6 77 88.5 472 A E7 son E5E 7 - 30 20 31677 69.s 4 79A F7 48N DE 3 - 26.30 3 l7 77 es o 420A E6 20M 55E 3 - 26 30 31777 ~l s o 48l A E7 iss 15E 7 - 29 20 Rl777 77.o A 82.A E8 SIN 22E 7 - 22 30 3 l7 77 72.0 483 A 38 70N-GzE 7 - 32 30 3 17 77 675 424A L7 305 12E 7C - 32 30 2l8'77 S t.0 485A E7 ON 55 7/t - 26 30 3 1E77 325 426h E9 80M BEE 3S - 25 20 8 IE 7] 57.0 487A E7 SEN 43E 7A - 2r.20 l 3 lEm 79 0 419 A D7 .45f 24E 7c - 21 10 2.is.77 65.5 490b D7 2GN 70E 7C -2930 319 ~13 70.0 4cJ2h C7 20N l0E 75 -38dC 5 D77 75 0 493A D7 lls 8/E 7C - 28.20 3 El T) e d M 9 1 I l

b ~ ' ' ' PD[F /YO 6 /yrc co/ycm/v no, 7 HMN YSIS OFMONcONFOfW/Mg CCWi?DL 72EbT fnEng.=tCIES PW lA6 FIL!- TEST R5lAT/M CURVE TEST hO ATION MO El 2V M D5 m j7 y 90 B0501 A C7 -32 N 67a 7s -34.2s 3 22 o 7 75.o 502 A D7 12 5 75fN 7 36 22'317 es-5 50sA D7 ON CE 7 -33 30 23 77 qq o 5044 C7 IGN 965 7 -32.30 3-23-77 S70 505 A C7 35N SlE 7 -3130 3-23 77 83.0 TOGA CS ON OE 7F -81 05 3 24-77 507A C7 1;S DE 7F -30 30 3-24 77 81.5 [k 502A_ D7 GON CM 7E -30 M 3-24 77 74.5 %,%j - 509A 87 32N S66 7E -29 30 324-31

i S. 0 6,,, j; GIO h C6 92.N SSE 7

-25 30

724 77 19 0

;.ia 511 A C7 2N 33E 75

-27,ao 3 25-77 74.O <rJ 512A 17 SIN lin. ~7s -26 30 32577 87.o $gi 5BA BG SON sE 6 -38. a o 32G 77 75o 1 515 A. C8 95N CE 7E -25.30 32977 91 5 f.? SI6 h- %7 62M Sgs G p- --s 4 2 5 ?:29 73 7 7. o t'h 517 A B7 55 N 28E 6/,. -33,25 3 2.E 7 7 II2.o ' !!f $19 A 87 72N 20s. C -33,3o 3,29 77 66 0 % 4 bNl{'$ f M P

9

',A, .( At I ,.t.g[.: e l 5...._.__.,___.._.

... -. - - :. --. =. = ---- =.- e*- PA@E7 w-] . TAD / F= /VO 6 mc concent no, 7 hMALYSIS ~OFMONCOMPC/W/Mcy COYTBOL 73EST M%Ctu.=fCES P%iB LA8 FILL TEST RELA 7/M CURVE TEST no MTION %M go gi ny ggy,,,77 400 9 3029 A F6 gN lga 3 +- 12,50 8 l 79 1o2.5 3 630 A F8 EN 17e 3 +1350 8178 los.5 303lA Fs EsN ss 3 + I4,oo 8178 los.o 3032A FB ZN 15'E 3 + 14.Co 8178 I00 5 { 3D3BA. F7 SSN 2SE 3 + 13 o0 8 2r 78 104,5 i Bo84h F1 Zon 30s 3 + 1+00 B 2-18 103.0 3035 A B8 5N Es 6 + l0 00 8 3-78 11 5. 0 36364

8 40td 10E 6

+12.00 8976 (C4,o ' Bo37A 88 SN 5E 6 til.oo 8 S78 Ic6 0 5018 4 S8 45N Ios G + 13 00 6 10 28 116.0 303sA 68 SN os 6 &12 00 ' 9 lo 7s 1015 304o A 38 48N SE; G + !4 00 6 IO-78 107.0 3041 P-36 ON 4E 6 fla.oo e 10.78 106 0 3042 A. Be 3ON 25E 6 + 11 00 8 7 5 106.5 l 3043A E8 54 6e 6 4140o 81079 1o25 3044 A-PA foN SSE 6 + 12,00 S 10 78 I e 2,s 2045b 88 38N 222 G + l3.00 g II,qg \\ \\ 2,0 3046h 55 38N 352 G + I4.co 8Il-18 lol.o 3047 A E8 25N 5e 6 +6oo 6 7 8 102,5 3C48 A 88 20N EE 6 i F7,oo ' 8 11-78 1c0 0 3049 h 88 l8N 35 G l &g 00 !81178 102.5 3050P- ' 86 I5H Se' 6 +.S 00 ? 12-7 8 los.O 20SIh 38 17N 2E 6 410,00 8 la78 sq.g JoS2.A 39 12N sE - G + ll.co 8./20 6 101.5 O m

D = TABLE NO. 9 NRC CONCERN NO. 7 SCHEDULE OF RELATIVE DENSITY CORRELATION TESTING TEST NUMBER TEST DATE LRWE 815 2/25/76 1040 8/12/76 B 0023A 9/9/76 SOA 9/22/76 78A 10/8/76 256A 11/9/76 271A 12/15/76 377A 2/2/77 444A 2/23/77 332A 4/1/77 621A 4/22/77 855A 5/31/77 1087A 7/7/77 1321A 8/S/77 14S2A 8/1,9/77 1500A 8/20/77 1784A 9/28/77 2015A 10/18/77 2026A 10/18/77 2274A 11/17/77 2287A 11/22/77 2535A 2/23/78, 2792A 5/23/78 3053A 8/21/78 3297A 2-16-79 1197B 12/17/79 e AO' e O s-m

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF S!IL BACKFILL. DENSITIES NRC CONCEltN NO. 7' l l-APPENDIX A IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS FILL 5 EL -41.75 to EL -36.25 g. e e D 4 a M* 6 .( p

TABLE A-1 IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS - FILL #5 EL -41.75 TO EL -36.25 TEST TEST' TEST TEST FROCTOR TEST EVALUATION LOCATION NUMBER DATE CURVE NO. -41.75 F4 45N 38W LRWE721 1/26/76 1 -41.60 F4 ON 45W LRWE699 1/21/76 1 -40.50 'F4 62N 43W LRWE724 1/26/76 1 -40.30 F4 21S 44W LKWE701 1/21/76 1 -39.60 F4 285 80W LRWE700 1/21/76 1 -39.25 F4 20N 80W LRWE808 2/24/76 6 -39.25 F4 18N 20W LRWE807 2/24/76 6 -39.20 F4 53N 40W LRWE726 1/27/76 1 -39.20 F3 7N 43W LRWE725 1/26/76 1 + -39.'00 E3 30N 33E LRW1031 8/12/76 15/18 -39.00 F4 16N 40W LRWE702 1/21/76 1 -38.75 E4 10N 33E LRW1036 8/12/76 15/18 -38.30 F4 17N 70W LRWE703 1/21/76 1 -38.25 F4 30N 50W LRWE811 1/26/76 3 -38.25

F4 35N 43W LRWE812 2/25/76 3

-38.25 E4 10N 31E LRW1037 8/12/76 15/18 -38.00 E3 31N 32E LRW1033 8/12/76 15/18 -37.75 E3 31N 34E LRW1035 8/12/76 15/18 /'i -37.70 F4 10S 43W LRWE704 1/21/76 1 \\d# -37.50 E4 11N 32E LRW1038 8/12/76 15/18 -37.50 E4 69N 27E B0102A 10/13/76 34 -37.25 F3 80S 70W LRWE 813 2/26/76 6 -37.25 F4 80S 84W LRWE 816 2/26/76 6 -37.25 F4 85S 80W LRWE 818 2/26/76 6 -37.25 E5 40N 27E B0089A 10/11/76 34 4 -37.00 E4 60N 27E B0101AR9 10/14/76 34/36 -36.76 E4 60N 28E-B0110AR4 10/14/76 36 -36.75 E5 42N 37E B0090AR2 10/12/76 34 -36.40 F4 ISS 78W LRWE706 1/22/76 1 -36.40 F4 ION 42W LRWE705 1/22/76 1 -36.25 E4 45N 27E B0116AR 10/15/76 36 -36.25 E3 24N 25E LRWE922 5/20/76 7 -~l -36.25 E3 24N 37E LRWE921 5/10/76 2 -36.25 E5 58N 27E B0097AR 10/12/76 34 i 8 L i I l 0 l 1 m

V ( ) (,,.....] In-PlCc3 'D:noity Tact-Rubbar Balloon 1. e l 3ealf6Cly"8 Sing Toot secndard ^STx D21s7 ,cos_o, fg efv c. 1.s -s g.9 Lab No. 00' M (( guy s 731) ( coject: Waterford SES Uffit 3 Ebasco Services Ird. M.,p h o, . =..'. :. : v N Test No. "2 Client : Tact Location f -4feJ, 38ui ' Flll No. M 'M d -Jf -)% I k2 Io ( .Cs. sa Tact Depth f,. Date

p G4S; Elevation Time'of Test

~~ Tact' Elevation' ' db 7I Volumeter I.D. lfW (o / Scmple I.D. b tSS eft., h0M8 Scale I.D. ( G<A.J G to 2. ,, e Th>Mo Speedy I.D. @4 W ed * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. Wt. of Cari 6" Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. 3.IL 4 Volu'me o'f Test 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. .O~7 Hole,:, _,. 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb.' J,04 02(.f f t ~ Speedy Moisture, l'D ~ g, W 5. Tare No., Retest Required: Yes 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,",gm.: ho 7. Wt. Tare & Dry soil, gm. Rete,st of Lab No. ~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date-Specification Requi,rement 9. 'Wt. Tare, gm. 10. Wt.~of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction K. O g 11. t4oisture Content (8/10) ets ODoes Not Meet Spec. ~ t Moisture Wet Dry. Reference Maximum Optimum begree of Content' Density Density *' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction /07' C / 6 7/ % I / / 3, D % /0/,8 % 3 3 lb/ft 1b/ft lb/ft3 ROmarks: ( ~ Tcchnician:N\\ da Calculated By M Cbecked By: ^ Emp. No.: I8'2 Empt No.: BIBL Emp. No.: anus GR.fA.* C:Ww

In-PlCc0 D^naity TCCt-Rubbar BJlloon s..., 3eabDCy 8 Sting ~ Tact Stenaara ASTM D2167 pros _og A g g g.fw 4.w-w No. - 7,00 0 ' A [f_ P u> c 6,9 9) ( Project: Waterford SES Unit p +. $ L - g .1 Client : Ebasco Services Inc. % ast No. l TCst Location F4 - 45w oc rill No. 56 gb. t.k s TCst Depth ~ $ CN 4- ~ /4 Da te i 2 t l 7 6. -~'~~ Time of Test G.SJ Elevation TCst Elevation ~~ M b Volumeter I.D. L O /J (o l Scmple I.D. btST/2.l(&F-- Scale I.D. LELA) - 63 - Io 7.- 619 6 Art @ Speedy I.D. 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil',~ 0.01 lb. 3.90 4. volume of Test 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. .07

Hole:

3. Net Wt. of Da'mp Soil, 0.01 lb. 4.A / 364 ft Speedy Moisture, 6#6 (= u Retest Required: Yes 5. Tare No. / No 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm. Retest of Lab"No. 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date 9. Wt. Tarc, gm. Specification Requirement 10. Wt. of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 9h t ~ 11. Moisture Content (8/10) OMeets es Not Neet Spec. ~l -~ l Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content Density Density,' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction I 96I i I T' L G, c$ t %,s t 68% lb/ft) 3 lb/ft 1b/ft3 Remarks: dTc'5T PJ oT' P&4'.'O G r2 _. h%% O.(. Technician: \\ Calculated By: C4/.d Checked By: Emp. No.: ~bi bD Emp. No.: Dib2-Emp. No.: 34 6 10 the/~~n g

7 L... J In-Placa~Dsnsity Test-Rubbor Enlloon C @$",f Test St'andard ASTM D2167. PB08-09 A rpject: Waterford SES Un'it \\D b,No. O, ~' (LRLDE'72h) b5ibnt EbascoServicesInk g.M est No. 'b ,MW Fill No. ' M-Test I,ocation I ! 2 b ].~/ (a Test' Depth .? 4 Date-Time of Test G.: S : Elevation Test' Elevation ~ - 4 0. E'O volumeter I.D. L/2u> b/ Sample I.D. iG5. (2toCA Scale I.D. D hM 9 SMt? Speedy I.D. ~ 1. Wt. of~Chn"~& Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. ~ 3 l'I 4. Volume of Test- ~ O7 Hole: 2.. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. i gh2li 3. Net Wt. of D mp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3: LO ft Speedf Moisture, C2.. g-g .z

f. y. -

5. Tare No., Retest Required: Yes ~6.. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm._. l No 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry Soil, gm._ Rete,st of Lab' No. ~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. &.Date* 4 '9. 'Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Rcquirement ~~-

10.

Wt.'of, Dry Soil, gm. - of Compaction SOg .j 11. Moisture Content (8/10) O, Meets GDoes Not Meet Spec. ~ ~ ' Moisture Wet Dry. Reference, Maximum Optimum Degree of Content

Density Density 2 urve No.

Density Moisture Compaction C ' \\\\ h S C)C)< 1. tOS b NA% ~ .A 3 ( eO % 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 . Remarks: UD M ~i' U J Ar6 ASNd M hY ~ 96 % o, c. dalculated By: Checked By. ( Technician:_ U e -Emp. No.: ID Emp. No.: M $ '2 - Emp. No.: M97 -JF-tw:EEEt x

,,,,,) In-Plc'ca ' Density Test-Rubbcz-Balloon Peab~.iyOCy 6Slng Test Seandara ASTM D21s7

p3og_o, p

~ -s> 9-n~% Waterford SES Uriit;(~3 l 3ZG $ A ( t pto s 70 3) (. roject: $pab No.. . ~.. ~...... - 9 Client : Ebasco Services In Test No. "3 Test Location - 94 U, 2l5 ' Fill No. b6 MW 4 - 03 .g Date T ~24 Test Depth ~ ~ 40.3D G;S: Elevation Time of Test Test Elevation" ' <'IO'3 0 Volumeter I.D. L20J-hl Sample I.D. b/65 Sv# Scale I.D. W"O'- 1 Orb f. SkJr) Speedy I.D. GGUJ - b Z-1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, O.01 lb. 4 ' O b ~ ~4 '. ' Volu'me of Test ~ 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. 'O7 Hole: ~ 3. Net Wt. of Dar$p Soil, 0.01'lb. 3 Ni M ft Speedy Moisture, bil h,..' 5. Tare No.., Retest Required:.,, Yes '6. - Wt. Tare & Wet' Soil," gm.:. ho 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. ~- & Date - ,8. Wt. Water, gm. 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi,rement

10.

Wt. ' of, Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction N.Og ~ ~ 11. Moisture Centent (8/10) ets ODoes Not I eet Spec. ~ Moisture Wet Dry. Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content' Density Density.' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction 1li'4 tO'3 4 (oSe(o Q.1 % i @,0 % %, g % 3 3 ~ lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 Remarks: Technician: \\ dalculated By: Ciecked By: ~ w Emp. No.: .bl OD Emp. No.: 3 Ibl Emp. No.: 344f YA

In-Plcca' Density Test-Rubbsr B"211oon )@8 Tcst d ASTM D2167 PB08-09 I. f "Q u c A % 2.2-% (. Project: Waterford SES Unit.,c31 ab 'No. 0001^ ( L R u> E ~70 0 ) y \\. 4 . :. =. -. - Client.: Ebasco Services Inc."' T t No. 1 Test Location FS-80w. z.8s,- Fill No. 58 sn W i k7-.I D Test Depth d C.bG 4VJi)4 Date

~~~

~~ G;S: Elevation Time of Test ,bO Volumeter I.D. L.~2.uJ lo l Test Elevation Sample I.D. N/h5 krer. Scale I.D. L.9b s 6S N/h# $A7JP Speedy I.D. LM b 2 \\ 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb.

3. % ~ ~4.

Volume of Test 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. iOl Hole: O24L f t 3. Net Wt. of Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb. '3.69 i Speedy Moisture, 10.6 s ~ 5. Tare No.. Retest Required: Yes l 6~. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm. 6 / No Retest of Lab' No. ~ 7. Wt. Tare &. Dry Soil, gm. 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date 9.- Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement 10. Wt. of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction hS.0 % ~ 11. Moisture Content (8/10) 61eets ODoes Not Meet Spec. I Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content Density Density.' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction 10.6* I O ~I 'ESN I' I 'G G-CJ7 3,

3 3

lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 . " 7(Z{7(> Remarks: l Technician I l\\ Lk., Calculated By: d Checked By.C 4A l Emp. No.: 3l9h Emp. No.: 3 I b 2-Emp. No.: ;34 W l

), In-Pltca Drnsity Test-Rubbar Bpalloon e:r ~3eabiicy esting Tese Seenaerd 3STx D21e2 , Doe _o, f -ag e. w -s t ( roject: Waterford SES Un'it F W g ab,No. I - @O C [ g, 4 [LRws gog] j ,L.~..~..'.:..'- Ebasco Services Ink.g@g.@N est No. b Client : Fill No. ' b '20 Test Location -O ' mJ.L Test Depth

2 6 Date 2-[24.74 G S: Elevation Time of Test

~ Test Elevation-9,W volumeter I.D. 2 Pro c., Sample I.D. C65 k\\' 0 E(2 Scale I.D. 1 )P C0 f 3 ~ 9d Ad S hd _ Speedy I.D. . ;_ P W (.;, B, . i 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, O. 01 lb'--~" O,' ( D 4. Volume of Test 2. Ta.r_e Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. id7 Hole.:'.. 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 4,'O '6 .kt Speedy Moisture, [ // /~.h w:: Yes 5. Tare No.. Retest Required':.... 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm.: v No ~ ~ 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. & Date - 8. Wt. Water, gm. ^ 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi,rement 10. Wt. ' of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction M, O % ^ 11. Moisture Content (8/10) eets ODoes Not Meet Spec. Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum. Optimum Degree of Content' Density Density +' Curve No. ' Density Moisture Compaction __ - Io./ g ///3 /oM G I"4 p.5' g 78 6 g 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 l Remarks: l Tcchnician: ~ O_h Calculated By: N k Clecked By: C ~ t U 'h Emp. No.: 3/[2 Emp. No.: 3Ib Emp. No.: 3445' Guwth

(.,) rn-,1,oa ~D:nsity T: se-auds r 3,11oon x-... Jeab'6Cy esting m e <e ^se-21e> eeee-ee I., [ g@}I,ab,No. 18 O O gC7 [tggyg gog} W 1 " -' k ( roje t: Waterford SES Un'it L3 ggg Client : Ebasco Services Inc. u Test No. .2 Test Location ~~l b b b) Fill No. ' M e Date 1 f ~5- .[o ~ Test' Depth G;S: Elevation Time of Test Test Elevation' d i, d Volumeter I.D..2. M L O (o l Sample I.D. yW { s s \\Q i CiER. Scale I.D. .L. M (J3 S'~I_ '[)g g p 5 g g cl ' ~ Speedy I.D. ./ M Q C ':L, s. 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0. 01 lb.~ 3 8 N ~' ~4I Volume of Test c 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. ~ e O '7 Hole.:... u 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. '3

O

'NO ft Speedy Moisture, be b

g-

- y Retest Required': ~ 5. Tare No.. Yes V'~bo ~6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,' gm.: Ta'e & Dry Soil, gm. R.etest of Lab'No. 7. Wt. r 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date-9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement ~ 10. Wt.'of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 9 5. O % 11. Moisture Content (8/10) ts ODoes Not Meet Spec. Dry.' Maximum Optimum begree of ' Moisture Wet Density **. Reference Content Density Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction f,' b % lOS' /2, $~ % fo).s 2. % 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 Remarks: .A ./ Technician: Calc'ulated By: C1ecked By: a u Emp. No.: 3 l [,Q Emp. No.: 3Ihb Emp. No.: 349 7 -c8 M Q w

'...) In-Plcca 'D:naity Tsst-Rubbar Bolloon k @$",f[)) Tcst Standard ASTM D2167 - PB08-09 m Waterford SES Un'it yNRMNk}aa, No. 4 m12 /L h RW E 72'd /. aw 4. n-w i <(,~roject: W3.E497 C....'. t.-.t Client : Ebasco Services Inc. T st No. l -- kduJ, kid Fill No. NA Test Locatio'n tW I !'2 '7 Test Depth' 4 af-f6 Date GJS Elevation g Time of Test ~ Test' Elevation' - D C.),2D Volumeter I.D. (_80) lal Sample I.D. M. kt>GC_ h0MP Scale I.D. M D~ ~ -br4r.J O W Speedy I.D. ~ f'Can'& Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3.#E'_) 4. Volume of Test ~ l '. W t". o O? Hole: 2., { Tare Wt.. of Can,' O. 01 lb. i 3.- Net Wt. of Damp Soil,'O.01 lb. 3% . 03o4. f t ~ Speedy Moisture, SO ~ (%:^". ('M !..' 5. Tare No.. Retest Required':.. Yes 6.. Wt. Tare & Wet' Soil,' gm.. / ho 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab' No. -~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date -

9. ~ Wt. Tare, gm.

Specification Requirement 10. Wt.'of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction WO % / 11. Moisture Content (8/10) Odeets ODoes Not Meet Spec. ~ l l ' Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum begree of Content' Density Density ' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction kb % II'tI (04I l * *' " 13.0 s

98. (,%

I 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 l ~ Remarks: l l ' Technician: '( dalculated ByY k/ C ecked By: CN; Q ^ Emp. No.: .3I8 h Emp. No.: 3( 8'1 - Emp. No.: _3945' .%N6EGsk.,

In-loca 'D:=ns'ity. Test-Rubbar' BDlloon eab,.. -..:-ly esting = 3 w =.e ^s>

21 >

n ec .eee-e, (.coject: Waterford SES Un'it:3 N g9, ab,No. 9 0 0 1 2,^. [.# toe 73 5) . [g 1* b W-% I- ..~..'...:~.2 9 fg Client : Ebasco Services Inc. 4 lest No. 5' /hk3u) Flll No. Test Location 2 -- 6'. A 3 I f'2. b 7 bo Test Depth ~M6-Date ~ G4S; Elevation Time of Test ~ Test Elevation' - % ' 7. O Volumeter I.D. U2a) 6 [ Sample I.D. Ness, hoc 2__7vmF Scale I.D. N 0 MIN -Shp Speedy I.D. W 1. Wt. 6f-Cdn & Damp Soil, O.01 lb'. 3.YY '

4. ~ Volume of Test.

2. Tare Wt.. of Can, 0.01 lb. 1 07 Hole.:..... 03C7 ft 3. Net Wt. of' Damp Soil, 0.01.Ib. ~5.C7 1 Speedy 5[oi$ture, 13.I ~ ~ ~ h.- ~ 5., Ta re No.-- Retest Required: Yes 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,' gm.: h ho Ta'e & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. 7. Wt. r 8. Wt. Water, gm. ~ .& Date-9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi,rehent '10. Wt. ' of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction )S. O g 11. Moisture Content (8/10) OMeets oes Not Meet Spec. I ' Moisture Wet' Dry." Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content Density Density.' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction \\ \\'bsD QC), b \\ OT' b h 13,g% 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 hD biE%f NGEED he_ 6*y b bdSC.o Remarkc: C. C.. Technician:' \\\\.% Calculated bye Cbecked By: k o w Emp. No.: ML Emp.r No.: 31 N Emp. No.: 3446'. .Y u

. E,1) WMaci @cnsitf Tyt-RubbWnalloon x ?.- - ](jghhdrp @$\\,OC Test St'andard ASTM D2167 PD 0 8 -- 0 9 v -crA.i.,. g. us.-w - ru( s j c c t : Waterford SES Un'it: 3, kREVIEWEg 3 go,_ oggA g g 4 o37 mm .. :. : = Client':. Ebasco Services Inc. st No. k' Teat Locatio'n M-33 E.' 15d i:.'.1 ' F 11'No. [A I ~ Tect Depth. OO* c,' ' Da t e ' ' ' 8 / iM. -.' G.: S : Elevati --39.0 0 Tim of.Te.st *O9 CC Tes t Eleva tion ' 39.CC) Volumeter I.D. fEIN Sample I.D. Nrss. RNER,~ pbrwp.- Scale I.D. PT-611. ~- 'SAuo / SMEL.L ' S p'e e'd y I. D. ". PT-191 s. p.. ~,. ..e g D...,..... Voluise of Test 1. Wt. of.Can & Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb". r. 4. ~ ~ ~ 0 D7, - H o l e.:.. *.. 2. T,a r.e W t. o f Ca'n,~ O'.01 lb. ~ 3.', Net Wh. of, Damp

Soil, 0. 01, lb. '

21.05. .03s6. ft 3 t l SpeedyMoisIt[rh 9.0/9S s I Q:: ..h Re. test Required: Yes S. Tare No.. '6.. Wt. hare & We t So il,* gm. :. ---- b88., \\ ~ $ro, 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry Soil,' gm. 0," Rete,st o'f Lab"'No. ~ c.m My 8. g ~ Wt. Water, gm. ~.- 36 7 & D a t e'_- .'O Specification Requi,rement 9. Wt. Tare, gm. 3NO of Compaction 9 ' 10. Wt.'of, Dry Soil, ym. 11. Moisture Content (8/10) M7,% 4] Meets L3 Docs Not Meet Spec. y,tw rotw rww. J.iols ture Net"' . Dry ',lleference Maximum. Optimum Degree of Content Density D'ensity Curve No. Density-Moisture Compaction f*g g (24,$., / / 3.0

- gg Io6 0 Il %

/6/0 '3 3 7 I 4,5-g g.\\g t oT.$ b/ft3 Ib/ft b/ft pi- /- (as W ~ .1' -[5 J Remarks: ' echnici GO. Calcu, lated By:p i[t] ch.ecked Dy:- k.k. __. Emp. No.: j_k_ I_...._ Emp. No.: 3.:_S P. Emp. No.: O O __A

(,.,, ) In-PlCc0 D:ncity.TODt-Rubb0r Balloon w s Peab'6Cy'8S'ing Toot stendard ^STn D21s7 p303_og l [ 7 h g-u.-86 Waterford GES Un'it(3 ,*nLab No. 3 G v 4,k [L p W E 702) ( ~'.roj ec t : .1'. J.:. i i Client : Ebasco Services Inp p F rest No. .4 Taat Location - %w, th M 111 No. N6 //4 W Test Depth G-#5'-f4 Date i 7-.I bb ~ Time of Test G;S: Elevation ~ Test Elevation' - &C),0 0 Volumeter I.D. d441 - b l da Sample I.D. Nis d rV M Scale I.D. lM' 63 ~ h 9 $ AtJO Speedy I.D. M b 2. 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3<~77 ~ ~~4$ Volume of Test 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. .Ol Hole: 3IO ft 3'. Net Wt. of Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb.

3. ~l O Speedy Moisture, 9'9 W

t> 5. Tare No., Retest Required: Yes 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm.. / No 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. ~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. Date - ~ ~~- 9.'. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi,rement 10. Wt. ' of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction O 11. Moisture C6ntent (8/10) ~.% Gbeets ODoes Not Meet Spec. Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum begree of ~ Content Density Density.' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction hC)% 3 3 f I lb/ft 1b/ft lb/ft3 Remarks: Technician: Lk Calculated By: lI Chiecked By 6 - --- & Emp. No.: ID Emp. No.: 3181-- Emp. No.: 3 M 5-~ U h - M

\\., ' :... ) .In-Placo Denait.y Tpot -Rubbar Balloon 08b...d.eO y CSJng Tw e Scandara iTa D21s7 - va 0 8..Os v .s.--_ b - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ " gm.g. ss.-re cct: Waterford SES Un'it 3 EVilw{D gcA,, 73 A . L go yo3f nk-]et a W3 6497 . Ebasco Services Inc..- .T t No..b Clicnt : Tect Locatio'n T '5 YE' b M. ['.' Fill'No. h '~

b a t e ' *. k.l%'7b

'.l Test Depth. ~ O..b. ~ G.:S.Elevatibn '- 3 7 7 5 '. Time of.Te.st lN Vo. lume ter ' I. D. PT-15's

Teet Elevation ' ~ 3E W Sample I.D.bl5S' Rw R.

Scale I.D. PT. du. ~ . Sp'eNdy I.D.' " P T ' 19 ) Pomp S4.$.6 /.S#ca.: M.- :,. , '. '..,p./f.l).,,;.. 977 J 2. 2.,... ' - vr f Wt of. Can & Damp' Soil, O'. 0 1 l b'. '~3"-'1 $ ^ ~ 4. Volui65~o3~ fee ' l- ~ 2. Tare Wt. of Can,... '. ~~ O.01 lb. O.07 Hol& :. *' ' ~ * * * ~ 3. Net Wt. of,bamp Soil, 0.01.lb. 3.~12 I-. -

0019

. ft

.a.

' (ppeedy Moisture,- 10.4/Ll.(, t ...a " l , O...__ Tare No.. ~.. . y; .--.s. .5. /3' Re. test Required ~: Yes '6..'kht. k'a re & Wet ' Soil,* gm.: W[a, No, 7., Wt. Ta're & D,ry Soil,' gm. 392,'3 Retc,st of Lab No. g,,*, 8., Wh. Water, gm. Datei-G 5~~ 9. Wt. Taro, g m.' - Specification Requi,rement 37/'< 0 - of Compaction., t

1. 0.

-Wt.'of. Dry Soil, gm. 2 11. . Moisture Content (8/10) / V. I, % M Meets ODocs Not Moot Spec. ~ ~~ yotw form rwa. Mo.l.s tu re Wet *. .. Dr,y ,Rpference Maximum;, Optimum Degree of Con ten t - Density D'nsity Cur've No. Density

Moisture Compaction _

o NSob /0 Y.C ION II R 99.5"

- g g-(

'S', t o I", ' if bb3 -,,l 3 Ib/ft jbfft3 -r . mem;...a.c.- %.- ( ' Technician:f

hn 4r_.

Calculated By b na Checked By:- pcC-. 'S..t % b ~ . _. N Enp. No.: ._O_N_I Emp. l'o. : Emp. No.: i ~5UJL*W' \\

k....)

In-PlCcDD'naity TCat-Rubber BallC2n ? Gab. 7,'6Cy eSling

s. -.

~~ T=t Stenaara ASTn D2167 p;o,_o, w S. w -u. (Project: Waterford SES Uriit ab No.- 9 COM A (t. Rw 6 7o3) .~.~.....:'.h I ' I a Client : Ebasco Services gnq. g est No. .I Tost Location - 70W,175) Fill No. N' 'S ~ ^&W . k7) h 6 Tast Depth

33. Ou t ->3.., p, t

Date G;S: Elevation Time of Test ~ Tas t:. Elevation ~ ~~ D. 30 Volumeter I.D. L5Zw (o I Scmple I.D. NIG didc#2 Scale I.D. W 63 hh 9 6:47 @ Speedy I.D. b.2, 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'.

3. b V

"~4 '. Volume of Test 2. Tare wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. .07 Hole: 3. Net Wt. of Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb. 3 *U O3/4 j ft ~ Speedy Moisture, 8,0 t.&.' %y Retest Required: Yes S. Tare No., / ho 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,' gm.: 7. Wt. Tare &-Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date- ~~ 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement 10. Wt.~of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 96.O g (9ficots ODoes not $1cet Spec. I 11.' Moisture Content (8/10) Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum begree of Content Density Density.' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction l'b. l \\0%Q I OS". lp h,O I I O'D M *I 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 R; marks: Tcchnician: ' \\( tb Calculated By: ( Cbecked By. CO y Emp. No.: DI 81. - Emp. No.: ~$ I B "2 Emp. No.:.5 4 4 7 h

In-PlCc3'D noity TCat-Rubb0r Calloon ws PeabUc:y-~es~ing T==Mara era m167 ,cos-o, f ggg$ltM ' I,. K.erford SES Un'it : g.g$1L , No. f'2 D O 7 7.( [L ptog "gflJ Jb 9*%-% ( roject: .~..~.!..~.:'.% Client : Ebasco Services Inc. iest No. 7-TOOT Location O 13 o 9 rill No. ' FA ~~ N b ~ Toot Depth C-if Date G. S': Elevation Time of Test Toot' Elevation'~' D N' Volumeter I.D. J. R ( O (, / Scmple I.D. d s se Q20 p Q, Scale I.D. 1 */2 u.D (3 s ~ hd vat _6 6 cm M Sp'eedy I.D. . L. /d t O 4..i. v

b..

Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0701 lb'. 3:3) 4. Volume of Test 2. Tare Wt..of Can, 0.01 lb. s O '7 Hole.:~.u. 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, O.01 lb.' ~3. > 6 ,o% o f t Speedy Moisture, f8 ~ s e S. Tare No.. R'etest Required: Yes d ho 6. Wt. Tare & Wet ' Soil,* gm.: R,etest of Lab" No. 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. & Date-8. Wt. Water, gm, ~ 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement '10. Wt.'of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction M O 11. Moisture Content (8/10) ets ODoes Not Meet Spec. ' Moisture Wet Dry. Reference Maximum Optimum begree of Content

Density Density Curve No.

Density Moisture Compaction } I 'I / V,0 % lb'f.o % l tb % I 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 .t. m Romarks: l .e Tcchnician: *T d. dalculated By: I Cbecked By: ~ D a Emp. No.: 3 / 7,.2 Emp. No.: 'S f 8 k Emp. No.:_3447* ITOM

(... ) In-Pleco'D:nalty Tact-Rubb r CallC:n s---

r

>eaboc:y-es:ing ==e ee= e, e e'- 21 > e=0.-e, g -c m 9. %% - % E ' (, Pr{ect: Waterford SES Un'i4 ggED Lab, No._ @ 00 fo A (f.R U)F N ) Ebasco Services IbcNgQ' l Test No. 3 Client : MhA)i35 11 No. 'd4 TOat Locatio'n p s . L& blh f7A. Taat Depth &..~ f-k5-jf~ ate G;S: Elevatik)n Time of Test '~ -b T* Volumeter I.D. 2/2 W G/ Tec Elevation' Stmple I.D. Ai ss b't)Q, Scale.I.D.

/ /,') e <j 3 9d vu o '

b ei d Speedy I.D. -J /2. (A) 6.~l .s Damp Soil," O.~01' lb'. 3. 4. 'Voiu'me of Test 1. Wt. of Can & 2.-Tare Wt..of Can,

0. 01 lb. -

,Oi Hole,:,,;,, - 3. Net Wt. of Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb.

3. Y.7
~34.0 f t 7~-

Speedy Moisture, / 0. O g .g. 5.- Tare No.. Retest Required: Yes .. ~ 6.. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,* gm.: / No Rete,st of Lab' No. Ta'e & Dry Soil, gm. 7. Wt. ~ r 8. Wt. Water, gm.

t Da te -

Specification Requirement 9. Wt. Tare, gm. '10. Wt.'of Dry soil, gm. of Compaction N$i d % 11. Moisture Content (8/10) GPlieets ODoes Not Meet Spec. ~~ oisture Wet Dry. Reference Maximum Optimum .begree of Content' Density Density *' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction '/ /b % I! # 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft 1b/ft3 y,p m. 72/yt Remarks: Tcchnician: ed. dalculated By: ' \\i Cbecked By: p ~ Emp. No.: 3172 Emp. No.: MY Emp. No.: 3446 -c.R-m k

(. ',,,) In-Placa Denoit.y Tpst-Rubbar Ballcon s ?ca8f58y~tsing TcoeSeynastanSTMD21s2 ,So .o, ac>~ 9 a 'n* Ov-jcet: Watt.rford SES Un'it 3 r,a b, N o. 80l1SA L RO l 037 - ( r 6 EYlEWE /^ '.l clicnt : Ebarco Serv.tces Inc ast No. 6497-Ta t Locatio'n 3 M 1' 11'No. $b ~ .~~....O

.' ' D'a t e ' % l I N %.

'Q* Taot Depth. Time of Test ehlb G. S Elevationd ~ 3 9.'2 I. I er 9-25-7C Tea t Elevatibn" - U 7-C Volumeter I.D. PI' W f 53 Sample I.D. hdl5T - @V66 '9bfWF' Scale I.D. h b~ D'72-PY-t 9 ('- ' CAi)D[5k/6k L. h; p'e e h y I. D. p.. s .1 4. 1. Wt.,of.Can & Damp' Soil, O'.01 lb. 3lD'7.......... Volui6e of Test 2. Ta.re Wt. of Can,,0'.01 lb. 0.07 Holn.:.. '.'.* 3.I Net Wt. of D, amp oil, 0.01.Ib. 3.6B Y@ ft ~

~ Speedy Moisture 7.l

.O l (,.3 ~ .m n ( $n~. ~ ..-.-.4. ,g i S. Tare No.. Retest Required': Yes '6.. Wt. Ta r e & We t S o i l,'. g m. f. ----- No. 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry Soil, gm. -'-~~ Re t e,s t o f Lab No. ^ 8 Wt. Water, gm. Da te' * '9. Wt. Tare, gm' ~.. Specification Requi,roment 10., Wt.'of, Dry Soil, gm. _ y---- of Compaction '95 11. Moisture Content (8/10) Meets L]Does Not M,cet Spec. ~ y,no fann rieu. Moisture We t' ' D r"y ,Seference Maximum.' Optimum Degree of Content Density Density _ Curve No. Density-Moisture Compaction _ fb,3 % 8 . ff. f 64 1 3 3 I b/R.3 is.1 (cGO, lb/_ft lb/ft w _/_m p u.u .. (J. A Remarks: ( Technician: Ntkt R ~ ~ Calculated By g 1ecked By: j !e6e _._5_',9_s.s, Eme. No.: _L_ itr.._ Eme. Wo.: 3__, p._ Emp. No.: -,n

k *,'I.) In-Plab3 Density Tpat-Rubbar BDllo2n ../ (3dOOC.h....,(3SJIT Taae Standara nSra D21s7 PB08-09 ce = an,.a w Y3 649 - No. SO ', 7C A M. L Op 'jcct: Waterford SES Un'it 3 E S p ,, 3,,,.2 . Ebasco Services Inc. '. s t No. 3. Clicnt : @ gA Tcat Locatio'n 3EI 3'2E~. 3l d N ',i',. Fill'No. A C ~. ~ ' Date

T[/ 2 /7(o Tcat Depth. O. C.-

G.;S - Elevation ' 38- @ Time of.Te.st DO/ Vo. lumeter I. D. b /5~l/- Tect Elevation * ' 38 C)C) Scal'e I.D. '. 87 -07'2. Scmple I.D.kl55 SV R'[dM hpchc}y I.D.' ~k .3 @ O ', h E( L *.' r. y,.. s. ~. : - .s ~- l '. Wt.~.of.Can & Damp' Soil, O'.01 lb. 3.S '~ 4. Volui6e~of Test ~ 2. T,a,re Wt. of Can, O'.01 lb. 0 07 Ho l e.:.. 3.'nNet Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01,lb. 3.47---' .D8jgf. ft

Speedy Moisture, II.0 [Ig V. ~ ~s.

~~- Ih: Q.- -. ~ ~-.. --a. s. 5. - Tare No.. Re. test Required _: Yes

x..

.6.. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,. g m. :'.. No. ~. 7.,.Wt. Tare & D,ry Soil,' gm. R,ete,st of Lab No. 8. W h. ' W a t e'r, gm. Da te'- ~~~ 9. Wt. Tare, gm' ~_ Specification Requi,rement 10., Wt.'of, Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction Y 11. . Moisture Co.ntent (8/3[0) ~,% hMeets (JDocs Not Meet Spec. ~ Met *.'" ,. D r,y ,{t.e fe renc e Ma x imum.-. Optimum -Degree of Fona fam rina. Moisture Content Density D'ensity turve No. , Density

Moisture Compa c t i_o rt

'g g !h, I'U'8 I /66. I ,- { f l$ b)g g g 3 Ib/ft lb/ft3 t3 del _(- v .w g o 1,6 e ge ru 6 Remarks: E'4NPbbT~r04 ,( y ' Technician:f-O Calculated By I , Ch ecked By :_--:1 MiW* ' - 4 ( Emp. No.: .63267-Emp."No.: _ M_ -. Y.....' Emp. No.: .. l'2 /_, a b

__ D_. ;.,.. ] In-PlCce Donally Tpct -Rubbar Ballocn v.py 0800dy.,,OS'OG eggra Mm als7 Tc goos o, W3 6497,(

4W Waterford SES Un'it

!,ab, No. -30!72 A. 140/ o3f' - N.7jcct: t' I. Clicnt :, Ebasco Services Inc.g. , Test No. Teot Locatio'n 3E 3W E 11'No.S *M'.# F I0f']l# Nai* ~ Teat De9th. O. J IS 9.e ' G.;S: Eleva t' ion - 3' /,-~1 E. Time of.Te.st Vo.lumeter I.D. b[~ [ $3 Te c t E leva t ion ~ ~ 3 1 ') S-S2mple I.D. NL1?G s OG I Scale I.D. .b 0 7.1 ~ .8Q k,9 ".. SAOD [ddECh.. 7 N }9l h;p'e y I.D. ~ ... 2 . '. - Y q. .2 ', '" 3.3.5. '76 1 *. Wt. of.Can & Damp' boil,. O'.01lbb'N,GQ7[.^*~d' Volui6e oTTU,E ~ 0.07,, non,: y j:-... - 2. T.ay,e W t. o f Ca n, O'.01 lb. ~. ..w ., D 300. ft ~ ...3~ 3. Net Wt. of, Damp' Soil, O.01.'lb. 387 '~ - -. z- =... 9. c).9_ ,..: : peedy Moisture, .'"'%-~~ S - ~ ~ - u. r -- .,.,c,,,_,, vt ..,_f. S..: Tare.No.. Jte. test Required': Yes -- r 6.. Wt. ' hare & We t Soil," gm. :.. ho ~ Re t e.s t oi' Lab'.. 7., Wt. Ta're & D,ry Soil / gm. No. ~ K. Date'* 8 Wt. Water, gm. ..y._. ,,9. 'N t. Tare, g m ', Specification Requi,rement

10., Wt. ' of. Dry Soil, gm.

of Compaction M MeetsClDoes Not-M,ect Spec. ~ 11. Moisture Content (8/10). Net','" .. Dr,y Jtoference Maximum; Optimum Degree of puo (sna ypyg. .= = Moicture Conj;ent Density D'ensity. ' Curve No. Density Moisture-Compaction. 4 *' /19. D /08.3 10 7 o 1 !!'.'L / OS,/ ^ b/ t3 i 6,1 foQ.Y 15/_ft3 11i/ft3 me. '~ ' .ms au c- 0.; ' '. . A. h ^

I Remarks:

-( 'Technici n : h-4 Calculated ny: Cs*kt ecked ny: i[zGI EmP. No.:. @@ Emp. No.: _.3 h... f... Emp. No.: _ _. 3.. t 5 k ' 9 8. Matt t D. ~

= ,... J In-Plcca 'D:naity. TCJt-Rubber Enlloon ?eab...7liCy esing m e=<e ^e 21e> ,=ee-e. (;yrpject: WaterfordSESUn'it[3gg g ) Lab, No. 4 c.:.q. ca. -e t, l ~3 % 7o4 04 [L R w g yc4fJ. ^ Q WQ S yz Cli.ent : Ebasco Services In Test No. b 9 D-7b TCCt Location ~~ k3 u) II 05,' 111 No. N/h ~ ~_ ' dtQ _ O le / U 4 - h'5*>f.., Date I '2l 'l fo TCOt Depth Time of Test G;S: Elevation ~ TC0t Elevation' - N.7 0 Volumeter I.D. U 2<. 0 bl U2af 5 $ SCmple I.D. N,s5 (2T/ere_' Scale I.D. Speedy I.D. (::iZ dW1 F 6W l. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. 42L 4. volume of Test 2.. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. ,O] Holo,: N ft 3. Net Wt. of Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb. kII Speedy Moisture, 1 C. 9 g .6 5. Tare No., Retest Required: Yes M No 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil,' gm.: 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. R.etest of Lab No. -~~~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date-9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi,rement 10.- Wt. of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 95,0s ~ 11.' Moisture Content (8/10) OMeets Erboes Not lieet Spec. ~~~~ Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum begree of ~ Cr;ntent' Density __ Density.' Curve No. Density j @ ture Compaction %'l 5 /8 / A' O % I I IO, 3 3 lb/ft Ib/ft 1b/ft3 73,o, b e T-- A.50T A-G V.rt:> Fom f5tf b./3 bc.o O C_ R: marks: J Tcchnician: 'I Calculated By: Chiccked By k Emp. No.: 3191-Emp No.: 3iOL Emp. No.: 344s' .1 (Lino 4EIti g

e... a umucgmensuympwxuaocr uaucon OGl]..ydy_CSJnc. .____.._...__.c s . =t SQndord ASTa D2187 O r enOs_Os c> % 3. m. Tject: Waterford SMS Un'it 3 L b No-SO !"75 A tgG lo36 o [.....,. .,(5 qQ' <s\\ \\ o . Ebasco Services Inc. Cliint : t No. 6. Flll'No. [S ~'- TLit Locatio'n' E ..,,..,,.,','f,. .,' 'Date*' Yl2l~lb TO t Depth l GO' G.:W Elevation '~NU Time of.Te.st * /Nb * . Ta t Eleva tion.* -M. 5'o volumotor I.D. FT- /5 3 S~mple'I.D.EllB R I V G 2 '. P Urr7 P.. Sca1c I.D. PI~~ b72, g g g gM.,___.

. :# ]. hpchi'y 7,o,'1 b /9/'

~ ..y. ~.. -.,. ; ..o 3,d., 9 /*. .s l '. Wt.. of. Can & Damp' Soil, 0}01 lb.' 4. Volui6o~of Test . -.2. T.ap.e W t. o f Ca n, O'.01 lb.- O,o 7 nolo... 3 3. *- Net Wh. of Damp Soil, 0.01.Ib. 3,40 ,cag3. ft Speedy Moi,stu.,.'ro, 9,I[/O.0 .( ... ~.......... ~. Tare.No.. '. ' - Rotcot Required: You ~6.. Wt. Tare & Wat Soil,* gm.:J. ~ No. t e 7., Wt. Tare & D,ry soil

gm.

R,ote,st of Lab No.- E Date. 8. Wt. Wa ter, gm. 9. Wh. Tara, gm. Specification Requi,romont

10., Wt. ' of, Dry Soil, 9 m.' -

.- of' Compaction t 11. Moisture Content (8/1,0) Moots ODocs Not M,oot Spoc. y,tta raw new. Mal.c tu ro Ho t', .. D r,y yaforanco Maximura;, optimum Dogroo of Cantent Density D'nsity 'Curvo No., Rdnnit Moistura Compaction o b4 ' /2b.'T /07.;2, WY //,db /0 4'. O tg nia_t3 .ih m 3

d. <

t/ji.3_

.. -45M - ,so61 m u u . W/. A,. namarha: ('Tcchnician:h k r1 b Calc'ulated ny !Mhht.<h ocked Dy n !Nr.:L 5'S_O_-.__.. o r.p. no.: ..jfff.... nn.p. 1 o. : 619 > Emp. No.: m ~3A. M %

k, .) I n P l a c e D e n s i ty T e s t..R ubb o r B a l_l oo.n........- , 06*,CCf. 3 . I'.'.t!!.w_..%.y.,y,,h.,8dO9 Test Stahdard ASTI4 D21bN cc Ha terford'SES Uni t 3 &\\d D 1.a'b fl.o. f3610E. A ' - I('oj,a..t: 90 p \\ Test flo. 3 C l i e n't : Ebasco Services, Inc 5 Tes t 1.oca tion try WN 2iE Fill No. 5 Tes t De th o.$ ' .Date, folBl*G* ' ~$1 00 Time of Test 0 84 5~ ~ G.S. Eleva tion - Volume ter I.D. PT-Is4 _[ Tes t E1Evation - 3~T To S c a l e* I. D. fi'-O~TG.0 v e nit !. D. Sample I.D. niiss ews.e, pump } S p e e dy ' I. D : '(T-193 s%)o 1. Wt of Can 5 Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 9.S'7 - 4. Volume of Test ^ 0 07 Hole: 2. Ta re lit. o f,C a n, 0. 01 l b ' ~ 3 3. He.t H t. of Damp S' oil, 0.01 lb. 3.90 '_^$ 0 ~32 2. ft Speedy *Mo'is*ture, I4'O / hrs % (4) l = OVEli DRY C64SCO FIGL. D A Cc 6 P TA N C G ' .~ S. Tare No. Re tes t Requi r.ed:. " Yes ... m __ .,,, r _, s/ No 6. Wt. Tare & Het Soil, 9m. ~ 1W.' Wt. Tare & Dry' Soil, sm. R e t es t o f (SE.ifo.' -. - mr 8. Wt. Water, gm. and Date,_, - 9. Wt. T a r e, ' g m '., Speci fi ca ti on Requ'i reme'n.t, 10,.,, Ut. o f Dry S,oYl, gm. of Compa c ti on _.f_f 1 . d ets O Does liob !*.cet Specc 11. 11ois ture Con tedt (8/10) ~ sert. tours cewo ac bb 'Wrd& $_1% acog opnnan o.y g, mGrfg Moisture 1.'e t Dry Reference Maxi' mum Optimum Desree of _ _._. _.. < *. D e n s i t y -D e n s i ty

Curve flo.

Density Hotstura Compactic Content z.9.- g[,3 g }lS.0 161.s' 'fS \\ 14d 9 ~ g f..j.\\_0*3 .._) I4 d jf f a 7 _3 3_. 1b/ft. 1,b/ f t 1b/fts ~ Remarks: l' Ast" m w Are.e.ecoor n am occa Tosted By _ Calcula ted By @N Checked By 45e._ Revie ed B Emp.No. SuW Emp. fl o. Suw:r Emp. !!o. a e _Emp.!!o. _3 g ~ f( Determined in field we ee-m v 1 '( Determined.after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW I Use oven dry for calculations, when available d % wet ut/% dry wt BY h1 [A4 DATE l O ~

il.__

A nan nai w A o

r j ( _ :.. J In-PlCc3'D:nalty TC0t-Rubbcr Calloon v-- Peab.-.7'ecy-esting =e e<= e=re ^e 21e> e=ee-ee l .a w 3.'.s y ( r':.j ec t : Waterford SES Unit 3 l @ q 7,a b, N o. - 3 C 6 ' C A- [Lpwggi3) Ebasco Services Indt. @g[1est No. . / a Client : TCat Locatio'n - 705 70 J Fill No. 5'A .nm Tact Depth ~ C h 4 5 a - Of:.7, Date 2./1f./2fe, ~ 4 i G;S: Elevation Time of Test ~ ' Ne 1 I Volumeter I.D. ,l f t d 4., ( TCat Elevation' S mple I.D. VA*ts M Oe_R Scale I.D. J._ Q is.3 K 3 ~ '90 i c, Semd Specciy I.D. . th w c h, 1. Wt. of can'& Damp Soil'," 0. 01 lb'. 3,19 4. Volume of Test 2. Tape ht. of'Can, 0.01 lb. ,O7 Hole: 3. Net Wt[.'- of Dam'p Soil, 0.01 lb.' bU '01~7) ft Speedy Moisture, / 'M I 5. Tare No.. Retes_t Required: Yes ^ 6. Wt. Tare & Wet ' Soil,' gm.: N ho 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry soil, gm. Re te,s t o f Lab' No. 8. Wt. Water, gm. ' & Date - ~ 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement 10. Wt.'of, Dry soil, gm. of Compaction QC D _s ~ 11. Moisture Content (8/10) ets ODoes Not Meet Spec. leisture Wet

Dry, Reference. Maximum Optimum Degree of Content' Density Density ' Curve No.

Density Moisture Compaction )ff,y ll lol' g to2d 12, 5 s q g.g s lb/ft lb/ft 1b/ft3 Rcmarks: Tcchnician: ~'\\l b Calc'ulated By': ( Ch$ecked By: C CR6h o g -- - Emp. No.: S 1 T 3. Emp. No.: ) / T D Emp. No.: 3445', --ce /uth

( \\. /.,. I n _Pl a ce Dens i ty Tes t.R ubb er Ba ll 0o_n 3@[:,00G,y,.g,Si,ng Tist Steit ard ASTM D216 d L . C:' t '.r.'. _ _ f, ' ~

t h,gtyleNED\\ a'b !!.o.,.Sp;Qt AR eoject:

Waterfor_d*SES,_ Unit 3 >(, yg3 6497 es t ilo. 4 C l i e n't : Ebasco Services, Inc. Te s 't 1.o c a ti o n E9 Go A/ 2 74~ Fill fio. _ 5' Tes t Depth W. f .Date, loJItll-[lr ~- f G.S. Eleva tion *.' - 36. fC. Time of Tes t ' // M ~ Tes t E1 Eva tion - 3 7, o o - Volumeter I.D. W 69 S c a l e* 1. D.ff*072 0 v e nn I. D..T._ Sampie 1.D. M/_Ss-bwfB POMP l W 4/o. S p. e e dy ' I. D ; W-/93 1. W t o f C a n 5 ' D a mp S o i l,

0. 01,,1 b.

S. 5' 9 - ,,4. Volume of Tee

- 0.C)'7

'11 ole: 2. Tare lit. of Can, 0.01 lb: 3. !!et Wt. of Damp Soi1, O.01 1b.

3. 6f 03'3 2.

ft ~' ~ S p e e Ely 14015 t u re,- 62.0 /75,c g ( 4 ) C84.sCO FIGL D A CC G P TA N C.G OV El{ DRY 5.

Tare lio.

Retes t Required:Z-Ye 6.. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm.- T fio 601.' Wt. Ta re & Dry' Soil, gm. - Re tes t o f 1.'a'b lio2evoi/5dd'4 and Da te _pr/[#//[ 8. Wt. Water, gm. '9. Wt. Ta r e,1. g m. S p e ci fi c a ti o n R'e q u'i r e me'n.t . 10,.,, Wt. o f D ry S,o i'l, gm. of'Compac ion ff _ _ _': ' 11. Ito i s t u re Co n tit rit (8/10) . O 14cet.s oes teAsto a t z<2 W' W,,D,o t..!4cc t. Sp. p &w srec.. i th e rs <- 3% a c.w oonws '_f//ttlW. DA TC / lio i's t u r e lie t Dry Reference lia x i'mu m Optimum Desree z., Density De n s i ty Curve lio. Density liois ture. Compact Content ._.__ q. 7 z. .. g_.. 3 V[ x los.o 93.3 3(, I 9' /a6 y I ~_) 8 --_)- D .) @ r --- 3 7-lb/ft. lb/ft l b/ f t., leprdcpxco wo sirer. Remarks: EA s t' w. t. ~ c (EE___BC16I A RR1229 Tes ted ByCN Calcula ted By M Checked

By lHAM Reviewed Byd Emp.flo.

'5W 5'- Emp. 11 0. 3 TNT Emp. fl o. Bret._._Emp.flo. ss Determined in field ( Determined after lab vertfication Q. A. REVIEW Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available gp % uet wt/% dry wt p DATE l0-IV-7 O O n

i \\, / I n-P l a c e De n s i ty T e s t-R ubb e r B a l l 0..o.n - I es Joe,y qsi,ng Test Stenda rd as114 02 2.s7 . 4:'.'.!?.'. ' _h ' '

~

= ( roj c,c t : Wa t e r f oj-_d

S E

_ Unit RINlEWEk1.a'b N.o.,b M ~ C 1 i e n't : Ebasco Services, 2'IE. p.6497 9 I_n_ Tes t ilo. 10 Tes t 1.oca tion -E4 lo0Al Fill No. 6'

s

.Date. lo//3[:7b Tes t Depth 6,6 G.S. El e v a ti on * +37,00 Time of Tes t 'l440 Tes t El Eva tion -37.'26 Vol ume te r-I.,0. PFistl S c a l e I. D. PEO'7b O v e nt:I. D..,_C_ Samkle I.D. Miss e vee,. Pump - rAN ti Sp e e dy I. D :: " PT-/93_ 1. Wt of Can 5 Damp Soil, 0.01 lb.

3SO' 4 '.

Volume of Tes 2. T a r e 14 t. of.Can, 0.01 lb: ~ 0 o7 Itole: 3. Ne t Wt. of Damp Soi1, O.01 lb. 3.13 . w.7 03 '2 ~7 ,,f G ~ Speedy 14oi s ture,- WI /O'1 % ( 4 ) ~- C64SCO FIGl ti'MCCf~P TA N C.G OVEN DRY .,. ~ . c S. Tare No. - Retest Required: " YG --.,. S - NE 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm. M 7.' Wt. Tare & Drf Soil, gm. ~- R e tes t o f -l a:b NoSo ro he s.

n. _.

8. Wt. Water, gm. a n d --D.a te /44.3,/g g '9. Ut. Tare,'gm'.- Sp eci fi ca ti on ' R' equi reme'n.G 10. Ut. o f D ry S.o i'1, gm. of 'Compa cti on 99 E -~ 11. Mois t ure Con terft (8/10) M- . El lieel es flot !*.cet Sp EeAsto u A/ W ~L&i. snc. t t>v rs <- 3% a nw oonum OA T E' __ J W / W Z.d;*. Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maxi' mum . 0p t i mu'm Desree ,._ _.__ _ _ _.. D e n s i t y Content De n s i ty Curve No. D e n s i ty -- 'lio. li. t u r e Compac' 7..____. .g _.-_ _. 7 g.g. _ __ g 3 l /,2, y /!9,/ cT1,4 '34 N N. 1b/ft. 1,b/ f t ,,tL ).'_#'g L_)2..g ...LI.' 3- ,_ _ __: 3 3_ 1b/fts Rcearks: GA9f" WAcc k.n acecocFi MG-Di fc4 ' ~ ~ .Se 6f).10I) 222 R k.---- Tested By Calcul a ted By C.D Checked By. N Reviewed Byg Emp.No. 39 W Emp. No. 3-49 5-Emp. No. -giv n Emp.No. c (. 1) Determined in field M5o * - * ' ' ' Determined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available 4) % wet wt/% dry wt By}. [2 DATE_fD 7f,_

[ ( /,,. I n,P l a c e De n s i ty T e s t..R ubb a_r B a l l oo.n . GG,00C y gs,un9 rest st6dard ASM 'D21.67 3 .L.1!.r.w..0 e.r *._ _,,- 2_ _-- _ _. _ -. ~. - ? j l Waterford*SES Unit 3

1. a'b N.o.

Boot ARE9_e l ( oj,'ect: 4 Cl ic ret: Ebasco Services', Iy f. . Test No. lo I k,. Fill No. - 6~ Te s t ' t.o c a ti o n E4 (,ord 2'l E' .Date, foll3/7(a - Tes t Depth

6. 2T' G.S.

E l e v a ti on * ~5'7.co. Time of Tes t if 08 Tes t E1Eva tion

57. 2<'

Volumeter I.D. PT-163 S c a l e I. D.9T-Ci'Ib,0 v e n ti l. D.. _'~~ Sample I.D. wss gw w.e PumF ho. Speedy'I.00 " PT:-193 1. Wt of Can 5 Damp Soil, 0.01..lb. 344 - 4. Volume of Test ,s. 0.o7 1{o j e : 2. Ta re lit. of Can, 0.01 lb. 3 '3. Ne t if t. of Damp Soil, O.01 lb. 3.67 _.Q34o ft Speedy lio t s ture,. ISS /lko %(4) C845CO FIEL D A CC EP TA NC.G OVEN DRY ~. _ _ - - R e te s t Re. k u. i r,e.,%_.,[*Yes 5. ' Tare No. ..-- d: 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm. ~ No l'Q;'." W t. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. Re tes t o f 't.'aE No rf9aevM and"Date-p g p 8. Wt. Water, gm. " 9. Wt. Ta r e, 'g ni., Speci fi ca ti on Requi reme'n..t, 10,.,, U t. of Dry S.o'il, gm. of Compactio'n 99,,,_% 11. Ilois ture Conterft. . O I.eets tdoes Hot !*$ct Spec ^ (%/10) (GA$lo GL WO A eob s. SI'Fc. t t>1t r $ ti a ss an.w conmn op.g .,.g,3.gz ltoi s t ure Uet Dry Reference 14axi' mum Optimum' OcQrce o ,.._____e.. Density.. _. _ _ _ - D e n s i ty ~ Content . Curve No. Density I*oisture-Compacti _. __ _.. )., z.g.___ m'---~ l'O "'.-" 3 (I3.0 9'M 34 10 f 14'.'.t 44' ~ /6,o x Cgs ,,, L._), _@ _)_14.I G ,)_ _ _. _.. 3_ ,_ _ _._3 3._ l b/ f t. 1,b/ f t 1b/fts Remarks: E/61' WAu. W Af CefTo0M HJG Chlfd4 'N .2e GowtA Nn__ Tested By C%noQ Calculated By hhlck; Checked By m'Unw Reviewed By/g Emp.No. 3%f-Emp. No. %s. Emp. Ilo. _ s#W Emp.No. _.gi; (, ( Determined in field M8 o io-m-w Determined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW Use oven dry for calculations, when available % wet wt/% dry wt BY M S w h av DATE I O -l 9-7. /,.. n n ' e.i r, r..... nnnn

( ( f.,. I n-Pl a ce Densi ty Tes t.R ubber Ba l_100_n

06,.

,y'h,8, DOC 3 COU ' Test Stindard ASTM D2167 . b. '.t!.r.'..= .A e ' ' ~ j (' oject: 11a terford

SES Uni t 3

. # ' l. b !!.o. Bofot A E NREVIEWED 's.. - C l i e n't : Ebasco Services, Inc. 4 T ..o W3 6497 c s t !!o. Tes t Loca tion E4 (o0N 2 / E- ' f/ 11 g{o, S-oM Tes t Deplth .Date, to//sf7/p G.S. E l e v a t i on l, - 37 00 Time of Tes t 'c95o Tes t E1 Eva tion -31'2s-Vol ume te r I.D. FT'-t#4 Sample I.D. u,a, ewee powre _ S c a l e

I. D. FF o74 0 v e nit I. D.. ~~.,,_

sw o., }, S p e e dy

I. D : " #r-/ 9_S 1.

14t of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 349 4. Volume of Test r.- 2. T a r e 1.it. o f,C a n, 0. 01 l b : o.e 7 ~ liol e : 3. tie t_14 t. of Damp S' oil, 0.01 lb. 2.4 t . o ~3 t '2_. ft 3 Speedy llois ture,- I2 6 M-(/. % ( 4) C84.sCO fit =L D A CC E P TA N C.G OVE ' dry Retest Require'd: Yes S. Tare 11o. 6. tit. Tare & 11e t Soil, gm. rio [ {[ 11t.

Tare & Dri' Soil, gm.

Re t es t o f 1.'a b lio.,,cro-eug 8. If t. l lla t e r, gm. and Date,p /,y/fg;,, 9. li t. Tare, 9:5.. r s ~ Speci fi ca ti on R' qui re'me'n t ~ e 10,.,, li t. ' o f D ry S,o i') g m. of Compactio'n fl9' _ _J ~~ 11. Mois ture Conte:Et (8/10) . O Meets rf60es !!ot Meet Spec. CEA$to'Gc _ N'. c -^ SPEC.Llhlr5 ^^ = <. 3% om opnwn om.g ,ag,g,, !1o i s t u re tie t Dry Reference Iia x i'mu m Optimum Dc9ree of Content-<* Density Density Cu rve lio. De ns i ty liois ture Compactic z. N fl' M.Ll ~ g IO9.lo //ir;2' '3M g ,__9_5.S_3 . t.,),S"g .._)_ 14.I j_6 8 3_ _._3_. 1b/ft-1,b/ f t ib/fts Remarks: M 9T' W Alt. WA1'eesxtoci@ -rqucy. t S t*! GoloI A WRt TostedByh Calculatod By C D Checked By ct. evic ed 8 E m p. fl o. ~ 1 M 5'- Emp. 11 0. 3M Emp. 110. s o.- Emp.110. g g,, (1 Determined in field MAoio-m-w q ( 2 Determined af ter lab verification Q. A. REVIEW (3 Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available (4 % wet wt/% dry wt sy'h. UV j , DATE 10 -19 7A _ @i v.

l In-Place Densi.ty Tes t-Rubbor Bal1 Con 3 i i , C6i00Gy QS.un9 Test Stindard ASTM D2167 i P.:\\'.' r.'. - f g c. n.. h.h - ---- ( cject: 1.Saterford'SES Unit 3 o,'r<.' l.ab fl.o.,_foratAo In Test flo. .M Client: Ebasco Services, '2 IE (_. REVI, EWE Test' Location E4 W4 W3 6497 Fi11 tio. 5- ' ov2 5~ Tes t Dep,th .Date, iollsl%- G.S. E l e v a t i o n, '-37.00 Time of Test

O927' Tes t E1Eva tion s7.'25' Volumeter I.D.

P T~~ f f 4 '. S c a l e I. D. PI'-o*76 0 v e ni11. 0.. ~~ Sa mpl e I. D. _mps, ewe.R 90mp muo S p. e e dy ' I. 0 ; '" P7~-193 1. 14 t o f C a n & D a mp S o i l, 0. 01.l b. J. 43 - 4. Volume of Tes t * 'r.

- 0 0 7 11ol e :

2. T a r e 1.f t. of Can, 0.01 lb: 3. N e t 14 t. o f Da mp S'oi l,

0. 01 l b.

3.3 (o .030fi~ ft 3 Speedy l4o i s ture,- N 0 /'3 b % (4) C84.$CO Fl&L D ACC E P rn NC.G OVEN DRY-._ 5. Tare No. ~ _ _, _ Retest Required: ['Yes 6. li t. Ta re a lle t Soil, gm. lio gy Wt. Tare & Dry' Soil, gm. Retes t of 1 ab No. gotot ( 8. Ift. 11a te r, gm. and Date,tple3hle _

9.

Wt. Tare, gm., Sp ec i fi ca ti on R eq ui re me'.n.t,

10., lit. of Dry S, oil, of Compac. tion 89 Y,

11. 1101 s t u re C o n U rft,gm. ErdoEes, N t Mpet (8/10) . O Meet-sne. u>a~rs < e m o a c d m y fs f a g p & -..... a 1% ao.w conws g, n,4 y g. lio i s t u re !!e t Dry Reference Maxi' mum Op ti mu m Desree of , Density Density Curve No. Density lioi s tu re Compact.io Content . __ _.. ).,

z. g. _ __.

.g. .g_.... I3.b /Io.e 97,o sy ,\\ x M'I [ g ,, L. ))- 3_ _ _) 34I .) C5, = .__3_ 3 lb/ f t. 1.b/ f t lb/fts Weu.o_ warrecpd,r, #8 4G Remarks: A.Asf bifcu S.C.E.. B.0 r il m Te s t ed By (b.bgCa l c ul a te d By (- M~ Emp.-h e c k e d By dE_c Emp. flo. %44f,,Emp. No. 34df No. 3:3w Emp.No. g i.y ~ (1 Determined in fleid ( ? Determined af ter lab verification Q. A. REVIEW 3 Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available k4 % uct ut/% dry wt ay) [ DATC IO *I(15/_l,._ s

F ( 'l \\, f In-P1 ace Densi ty Tes t-Rubbor Balic a b5CCb:y QO,dO = ie 3

E...C'.*- P p i h.! -___h_

Tes t Sta*hdard ASTM D2167 s

t

~ ~

j Waterford'SES Unit 3: 1. a'b !!.o.

Solor A ) C l i[,e c t :E b a s c o S e bc e s_,__I_n_c.,REVIEWE Test tio. 2 iht: ~ Tes t 1.oca tion G4 lochl '2.~i C W3 fA975 Fi l l fio.

S" Tes t Depth c. 'i. f

.Date, /0[I3/7/a i G.S. E l ev a ti on.-31. 00 Time of Test ' 0 8 3 5-~' Vol ume te r I. D.,PT-lG4 Tes t E1Eva tion ~51 2 s' S c a l e' !. D. PFO% O v e n til. D. P_[-)31 Sample I. D. Oss RtVe2 pump samo Sp e e dy I. 0 :; " PT-89 3 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. SM- ",,4. Volume of Test 0" ' Hole: 2. T a r e 1.4 t. of Can, 0.01 lb: 3 3. I!c t W t. of Damp Soi1, O.01 lb. 3.Gl .03M fL Speedy Mois ture - u.2 //2.6 %(4) C845CO FIEL D ACC C Pin NC.G OVEtt DRY S-Ta r e flo. "' ~ F ___, Rotest Required: [ Y e s 6. ti t..T a r.c _ 4_U p t..S o i l, g m. h 7.. 5 !!o > O.' Ht. Tare [~DiSoil,gm. (,17. 0 R o t e s t.o f 1. a'b llo. 8. Wt. Water, gm. 9 4. 5_. and Date __ - ,~ tu Speci fica tion Requi renc'nt '9. Wt. Tare, gm.. e 10,.,, Ut. of Dry Soi'1, gm., /oco, S o f C o m p a c t i o n,_ ff_,,,,J . O Meets idoes llot Meet Spec 11. 1101 s t u re C o n t eift (8/10) /4'.1 (CA$to UL / & r~h $ <W W " ~ SPFL.LO1tr3 o /. 3% n 0M CollMM og yg lffg7},,,,___,,,, !;oi s t u re Wet Ory Reference Ilaximum Optimum Doorce o Content Ocosity Curve flo. Density lio t s ture Compactii ,_ _..__ _ _ _ e *. O c n s i t y _..._ q.. ).,

z. g._ _

.g 3 N i d.1 llo./ g,s 34 \\@ ~ 9' oLJ.f_g LJ b.g 1.)4Y' g g 1b/f tb 1,b/ f t ib/ftd 3 P.cma r k s : re,T' wAt.c warecremviuo en fc4 Te s t e d By hh C a l c ul a te d By Q#t _g C he c k e d Dy di u kR o v i cued Byt@ Emp.flo. NW Emp. Il o. 39 W Emp. Ilo. '.s v t E m p. fl o. 1 Octermined in field g(2 Octermined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW {3-Use oven dry for calculations, when availabic - (4 % uct ut/% dry ut OYb f_ DATE.M 8 176_l e e m

~ 3 , gt\\_jg...._._.........__.....__.._..........q ,C8',CCb,yQ8k.OC d T6s t Stalidard ASTli 0216N ---_~. -.d ...li.'.'.M w. $.r a h :.3 Bwosecoe ( r o j,,e c t': 1,J,a t e r f o r d * 'i E S,,,U_n i t 3_ l.ab !!,o.,_piW_edt" r# efg f C 11 c n't : Ebasco Service,s, Inc. Test No. O Tcs t I.oca tion

EV l CA/

'2SE Fill No. _ .5'" Tes t Depth d. 2 5"" .Date, _ /08,'//76 G.S. Eleva tion

4 E5'o Time of Test
/ 2 'S o -

Tost Ele'vation - 3 f=.'W Volumeter I.D. / /'-I.f# S c a l e

I. D. pT-o72. 0 v e n t11. D.. ~,,,,_

Sacp,1c I.D. s.4,ess inte.dt Fueo 9 S p. e e dy ' I. O. F7'-19 3 sau c> " 1. W t o f C a n 5 D a mp" S oi l, 0. 01..l b. 3.49 - ,,. 4. Volume of Tec

- o.o'?.

Ito3e: 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb: 3. Ilo t. W t. o f D a mp S'o i l, 0. 01 l b. S.W. . o 29 st (t S'pifcify 11o15 ture 13.9 /Ifael % (4) C645CO FifL U ACcCPin Nc.nr OVEN 0,Ry

i. 'Tato No.

- - ~, _ _,, Retest Requirod: " Yo .:-~-. t.I T a r e & lie t S o i l, g m.' No W 6. .nd.n-R e t es L o f 1.ab No.ycntrgyq. j {,f s W tg..T a r e & O r.y' S o l l, g m. ~ ~ .mt 4, 8. Wt. llater, gm. a nd Da te _gg/u/g '9. Wtr Tare,*gm' Sp ec i (I c a t i o n R'cq u i re mo'.n.i 10,.,, W t.. o f D ry S,o l'1, gm., o f ' Compa c t i o n g_,,,) 11. 11ois ture Contorft (8/10) . E3 Iicots Ehfoes, !! b !.'.cc t Sp. sert. uRor s ceAsto uc. d D W Aker.. '~ _,sje, A 0OVf Cl'fIMM g4 y g. f,,loj g }_ y g, A. lioi s tuvo lie t Dry Reference 11a x i mum Optimum DcQrco C o n t e n.t Density Curvo llo. Ocnstty 11015ture Conpac ..f., Density .___ q. 7 z.3.)._ _y. 3 S b' 9 /4, / g'- //fe9 c)9,9 9 l b-) #g, s cP -'S r 7 lb/ft. 1,b/ f t Ib/ftC Remarks:

_s35, wa,.g_,tymewoor a:, oe rea hr-.RatuiA.t:ue,.

-.._._......].-__-.._.... TcstedByGd.,26 Ca l c ul a ted By (k_, C ho~cked By ggtrc_Rev1 cued Cap.flo. ,244s-Cmp. No.

Mus Cmp. No.

,_,3,LegC m p. N o. .cn L ( Octermined in field .(, ( Octormined after lab verification ( Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available Q. A. REVIEW -( % uct wt/% dry wt DY@ ~- DATC,)p.jg__ g _

\\ / [ c.Pla'co Densi ty Tcs t-Rchbar 8a11600 ,@?t!')b,yI8k.OC A T6st Stalidard ASTH D2167 9 C t.:' ts.ep.f r,.n... ' ~L ^ 88//4 Ace 'rbj,3c t : Ha t o r f o r d

S_g,5,_U,n i t 3_,'

l.ab ll,o.,gt 3 % dob,.tr/ ( C 11 o n't : Ebasco Service,s, 1,n,c,,. Tost flo.

~7 Tos t 1.oca tion ' EV (l,oA/

~21rar" Fill No. 'S~~' Test Oepth c.2 1r'* .Date 75I2[I' /o/N/76 3 G.S. E l e v a t i on ' - 3(, 5"o Time of Test

/ 2 '2.o
Te s t E 1 o'v a t I o n

- 1(e."15" Volumet.er I.D. #F/W Sacp1e I.0. M/u b*'me.. AMW'. 5cale'I.D./A'072.0venwir9,.,_" $AMO S g e e dy

I. D. ';fI /9'.S Wt of Can i D. imp Soil, 0.01..lb.

3.93 .r. 4. Volume of Tot 1. 2. Ta re,1.4 t. o f,Ca n, 0. 01 l b : 0 07 llol e : 5. Ilot Wt. of Damp S' oil, 0.01 lb. S'.76, .0 SET f Speedy Mols ture.. 'M'T/l'IN % ( 4 ) reesto Fot't.D Acc rPin Nt.nP OVEN DRY

5. *Tara lio.

Retest Required: Yi 6. Wt. Ta r e & 110 t S o i l, g m.* - N. ~

7."

Wt. Tare & Dr,y* Soil, gm. ' R o t e s t o f 1.a,"b No$.N. F (~,8.

~~

t. 11a ter, gm.

/

and Date,fo g g '9. Wt. T a r e, ' g m '., 'Speci f1 ca ti on R' q u remo'.n. o o f 'Compa c t 1 o'n .:lP R,, c 10,.,. Wt. of Dry S,oi'), gm., 11. Hoisture Contedt (8/10) . O l'cetsA, Does. !! f,Mo t Sr srrt. a shor s temo uc ^ ..r: ~.12*.L?!!.f * *" oA1r rygg.... lioi s t u ra llo t Dry Re foranco lla ximum Optimum DoCroo ..<*,Donsity De n s i ty .Curvo No. Density lloistu*e Compac Content l .,. 7 m.. g .9 5.y //.t/.(, %t, ,3(, 9 .,d J.# p d.x2....LI y _/ 1,b/(E,. . Ib/(M _. .J.. .e lb/f tY- ~ Romarks:

tM*r k'A I.D W A rn'Mo*'M b m H'

$tC-.[kQ)}L$ ERR Tes tod By M Calcula ted By f,;; l Checked *By 41%hRovIowedY.. y' Ecp.No. ,Wi s' Emp. flo. 'M 9 r~ E mp. N o. ~..,,_,.3.ufEE m p. H o. .r I' Datormfned In field 1(~ / Dotormfnad after lab verification d Use ovon dry for calcula tf ons, when available. Q. A. REVIEW i I, % uot wt/% dry wt BY M,0 DAfrja,-fJc./k

I e \\, / n Place Den.si ty Tes t. Rubber Ball 6on = , 3 5,0 0 G,,,_ ?:!.r.w.Oc.r.~y QSing j$ ' g T6st Stindard ASTM D216N .h-.--'-

.--...c 4

~ ,4cwoArc. f roject: Haterfor_d'SES_ Unit 3

1. a b U.o.

,e c / a C M r-9,sblesfy f CliciEt: Ebasco Services, Inc. Tes t No. '..- f ' f,oi e-n _ _ ] Tes't 1.oca tion EY (.ocM/ M8 Fill No. '- #f ~1 Test Depth

6. 25-.

. Da te, MFM4 I ~ G. S. - El e v a ti on "-M-@ ~ Time of Test WFC ~ j . V.o l ume te r I. D. #7--As P' '. _j Tes t El Eva tion -3(e,75 ' Samkle ~ I.D. M.r.s-huse Nmp S c a l e I. 0 8474 -O v e n til. D..T__.) s4.r/a S p e e dy I. D. " W-/9.3 1., Wt of Can 5 Damp Soil, 0.01.lb. 3.'7C7- '.. 4. Volume of Tes

- C) o 'l Ho3e:

2., Tare.Ut. of,Can, 0.01 lb: 5.- Ne t W t. of-Damp Soi1, O.01 1b. 3 'M!. eD 312. _ft speedy Mois ture',- I b.0 /9 0 -% ( 4) <.r C84.SCO FIEL. D A CC E P TA N C. G OVEN DRY. "~ S. T a r e N_o.. _... _.. Retest Required: -~ Ye 26.. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm?- No ' Tare &;Dri' Soil, - ((.' gm. - Re te s t o f 1.'a,b No.,N,Nt'f Wt. 8. Wt. Mater, gm. /o,hW74 and Date 'g. Wt. Tare,'gml. ~. Speci fica ti on R' equi reme r.t 10,.,, Wt. o f D ry S,o i'1,,gm. .~ of'Compac ion f.9 _ _1 11. Hoisture Conteit (8/10) . O Hects Does Hot !*.cqt Sp ~ SPEC.Lthir5 CBA$CO GL N / flW&_ e L-3%_ A CM CPit!'.CM ggyg jpp,gj_f_ Mc i's t u re Wet Dry Reference Maximum Opiimum Degree Content . Density Density C u r v e N o. -- Density Moisture Compac1 c*..----. -~ p.\\ h-a. s Aq / 9.l> g [$9.Q JCO.1 4 g =... 7 1.b/,f,t .,.L. )f',t,. _ _)-- ...)--.. 1 b/ f t. 1b/ f Resua y hs : BAST ~ LUAd luA'Me%F2c/C CWd $1e @DII ARR c Tes ted By d$.NMal cul a ted By 6 (

C h e c k e d - By ~ umzec-Reviewe[

Emp.No. sque Emp. No. -344 f Emp. No. si m._ Emp.No. sIi-(1) ' Determined in field ^ ~ (' (2) . Determined after lab verification O A REVIEW E /) gg h(/ (3) Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available /J _ - (4) % wet wt/% dry wt g DATE1/)"I F 7S 1 L-

k,

f g@ y In-Place Densi ty Tes t-Rubber Bgil6on

.,GG :iOC y

QS t..n t e.

A c,. - n 9 Test Standard asTi4 Dais 7 _.__.c . b w 'o A - ( 'roject: Haterford*SES U_ nit 3 1.a b !!.o. M 77J- /o//s-/_m.__ <' C l i e n't : Ebasco Services, ! _n c. Tes t No. 3 - Te s t 1. o c a t i o n 'E'/ GoA) 29E~ Fill No. S~- C Test Depth b.25' .Date /o?'#/g I G.S. El e v a ti on ~ 4 3/o SO Time of Test ~ /'O 90 Tes t El Eva tion - 3 /a. 7 f' Volumeter I.D. M Mf '. _c Sa mp;l e I.D. Mrs.c 4 sce pc/mf S c a l e E. D.W-d% O v e n;;I. D..,_. 51 Airs " Sp e e dy I. D : " P71/9.5 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3.35' 4. Volume of Teg ..r - 2. T a r e 1.4 t. o f,Ca n, {). 01 l b :

- O 0 7 Ho3e:

3. H e t lit. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. S. SF. ,oS/4~~ (0 b 2 S'peedy Mo i s ture,-

4/E3/% (4)

OVEN DRY. - - SCO FIEL.W.A Cc SP TA NC G C 5. Tare No. Retest Require'd: Yc l 6. Wt. Tare & Met Soil, gm. N3 YU.', Wt. Tare & Q ry' Soi 1, gm. Retes t of 1'ab Ho. = ~ y 8. Wt;- Ha ter, gm.-- and Date '9. U t. - Ta re, ' g ml.. Specifica tion R' equi reme n.i 10,. Wt. o f D ry S,o'il, gm. T o f 'Compa c ion 11. Moisture Conteit (8/10) '. O Heets (?/ _ _S ~ Does Not: Meet Sp ~ ~ cessto at - A >*V Ad ' spec.1thurs _: _. c _t,L%_defca " o.s rr h // W M _. Moisture Wet Dry Reference Ma x i'mu m Optimum Degree Content . Density De n s i ty Curve No. Density Moisture C o nip a c 0'b-sq,Y

13. / g IC4'./

92.o ^p 1 y .e g r 3 ,,s.L 1-r }

k..)N2 lb/ft.

1,b/ f t . lb/ft. Reaarhs: EASf* IM La MYbe.fwscCr-Dsit4 ~ ~ IC-RO.l.10 ? TestedByW Calcula ted By bD Checked-By Te-Reviewed By l Emp.No. 3445-Emp. No. 3%r Emp. No. aisu Emp. No. 5 (1) Determined in field l t. (2) Determined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEVJ r .( 3 ) Use oven dry for calculations, when available. (4) % wet wt/% dry wt b gy // DATEJ 01 P' 7b a i

( \\, ) In. Place Density Test-Rubber Balloon 3;eacot s.un b e rew - q.r._y,.g, g Test Standera ASTa 021s7 ( 'r.oj ec t: Waterford*SES Unit 3

1. a'b fl.o.

BOO 90 A RfE. ~ Client Ebasco Services, Inc. Q Tes t.No. I Te s t 1.o c a tko n E.'E W 27E fy hhill ~ No.. Test Uepth 1 O' .Date, IO/I'2./7[p. G.S El ev a ti on 7 5~. Time of Test 0930 Test Elevation - 3b. 76~ - Volumeter I. D. PT-I W S c a l e' I. D. FT-072.0 v e nn I. D.. 21 Sample I.D. Mtss Rwee Pomp sAr4h Speedy I. D 'P7-19 3 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. SS9 ,4. Volume of Test O.07 Ho3e: 2. Ta re lit. of Can, 0.01 lb 3 .i. Het Wt. of Damp SoiI, 0.01 1b. 3.96 .O 327. ft Speedy Mois ture,- @'b /M % ( 4 ) ~ = [81SCO FIEL D ACCEP TA NC.G OVEN DRY ~ ~ ~ ' ST Tare No. Retest Required:

Yes

~ ~ 6... Wt., Tare &-Wet Soil, gm. g No 1 6Y7 m W.t. TaFe & Dry Scil, gm. ~ Retes t of 1.ab No. w 8.; W t.- Water, gm. and Date ~~ '9. Wt. Tare, gm.. Speci fi ca ti on R' qui reme'n..t, e 10,., Wt. of Dry Soil, gm. of Compactio'n ff 1 1.. Moisture Content (8/10) g Meets O Does Hot !*.cet Spec < spFL.LlhoT5 [8A.5C O GC. O N Y&m-.. oA T'f ' l*# l/ W Z d- <- 3% aow cpnmn Mo'i's t u re Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree o- .-o. Density De n s i ty Curve No. D e n s i ty Moisture Compactic Content . g. _ _ }lf,tj g \\ 1.b~1 /Ols.lf g \\D N I. 0 '4 g IH h )1?N1 I 3 j.l(_.M 1 lb/ft. lb/ft lb/ft Remarhs: WAT&EMa FrNG TiebdCM RKXfML A2&A. Tested By td d Calculated By h. b O Che.cked By i Reviewed B A Emp.No. 34 W Emp. No. .999 f Emp. No. agi Emp.No. 23 (1) Determined in field " (.. (2) Determined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW (3) Use oven dry for calculations, when available ~ - (4) % wet wt/% dry wt BYb bOQ DATE 10-/ k-7/, t.. n en "a nDnC no C7C?

X- ./' In-Place Density Test-Rubber Balloon 3 3 XN300G,y,~gS,ung Test Standard : ASTM D21.67 t.u rn 4,5.. .s

s

( 'roject: Waterford? SES ~ Unit 3

1. a'b N o., M cAe

~ C l i e n't : Ebasco Services, I nc. - Q est No. Q. hil1 No. f I -iTes t 1.oca tion '&f-424), 2.7.c: Tes t Depth 'o. o .Date, .to ltil% G. S. IEleva tion - SG, l C. Time of Test 30 6 3G.. i f - - Vol ume ter I. D. _ Pr - t C/ Tes t El Evation S c al e I. D. Pro 22-O v e n t:I. D.. Sample I.D. Kss &vsr:L_- fo-P s ordo Speedy I.D; " ' 9 719'a> 1. Wt of Can & Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb. MOO - ,,4. Vol ume of Test " ,g7 Hole: .2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb - .3. Ne t Wt. of, Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 6,93' . 036 o f t 5peedy Moisture. lleb /iD. % (4) ' ~~ ~~~.' '- ~~- C84.SCO FlWD A Cc E P TA N C.6 OVEN DRY e-Retest Required: /*Yes 5. Tare No. 6. Wt. Tare & Wet-Soil, gm. ,_; M 4 No L A 7. Wt. Tare & Dry' Soil, gm. . R e t es t o f L.a b, No.,eweM d a n d.,. D ate" - a/e/7d' 8. Wt. Water, gm. l '9. Wt. Ta re,* g m.. Speci fi ca ti on _ Requi reme'n t s r 10,., Wt. of Dry Soi'l., gm. of Compaction 9MP ~ 11. Moisture Content (8/10) O f".eets Erd'oes Not 4*.cet Specc ~ '-'~~~ SPEC.Lthors E9A.StO GL W E A A ' U - ~... L 3% aem opnmn DA TF PD/'4/L Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maxi' mum Optimum Degree o3 Content . Density De n s i ty Curve No. Dens i ty -" ~lioi s tu re-- Compa c tig ~ M h Bd x lCAA (1, k '3V l cs t

j. L._)I *i

_1 M4 k)k.'b_. l lb/ft lb/ft Ib/ft Romarks: hr 'l3 m Q9tet A>d ferrstr~ _________,_,,[, e _.I ~ r Tested ByhmunMalculated B cconcidtrecked By %1Revi ewed By r#Cb l [ Emp.No. Nu( Snp. No. sq u fEmp. No.. 3telt4mp.No. m (1) ' Determined in field i l (2) Determined af ter lab verification (, Q. A. REVIEW ' (3) Use oven -dry for calculations, when available l - (4) % -wet wt/% dry wt Bb M VU DATE /O-/ fR 7(] n c.vwuaat.fum

) In. Place Density Test-Rubber Balloon ',0;'ithere. 00Gy'-~QS,ung i Test Standard ASTM D21.67 .. A.9.. (.roje.ct:.

s Waterford'SES Unit 3

1. a'b !!.o.

6co9oA-C l i e'n t : Ebasco Services, Inc. Test No. '8 Tes t 1.oca tion EC-4.2 A), 27g Fi11 No. 6 Test Depth C,0 4

Date,

/o[u-/7(o /YW G.S. Elevation - %.7 5 Time of Test Volumeter I.D. ?T' K4 '. Tes t E1 Eva tion - 3fo,'7 f Sample I.D. [-{tSS 60cr4 @uvW9 S c a l e

1. D. PTCO2.Ov e n t:I. D.(~--

QO Speedy I.D: ' W (93 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3./3 - ,,,4. Volume of Tes t ' 2. Tare Ut. of Can, 0.01 lb:

- io 7 Hole:

3 3. Het Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3 6/o ' d> 2.96 ft '~_' Speedy Mois ture.- 9rb //0,6% ( 4) ~ E*8ASc0 FIEL. D A CC E P TA N C. G OVEN DRY 5; Tare No. Retest Required: Yes 6.- Wt. Tare &.. Wet Soil, gm. H. No ( $I^. Wt. Ta r e &"-4rp S o i l, gm. Retest of 1.ab No. 8.. Wt. Water,'gm. .e and Date ~ '9. Wt. Tare, gm.. Speci fi ca ti on R' equi reme'n.t s 99 10., Wt. o f D ry S.o i'1, gm. of Compaction 11. Moisture Content (8/10) . O i.eets i Does Hot 7.cet Spec. SPFL. L th e r$ C2AMo ac eW % Y& -. 'Y l7S L 3% AeM Unmn D4TS T Mo i,s t u r e Wet Dry Reference Maximum Op ti mum Degree of Content . Density Density Curve No. Density lio i s t u re C ompa c ti c --.- o i % {Ds- $6-b b j.I_ 1 _ p t 3 3 3~- k.) 3 lb/ft.. lb/ft lb/ft Remarks: b Sc>ogodR For dfNT* i Tested By b b culated By b dheck'ed By n Reviewed B Emp.No. 34c.K Emp. No. g y,t/ 5' Emp. No. 3t9 2 Emp.No. m (.. (1) Determined in field I (2) Determined af ter lab verification Q. A. REVIEW -( fie Bh[jf it/ r t u MEjp-p y-7g c r,- n m "n 9R09 no.A7C?

In-, lace'Dencity Test-Rubb0r Balloon Peaf52y es'ing Tost Stenaara 3STx D21s2 ,30,_0, l [.T ~7A 9 2 t - 7 4 ( roject: Waterford SES Un'it 3/ dy,No. bOC 9 k [tgtos 7ohJ i ........ -. = ..Ebasco Services Iqb., gTehtNo. 2. Client : --l b.AJ, 15$ 11 No. NT3 Test Location t 4 Test Depth ~~ U $T ate i 2. ~7(o

,;7j.9 p b;S-Elevation Time of Test

'"~~ ~ Test' Elevation' - %.40 Volumeter I.D. Lt2<,.o G l b N Sample I.D. bf56 (UG(P Scale I.D. bp Sw Speedy I.D. 'uh 62 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. 4.31 -4. Volume of Test 2. Tare Wt..of Can, 0.01 lb. sO7 Hole: 3. Net Wt. of Dam'p Soil,- 0.01 1b. b' 'O M ~ ft Speedy Moisture, NC

f*a, Q

~ s 5. Tare No., Retest Required: Yes ,7 o 6. Wt. Tare & Wet' Soil,' gm.: N 7. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab'No. ,8. Wt. Cater, gm. &_Date' 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement 10. Wt.'of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction ,O % 11. Moisture Content (8/10) eets[]Dces Not Meet Spec. Moisture Wet Dry.' Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content' Density Density. Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction tl lo b (o (05:6 G s0 % @ i u% 1 3 3 1 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 t_ Remarks: ~ ' Technician: '( Calculated By: ( k C ecked By Emp. No.: 3i O Emp. No.: 3I3h Emp. No.: 34D % /%0. M

In-Placa' Density. Test-Rubbar BOlloon 3eab.6Cy 8 Sing v. ~ Test Standara aSTx D21s7

g303_o, R

WaterfordSESUn'it1[ h No. A - c 7.";= (tpwg pag) I -am 4 n-% ( }oject: Cli t : Ebasco Services Inc. st No. Test Location ' 42N, l Did - 11 No. ' 66 /77 Q Ll Test Depth -M 6.?f s / Date / f 2.2.76 ~ 4 G.; S : Elevation ~ Time of Test ~~ Testi Elevation ' - 36.40 Volumeter I.D. L9u s (of bM G Sample I.D. M66 IUErF Scale I.D. b96 Speeay I.D. bD 1. Wt. of Can~&~ Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. 3,7 h ~ d~. Volume of Test 2.. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. .sO7 Hole: 37/ 3D ft 3. Net Wt. of hamp' Soil, 0.01 lb. / Speedy Moisture, /2, 6 g W %s R'etest Require 5:' Yes 5. Tare No.. 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm. : No 7. Wt. Tare G Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab'No. ~ ~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date-9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requirement 10. Wt. of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction @O % OMeets d es Not Meet Spec. ~~ 11. Moisture Content (8/10) Moisture Wet Dry.'. Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content Density Density.' Curve No. Density Moisture Compaction 11lA 98,9 for.b I 'U g4 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 Remarks: ~ W o - (P_. h 4 T AS @ @ct b ' bbrsco Q (3 ' Technician:l Calculated By: __ Checked By b Emp. N'o. : ~ T l4 31 W Emp.. No.: 31 O Emp. No.: 3497 U A t

O EylEWEh LAB NO. IM W3 Wk 'N PLACE DENSITYTEST-RUBBER BALLOO:1 Pea % Test ~ I sanaow aceeusca o : Co Test Standard ASTM D2167 b ( p. Preject: Wat'erford SES Unit 3 Test No. Client: Ebasco Services, Inc. Fill No. IDh@ Test Location NN O Date O.W Tcst Depth Time of Test .O O PT-l!N G. S. Elevation Volumeter I.D. Test Elevation Scale I.D. DN OvenI.D. D Sample 1.D. fis55 K ev E R. 90rra# SAOD Speedy 1.D. , O M.,o 3 1. Weight of Can & Darr.p Soil,0.01 lb. 3'lI

4. Volume of Test Hofe:

ft D' 2. Tare Weight of Can,' O.011b. b- . 3. Net weight of Damp Soit,0.01 lb. EBASCO FIELD ACCEPTANCE Speedy Moisture.- I 2 L / %(4).._. y ~ Restest Requ, ired: Yss OVEN CRYN 5. Tare No. N Retest of 1.ab No. . 6. Weight Tar & et Soil,"ghY.' 00 8 3 N* k

E* ** "

7. Weight Tare & Dry Soil, gm. 8. Weight Water. gm. @*I 9. Weight Tare, gm. Il *l Ebasco OC W-

10. Weight of Dry Soit, gm.

'l Date

11. Moisture Content (8/10) beb SPEC. t.tMITS

< 3% Above Optimum f.%1sture Wet Dry Reference f.'.a uimum Optimum Degree of Content Density Density Curve No. Density Moistute Compaction (3) (1) (1)g-l.1 (1) 7 l (,,8 DOO g g (03' tA p.I (21 (2) (2) @ * % 1b/ft 1b/ft 3 \\4MW 3 3 tb/ft Remarks: C ASF WL WWWWG NG ' N M--- Calculated By ativ b' Checked By W AW Reviewed By MMC _ Tested By Em;:oyee No. Y ~ Emptoyee No. 3T Employee No. 38 W Empfoyee No. 5~5 ' h i1] Determined in field ' ~ Q. A. REVIEW [2] Determined af ter lab verification, [3] Use oven dry for calculations, when available y (j [4.] % wet weight /% dry weight DATE 10 7b

rso.s us. cooh os-osa

~ (..__ In-Plcca'D:naity. Tact-Rubbar Enlloon m .w 3eab5cy esting Test Secndard xSTx D21e2.. ,,,,_o, R I -d > s. s, -5 8- ? ( r.oject: Waterford SES Un'i b 3 6497. l Lab No. __ 3 0 0 ? (1 (LRW F kJ2) . A- ...f. r.:_t W Client : Ebasco Services I Test No. .4 b #2. s ,i4A3 Fill No. ' MA Tc=t Locatio'n 6~[2c[ G Date Test Depth G.S: Elevation Time of Test Testi Elevation - -- 36, z s-volumeter I.o. 2./2 c.,3 c i SCmple I.D. W s c. Q Np p Scale I.D. j_ e U g1 . 9 tkko ~ brd d Speedy I.D. . /_ E O q a, 3 1.~~ ~ W t. of.Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. ' 3,07 ' 4.Voliime of Test ~ 2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. . O ~7 - Ho l e.:....... 3. Net Wt. of. Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3,oo ,o?.Fhftf ~ Speedy Moisture,. Y, / { g. v. ........ s.-.. =---.. -- Retest Requ.tred': Yes 5. ;. Tare No... ~6.. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm.: No ~ 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry Soil, gm. R.ete,st of Lab'No. 8. Wt. Water, gm. . ~ & Date - Specification Requi,rement 9. Wt. Tare, gm. 10. Wt.'of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 9 d Q % 11. Moisture Content (8/10) e Meets ODoes No't Meet Spec. ' Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content' Density -- Density +' Curve No. - Density.. Moisture Compaction (os'a k 9(a,i 101, 3 M ,/ %

9 N, _, b 3

3 lb/ft 1b/ft 1b/ft3 M //2/] c. Remarks: Tcchnician: {/ Calc'ulated By: ~l /4 C ecked By: dPd G 0 o Emp. No.: .~4 / D Emp. No.: 3 / h.2 Emp. No. : J4 4 C-1 = SM M

In-Pleca'D nsity Tcst-Rubber B211oon >eeb.=w:y-~esing w-sc e ee ec=e ^ee-21e> .see-ee q,4 g. w -7 5-I ( :oject: Waterford SES Un'i r e#g% _{ C a 7 3 g [t.pu,)g,f f) 3 Lab No. _...=. :.= - Ebasco Services dacw3.MN Test No. . b Client : Test Location 3 - '~ >'? 6 j i s Fill No. 54 ~ Tact Depth'__ Date 6/24 f l k> G.;S - Elevation Time of Test Test Elevation ~ ~ 3b:). 2 5 Volumeter I.D. ,2. R Q C / Sample I.D. ptA s' % Q t e e_ e Scale. I.D. 1 /2 W 5~q ~ $')d-d ()'- scc d '

2 Speedy I.D.

1 /2 ( a3 (, j, = 1. Wt. of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb'. $ O.' 4. VolYine ' of. Test 2. 'Ta.re Wt..of Can, 0.01 lb. ,O7 Hole: ~ 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01_lb. 3 40 .b2h ft Speedy Moisture, l0 b ~ g h ~ 5. Tare No... Retest Required: Yes' 6. Wt. Tare & Wet ' Soil,', gm.: No Ta'e & Dry Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. 7. Wt. ~ r ~~~ 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date-9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi,rement 10. Wt.'of. Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 9[ O % ^ EdeetsCIDoesNotMeetSpec. 11. Moisture Content (8/10) Moisture Wet' Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content Density Density *' Curve No. Den si ty-Moisture Compaction (O h %

C'b b

N'f W% .Jg% /o f,7 _, 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 yp - % >j,c

174, y,q,g Remarks:

i Calculated By: M Checked By: $, ca.) l Technician: J 3 - Emp. No.: 3I7JL Emp. No.: 3/7A Emp. No.: 34'l5-

k. ) In. Place Density Tes t-Rubber Balloon CG OdyiShn9 Tes't Stahdard ASTM. D2167 P-:'i '.r.'..Oy L, -. Y.. r.o j e c t : Waterford'SES Unit 3

1. a'b N.o. 8cci97 Aft.,

~ C l i e'n't : Ebasco Services, I n (. gl%%@ Test No. 9 Tes t 1.oca tion E5' 530 2M M'Mn - Fill No. 5' ~ Tes t Depth Nb .Date, t ol l'2.[ 7 (, G.S. El eva ti on -% 7 5-Time of Test 1290 Tes t E1Eva tion - 50 9 T' Volumeter I.D. FT-Is'y S c a l~e I. D. PF-O S 0 v e n r I. D.. Sample I.D. mss gsde. ponP SND Sp e e dy I. D. PT-19 3 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 19128:

9. 2f

,,4. Volume of Test

2.

Tare.Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb o. o"7 Hole: ~ 3 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb.. 4.15' ,03So. f t Speedy Moisture..~ 12.0 /13 4 % (4) C84SCO FIEL. D A Cc E P TA N.C.G OVEN DRY 5. Tare No. , Retest Required:. Yes ~ 6... Wt. Tare &' Wet Soil, gm. [ No -~~~ I (~4. Wt. Tare & Dry Soil, gm.. Re tes t o f L a b No. Bo317Q ~ ~w 8. Wt. Water, g m. -- and Date /o/G[7S '9. Wt. Tare, gm.. Speci fi ca ti on Requi reme'n.t, 10,., Wt. of Dry S.oi1, gm. of Compaction 79 11. Moisture Content (8/10) et,E] Does Hot-Meet Spec. SPEC.LOstr5 E2A$tO Gc M "W WW' <- 3% a em c onwn g,y p y g ]y g ____ Mo i's tu re Wet Dry Reference Maxi' mum Op ti mum Degree of Content < *. D e n s i ty Density Curve No. Density Moisture Compactio h' N l h I'26.9 lto.7 OA g \\D { g I * g--

, f. )

_) 14d ' i _)_--'1 c 5' 3 3-- lb/ft. lb/ft lb/ft l Remarhs: WAT'f2f' Arf /MG 1&>JkJ/ 842nc;z & AEE/1 L Tested ByC1<h Calculated By Nb Checked-ByhMAzcAReviewed B Emp.No. mr Emp..No. ms' Emp. No.. sist.Emp.No. .s w L (1) Determined in field (, (2) Determined af ter lab verification Q. A. REVIEW (3) Use oven dry for calculations, when available - (4) % wet wt/% dry wt BY h S.o h f (/ DATE_ f D 1 P-7/, Froh Mo. PB08-09-675R

f

k. _ )

In-Place Density Tes t-Rubber Ballo'on . T; GE.I00 un Ik're M.fy (J___9 Test St(hdard ASTM D2167 S r t_ _. 80 0 9.~7 4 I' I roj,ec t: laterford'SES Unit 3 ' g 9 9 g 1. a'b N.o. hd iohM i ^ Cl i e n't: Ebasco Services, Inc. .q$fl.'$ Test No. E - Tes t 1.oca tion Ef IfGA/ 27E.' Fill No. (' Tes t Depth O S ~~- .Date, icVr2/'76 G.S. Elevation ~ ~~' 5 T -35.7f,"de.7t. Ti me o f Tes t C9'/ 5~ ' Volumeter I.D. 6-/O ". Tes t E1Eva tion ~ 36,25' Sample I.D. mss euse AunA S c a l e I. D. /F072 0 v e n n i. D..FF-/b/ swQ ' Speedy I.D. " #I- /'P3 i 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 4.o3 4. Volume of Test-s 4

c.o'7 Hole:

2. Ta r e 1. t. of,Can, 0.01 lb; 3 3.- Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 3.9/o ' , o 3V.3 -- f t,., Speedy Moisture,. $3 /s.o % ( 4 ) ~ C8&SCO FIFL D ACC EP TA NC.E--- OVE DRY S. Tare No. I4__, __ Retest Required: Ye.s7 ~6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm. 7 '30, 6__ No.. {J.' Wt. Tare & Dry' Soil, gm. 60'f. 8 Retest of Lab No. -.t I 8. Wt. Water, gm. .l?T~7 and Date y~ i 3. Wt. Tare, gm.. / 7.4 Speci fi ca ti on Requi reme'n.t g 3 0,., Wt. o f D ry S.o i l, gm. T Bl.O of Compa c tion,j.7 11. Moisture Content (8/10) '21; 9 .. O Meets A M~ JNo - !'cet Spec. Dees SPEC.Lostr$ ERAMo Gc a 3s som conmn ogg .ug/q Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maxi' mum Op ti'mu m Degree of , _ _.______ - o. D e n s i ty Density Curve No. Density Moisture Compactio Content =___:.__. ,. g._ __ O ~

4. -

p.I 9S fl.4x //fi'/ cys,0 g s 3.% x v ,,. p__3__ _)14.r 7 3 c lb/ft. 1b/ft lb/ft Remarks: l'.AST W A u., Wr4fCcareccFW G-rateucs.. 6** %oNTAe Tested By hk Cal'culated ByGkM Checked By Masx Reviewed Bylbtdd Emp.No. 3 Ws' - Emp. No. 3 9 45-- Emp. No. situ Emp.No. p ~ / ( (2) 1) Determined in field 1 ( Determined af ter lab verification Q. A. REVIEW ~ 3) Use oven dry for calculations, when available t 4) % wet wt/% dry wt BY b b oc/ DATE I O-f P'74 ^ From No.-PB08-09-6752

L..... In-Pleca'Dansity Tc=t-Rubbcr Bnlloon t---2 >eabocy esing ><> e ee e e sex #21e2 .eee-ee m

( Project:

Waterford SES Un'it BMW3 p s.wm gab,No._- 9 D O g [ f, (L Rio E '616) Ebasco Services Inc\\ g s6[- ~ ::..=.::.- t est No. E Client : 4-8 ib&a Fill No. Test Locatio'n @t W c2,/fV,.77, ~~ Test Depth 4 -7p Date G. S : Elevation Time of Test Tes't Elevation' - b 7s d Volumeter I.D. 2 2 Cd C ( Sample I.D. YW[ s s @ ide rp Scale I.D. j Q (.2 63 - 90 %N $ Cw A d. Speedy I.D. .]_ /d W C2 l '. Wt. of Can'& Damp Soil,~ 0.01 lb'. 3, F ~4. Volume of' Test ~ 2,.. T.a.re Wt..of Can, 0.01 lb. ,67' Hole: Net Wt. of, Damp' Soil, 0.01 lb.

3. 70- '

033[ f t

[. Speedy-Nol~sture, /O'I ~ 5. Tare No.. N Retest Required': _ Yes '6 s. Wt. Tare & Uet Soil,' gm.:. / ho R.etest of Lab'.No. 7. Wt. Ta're & Dry Soil, gm. ~A 8. Wt. Water, gm. & Date - 9. Wt. Tare, gm. Specification Requi.rement 10. Wt. ' of Dry Soil, gm. of Compaction 9 f. O s 11. Moisture Content (8/10) ts ODoes Not teet Spec. ~ ~ Moisture Wet' Dry. Reference Maximum Optimum . Degree of Content' Density Density 2, Curve No. Density Moisture. Compaction j jo, c % / A 'Y /o/7 (, /**'1 y2C% q%p7. s 3 3 lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 77,g l ~~ G 11 Remarks: I Calculated By: (duekC ecked By:b Technician: l Emp. No.: 3l$M Emp. No.: 3r VL Emp. No.: 3yys TbMM

In-Pldca'D noity Test-Rubbar Bclloon v.T *.J C Test Standard ASTM D2167 PB08-09 M De 9 - t'a. ~5 4 l ( ~.roj ect : Waterford SES Un'it 3 M pab,No.- 9 0 0 Ag fr (LRWE SlB) EbascoServicesInk.gs.8y Test No. 3 Client : i c Q, N.5' Fill No. $4 Test Locatio'n w h h (, f"](> ~ Test Depth d.77-? Date ~ GJS Elevation Time of Test

1 Volumeter I.D.

1 2 Q g., ; Test' Elevation' ' ~~ m......, Sample I.D. h] < g Q.t,0e @_ Scale'I.D. t QcO g3 90mo 6 AAd Speedy I.D. . j /d u -) c.:;h., . s Wt. of.Can & DEinp Soil, 0.01 lb'. 3,43

4. 'Volu'me of Test l

2. Tare Wt. of Can, 0.01 lb. O7_ Hole g,[p/ [7t:, _ 3.- Net Wt. of Darnp Soil, 0.01Llb. M C- ~ M.C2gbft Speedy Moisture, / 3* D ~~ ---C-- i D, W 5. Tare No.. Retest Required.: Yes i i 6. Wt. Tare & Wet' Soil,' gm.. r, o Ta'e & Dry-Soil, gm. Retest of Lab No. W ~~~ 7. Wt. r & Date - 8. Wt. Water, gm. Specification Requi,rement 9. Wt. Tare, gm. 10. Wt.'of. Dry Soil, gm. -. - of,Coinpac~ tion 965 O % 11. Moisture Content (8/10) cets ODoes No't Meet Spec. Moisture Wet Dry,' Reference Maximum Optimum Degree of Content' Density D e n s i t y Y C u r v e N o.- Density Moisture Compaction I 'I II S' l 03 ~l ggg g s f lb/ft lb/ft lb/ft3 /oo,e GM. 9}z}g -. -, ~ Remarks: Technician: i i . Calculated By:'( I M Cbecked By d h s y DI& Emp. No.: 3 (7 cL Emp. No.: Emp. No.: 3 4 9 5' j T.4%Cc;&

) In-Place 'Densi ty Tes t-Rubber Balloon =

CG,OOQ,.

Test Standard ASTM D21.67 P "&u A.r._y, g,S,ung G q hProject: Waterford?SES Unit 3 L a b fl.o. MohP9A j Cl i e n't: Ebasco Services, Inc. Test No. y ,_ l Test 1.ocation 6f-4o4 27s-Fill No. S- ^

Date,

/o[// [7 4 ,,,, f,ff.7 f. Test De th ,So cn 1 R w-G.S. El eva ti on '-3 6. 7f Tim'e of Test '/2./^~fyy.o Te s t El Eva t i o n - 37,2f Volumeter I.D. prf igy Sample I.D. Ness 8 mcrt_ /@ m7' - Sc al e' I D. Pro 72Av e nn i. D.pn A7. Speedy I.D." Pic9:q smo 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 6,N - ,,4. Volume of Tes t ~ 2. T a r e 1.4 t. of Can, 0.01 lb: , o'7 Ho3e: 3 3. Net Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb.

3. 3 $

.02.6o ft Speedy Mois ture',- /8.2/[7,9 % (4) . C84SCO Fifi-D A CC EP TA N C.E -"~ OVEN DRY _ ;..?g .T a r e - l{o. 28 Retest Required: $ Yes 6. Wt. TarsM~ZHet Soi1, gm. 1 62. l __ / No i &D. 'i. W.t '...T a r e..&- - D ry 'S o i l, gm. 697. & Retes t of Lab Ho. v:. 8. Wt. Water, gm. /di and Date '9. Wt. Tare, gm.. 1L.9 - Speci fi ca ti on Requi reme'n,t Compactio'n, 29 10,., Wt. of Dry S.oi1, gm. 590.3 o 11. Moisture Content (8/10) 18 1 eets O Does Hot !*e:et Speg spec.uhar$ E8.Wo Gc YM -.. &3s w a conmn ogg .,sq/Q,rg Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree @ Content . Density Density Cuive No. D e ns i ty Moisture Compacti hx ~ g6d [oS $ 7/f ~ 0 1 10 s L._) _1g2.) i yNt j *.3_ 3-- =. 7 _3 lb/ft-lb/ft lb/ft Remarks: Tes ted By C5. bubcul a ted ByC bMked By .trzed.Revie ed B JL Emp.No. M4 5' Emp. No. W 45'Emp. No. _3J6 & Emp.No. p_h (1) Determined in field .( (2) Determine.d after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW l (3) Use oven dry for calculations, when available - (4) % wet wt/% dry wt BY b 0(/ . DATE lD-1 V 75 9 \\ Fr' m "n ORn9 no K 7 C ')

r ( f-I n-P l a c'c De n s i t.y T e s t R ubb e r B a l l 6 o n........ OIS.)Ody g,Si,ng = Tes t standara ASTn Dei.s7 f, _ t w.cc.e.A,.n...,. (oJgct: Wa t e r f o r_d ' S E _ Unit 3 h a'b fl.o. Bo:M A E.E EER OP2 %. 1 C l i e n't : Ebasco Services, Inc,. est No. If Tes t 1.oca tion ' G V Go^l 2 -16~. Fi11 No. di~- Test De th 'o WD .Date C/'? 76 f G.S. Eleva tion *. Time of Test '/B3d ' .- s o.s o Te s t E 1 e'v a't i o n - 3 7.co Volumeter I.D. PT-is y S a mp1.c I.D. in ss rz vea poonp. S c a 1 e' I. D. PT-o1l. 0 v e n t;1. D.. _ %.o S p. e e dy ' I. D ' ~ P7~-' 9 3 1. Wt of Can & Damp Soil, 0.01..lb. 3.s4 ,..4. Volume of TesQ 2. Tare Wt. of,Can, 0.01 lb:

8. C '7 Hole:

~ 3. He t Wt. of Damp Soil., 0.01_lb. 3.27 .o'279 ft Speedy Moidture,- M MS % (4) ~ ~ C84.SCO FIEL. D A cc C P Tn N C E _ OVEN DRY ' Yeg 5. Tarc.No. E ~ Retest Required: ~ '/ No ~ 6. Wt. Tare & Wet Soil, gm.'- tG..' Wt. Tare & Dry' Soil, gm. R e t es t' o f -L a'b No**'#N -~~ w ~ .8. Wt. Water, g m_. . - ~ ~ ~: ? and Date _fo/};/ys, '9. Wt. Tare,'gm. Speci fi ca tion Requi reme'n t s 30. Wt. of Dry S,o'il, gm. of'Compactio'n idf k 11. Hois ture Conterit (8/10) ~ ets El Does ilot- !*cet S egasto ae As WEfA.:. --. pe wec.u>urs 43%sepe conmn ogg y 9 Moisture Wet -Dry Reference Maximum Optimum Degree c Content Density Density Curve No. Density Moistu*e Compact' m. z.9..--. W.5g li'i. lo (o2.4 g \\ 9@ g 7 ,--- g ).,(___).t _) 8

p.,).9. e f

3 1b/ft. 1b/ft lb/fts ~ ~ Remarks: C-f60 10Au wATED.Pacen:mG-o trc.4. ~ Te s ted By hb Cal cul a t.e d By $b C hecke d - By 'Opar-c.,Rev i ewed By3[6 Emp.No. 34 4-Emp. No; S495 Emp. No. a bt<(L Emp.No. s2 ( (21) Determined in field Determined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available % wet wt/% dry wt

BYM, DATE /O-Ifr-7A

-- ~,

\\,.. f., 'z I'n-Place' Density Tes t-Rubber Ball 6on- , G ?:,00G,y,,g,Sh.ng T6st Standard: ASTM D21,67 3 f-?.t.t.r.9.-0<p- ~ d rojecti: Wa terford

SES _ Uni t 3 REVIEWEf?,1.a'b H.o.,@id MpE_ git ee R

' Clic"(t: Ebasco Servi'ces, Inc W3 6497 F Tes t, No. (7 I Tes t 1.'o c a ti on : E9 (,oN 1'lG' Fill No. 5-Tes t : Dep th o.5~*0 .-Date, 'IOftlfl1(,: ~ G.S. El e v a ti on

4%5*

Time of Test T7 Sf' ' Tes t El Ev. a tion -37.co. Vol ume ter 'I. D. PT Ili'( S a mp,1 e I.D.. mms'aws2. Pomp S c a l e I. 0.' PTint O v e n n I. o.. _( },

sawY, S p, e e dy

I. D *. " F T-/93 W t o f C a n 5 Da mp. S oi l, 0 01,,1 b.

3 70- ,,,4. Volume of.Tesi 1.. 'Ho3e: 2. Ta re 1:lt. of,Can, 0.01 lb:

- O 8 7 3.

Ne t Wt..of Damp Soil, ~ 0.01 lb. . S -(* 3 .0309 ~ _f ti SpeeEly Mais ture',- I3 b /15 '7 % (4 ) C84Sc0 FWl D ACC EP TA NC.6 i OV E N DR Y. -..- j -S'. Tare No. Retest Required:- [

Yef l

-6., Wt. Tare & Het Soil, g m.' - No [ (;y.' W t. Tare.&.Drf Soi1, gm. R e t es t_.o f 1.'a,'b l@##"$ I 8. Nt. Hater, gm. and Date ZagyA 4,, I. Wt. Ta re, ' gml, 9 ~1 0,.,, H t. o f D ry - S,o i], g m. Speci fi ca ti o n R' q ui reme'n.t e . of 'Compa c tio'n $DP __1 11. Hois ture Con terft (8/10) d- '. O Meets does Hot-b?>tK}~.cet Spe 1 spec. i t>s o rs nA.sco at e.2s som connes mg .so).,afyg Moisture Het Dry Reference Ma xi' mum Optimum Degree Content Density Density Curve No. Dens i ty Moisture Compact c *,,.. - - - _ -. Ib Nb lot.tr 'g g g E o s.L.ll 3** )--_-._t. k -)_T., 3-3 _ 3-Ib/ft. 1,b/ f t lb/fts i Remarks: EAGN WAf.4 w4fggFraoo5 :QQ Tj2FO-J+ ~ ~ l Cre. BdiniMRW Wgg pRR LTested By C.%. Calculated By.$b Checked By OeReviewed B j-l Emp.No. 34%s' Emp. No. 9 9 s'- Emp. No. mSw.Emp.No. s - (~ ( 1 ) Determined in field ~ (2) Determined af ter lab verification Q. A. REVIEW (3 Use oven dry for calculations, when available -(4 % wet.wt/% dry wt BY27),1 d .ug DATE /D-M-ff. \\ =

c m \\.. / I n-Pl a ~ e Den s i ty Tes t-R ubb er Bo l l 6 o n....... c c GG,OOQ,V'--QSi.OQ* T6s t Stihdard ASTM D21,67 3 t.'.r.c. w _ _.A ? j

s

( reject': 11a terford

SES Uni t 3 1.a'b fl.o..fMLCA ARRRR EE[2.

w ~~ I REVIEWEG"p Tes t No. ~~ I3 Cl i e n't : Ebasco Services, Inc Tes t 1.oca tion E4 /,04/ 27E~ Fill No. !T 65' ' Tes t Depth .Date, loll 4 h6# G.S. E l e v a t i o n " % 8'o Time of Tes t ' l 6SO = Tes t El Eva tion ~37 0c Vol ume te r I. D. P_ T-/64 ~. _c Sample I.O. Miss h iEE A w f.. Sc a l e' 1. D. PT*01(a.0 v e nr. I. D.. ....q 3^tD. _ S p e e dy ' I. 0

PT*-t9.3 c

1. lit o f C a n 5 D a mp S oi l, 0. 01,,1 b. 380 - ,,4. Volume of Tes 2. Tare lit. o'f,Can, 0.01 lb: ~ 0.0 7 'Ho3e: 3. He t.14 t. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. 2.73.' 0323 ft S7eeUy~ Moisture, /19 '2- % ( 4 ) ces.sco field Accre rANC.E ~.0VEN ORY S. 'Taru 'No. Retest Required: Ye ' 6. If t.-- Tare & 11et 5oi1, gm;- f ~-'- No ( U.' 14't'.. Tare &' Dry'.So.i1, gm. R e t e s t o f 1.'a.b 18.""# ~ .e 8. 14 t.. Ila t e r, g m.. and Date /_o / /rg j4 '9. lit. Ta re, ' g E., Speci fica tion Requireme'n t 10,.,, Ut. o f D ry S,o'i)], g m. 7 of'Compac io'n Rf,_% 11. Moisture Content (8/10) . O Heets Does riot Meet Spa C2A$tO GL AN Y &*&. SPEC.Liher$ <- 3% a c.w conrwn oATC ' N//_?,b.'.d... Moisture 11 e t Dry Reference Maxi' mum Optimum Degree Content :*, Density Density Curve No. Density Moisture Compact y /r.h x //f s' 97.7 36 0 3- -g .,i.Ld __.3- _) '- - _.

k..)__ _. c lb/ft.

1,b/ f t lb/ f ts Remarks: sw v4u. wecFamaccr oim+ Si - 1oIh Y92Re}?.P f TestedByC Ca l c ul a te d By Ck_ Checke d By <Gsh.- Re v i ewed 83f;h Emp.No.' _3Mr Emp. No. %s 4 5 Emp. No. __32ca Emp. N o. g 1) Determined in field (.{2) Determined after lab verification Q. A. REVIEW k3) Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available A, - (4) % wet wt/% dry wt syh Ao W SU DATETO~1t'Ib._ . A N _ g= '~'

( / I n-Pl ace. Dens i ty Tes t.Rubb er Ba ll 6c_n ', Gt3,DOQ,y jlSi,ng 3 Te.st Standard ASTM D2167 1 E;'.'!/. v.*_ _. % " ' - _.J

q C'rojcct:

Waterford'SES Unit 3 RWlEWE

1. a'b H.o.

Gold A RRRRRR, m O l Cl i e n't : Ebasco Services, I n c' 3 6497 ' Test No. . U2. Test I.ocation-EY L o ^/

2. 7 e.

Fill No.. 8 M T Tes t Depth

5. 5-

.Date ioD @ :- n G.S. Eleva tion ~ 36.5'o Time of Test W7 Tes t El Eva tion 'Y' co Volumeter I. D. PT-tsy Samp,le I.D. miss aivee pomp. S c a l e

I. D. TT-oT2.

0 v e nitI. D.. ~ Sp e e dy I. D. " P r-i93 Nb. 1. W t o f C a n & D a mp S oi l, 0. 01,,1 b. 3.93 - .,,4. Volume of TesG o o7 ' Hole: 2. T a r e 1.f t. df,Can; 0.01 lb: 5. He t Wt. of Damp Soil, 0.01 lb. S/7G .o32T ft@ ~ _.u._._.._ .:.sp e e dy Moi s tu rek-N 6 /R0 % (4) C84SCO FIEL D ACC EP rn N C. E OVEN DRY _ - 5,. .Thre No. Re tes t Required:

Ye8 6 7-W t. Tare & Wet Soil, gm.

No hp." Wt. Tare & Dry' Soil, gm. R e t e s t o f L a,b No f"@Q .8. Wt. Water, g m.._ _ ;u//g_c._. and Date '9. Ht. Tare, g m., Sp eci fi ca ti on R' q ui reme'n.t e 10,.,, Wt. o f D ry S.o i'], g m. of' Compaction 9 9 11. 11o i s t u re C o'n t e:It (8/10) . O Meets ~ Does Hot M d"*S * &ee t Spea SPFc.Lihtr3 E8ASto Gc am. L3%jc m connan OATS '#l' W_? Moisture Wet Dry Reference Maxi' mum Optimum Degree e Densit Content c /.. _ _ _y Den s i ty Curve No. Density Moistuie Compact! . g. _ _. gy ~IN' g ifC,7 99,9 9 9N l y x o ['g 3._ ,___.__.__3 j.L. ). N -'_) 8 _)-- - - -- .-T lb/ft. 1.b/ f t . lb/fts Remarks: G AST NW N647QrOd D MCH- .See_.W210Ih enegegg Tested By h b Cal c ul a te d By hE Chec ke d By IPort. ReviewedBh Emp.No. %r - Emp. No. Sur Emp. No. Siw Emp.No. og ( (2) 1) Determined in field ~ q, A. REvtEV1 i De termined af ter lab verifica tion E 3) Use oven dry for calcula tions, when available - (4) % wet wt/% dry wt gy % Ov U DATE fo - 'N A.

e. i

RESPONSE

ITEM NO.: 21 TITLE: LP&L QA Construction System Status and Transfer Reviews NRC DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: The_ Inquiry Team assessment of the Ebasco QA disposition of LP&L QA Construction documentation and walk-through hardware findings for.a~ sample of the sixty-seven systems transferred to LP&L operations resulted in NRC questions on the adequacy of Ebasco and LP&L QA Construction disposition of those findings. As a result of the NRC questions LP&L and Ebasco QA initiated a review to ensure that all' LP&L QA Construction findings were adequately dispositioned. Ebasco QA had identified 15 systems or subsystems (Nos. 18-3, 36-1, 36-3, 43B, 43B9, 46C, 46E, 46H. 55A, 59, 69B, 71B2, 72A and 91E) where the LP&L findings may not have been properly dispositioned during the transfer of these systems to LP&L operations. Based on the above, LP&L is requested to complete the review of all significant LP&L status and transfer review findings, ssch as undersized welds and other hardware walk-through and documentation findings. This review 'should ensure that these findings have been properly closed out or identified to LP&L operations for their closeout. For any LP&L open findings not properly identified on the status or transfer letters to LP&L operations, LP&L should determine.whether this condition adversely affected the testing conducted for those systems. DISCUSSION: e LP&L has completed its review of Construction QA system documentation and ~ walkthrough hardware comments to ensure that these comments have been adequately dispositioned. This review included both " Status" and " Transfer" comments. All significant comments have been properly closed out or identified to LP&L Plant Staff on the Master Tracking System (NTS). The term " Status" refers to the point at which a Startup System (SUS) becomes the responsibility of LP&L Startup. The system may not be 100% complete, but it is considered complete enough to facilitate testing by LP&L Startup. The LP&L Construction QA Status review determines whether or not the documentation accurately reflects the status of the system and whether the documentation is acceptable. The organizational elements involved in this phase are 7 Construction, QA and Startup. Per the established startup program, Plant Staff [ is enly involved in the Transfer phase. l i The term " Transfer" refers to the conveyance of jurisdiction of a SUS from LP&L Startup to Plant Staff'following construction completion and preoperational i testing. The LP&L Construction QA final review and acceptance of the system documentation is a prerequisite to acceptance of the system by Plant Staff and is documented in a Construction QA letter to LP&L Startup for inclusion in the I system transfer package. 21-1 l l 4 l 1 j

... - - ~ _. During the transfer review process, comments generated by LP&L Construction QA are returned to Ebasco QA for resolution. The majority of the comments pertain to documentation deficiencies. - However, any' comments that are hardware impacting (1.e., requiring rework or engineering evaluation) are processed using Deficiency Notices (DN's) or Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) and are identified and tracked by the Master Tracking System (MTS) until they are formally closed. If deficiencies are still open when the LP&L' Construction QA Transfer letter is issued to LP&L Startup, they are referenced in the letter..This is done in-order to' allow the Plant Staff to make informed decisions regarding acceptance of system jurisdiction and to assure continuity of deficiency. awareness through the transfer process. The Construction QA letter is updated by the Startup Transfer Group to'the time the system is submitted to Plant Staff for transfer i and is included in the transfer package. Under the above' process, resolution of all significant LP&L Construction QA comments should be accomplished prior to transfer of each system. Comments not impacting on hardware need not be resolved prior to transfer. At i the time of the Inquiry Team assessment, LP&L and Ebasco were in the midst of the transfer review process. The listing of.15 systems given to the NRC during the Inquiry Team assessment included those systems preliminarily identified as having LP&L QA comments to which Ebasco had not yet responded. This listing should be corrected as follows: System 43B9 should be system 46B, system 69B should be system 60B, and system 56A was left out and should be added. Further investigation revealed that systems 46C and 72A had been adequately ~ responded to i by Ebasco QA. The remaining 13 systems had outstanding comments. These have been responded to and have been accepted by LP&L QA. Of the 13 systems, 7 were classified as " accepted with comments".- This means that LP&L QA accepted the i i system with comments that were not considered to be hardware impacting and, therefore, need not have been responded to by Ebasco QA prior to system transfer. Of the remaining 6 systems,' 46E had not yet been submitted for transfer. Three other systems (43B, 36-1 and 36-3), which had comments ) concerning undersized welds, were submitted for transfer on the assumption that the referenced welds had been reinspected and were accepted under the resolution-of SCD 74 (which addresses such undersized welds generically). The referenced welds have now been reinspected and are acceptable. The last two systems (46B and 59) of the six were transferred because the comments were resolved prior to l the LP&L Construction QA letter being written. The formal response from Ebasco had not been transmitted. LP&L has performed an overall review of hardware and software comments generated i during Status and Transfer of safety-related systems. This review of comments 7 was to determine if-there were generic implications or significant trends. There were no generic problems or trends identified other than those previously processed in accordance with Waterford-3 Site QA Program requirements (e.g. SCDs 57, 60 and 74). This review is documented in the File Memo W3K84-1148, dated S/14/84. Ebasco QA conducted a surveillance (SHR-84-6-1, dated 6/20/84) of their Status files which verified that Ebasco QA had submitted complete responses to all LP&L j QA comments. No additional outstanding correspondence was found during this i review. This was confirmed by LP&L QA. I i 21-2 - - + - + - w r-,- .--,-,.ww-- .-~-.,,w---,.v-sr. ,,,e.---,,,..w, -#w__,..s y,,w.---..w,,-wwy= --pr- +---e-,--w+mv. ww,'g 9----eP-

2 In. conclusion,'LP&L found no significant open comments that were not included in the-Status'or Transfer letters to LP&L Startup which would hava adversely affected the testing conducted for these systems. In addition, no significant comments were found which were'not resolved or identified on the NTS per . existing procedure at the time it was recommended to the Plant Manager'that the j ' SUS be. accepted. CAUSE: s The NRC was concerned that Construction QA comments were not being resolved _in a timely fashion. The process of closing status comments was in progress at the time of the inquiry team assessment, but had not been completed. In all cases except for undersized welds, resolution in fact was not untimely. In the case concerning undersized welds, comment responses arguably should have been provided prior to transfer. Comment. responses on undersized welds were not required prior _ to transfer due to a misunderstanding as to the need for system specific weld reinspection because it was believed that _these welds were covered by SCD-74. GENERIC IMPLICATIONS: None. SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: A review by LP&L Startup and Plant Staff of the comments, other than those processed as DNs or NCRs, for the systems listed in the NRC concern determined that none were significant or would have impacted testing or system operation. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN / SCHEDULE: As shown above, the Status and Transfer reviews have been satisfactorily closed-out. Furthermore, the Plant Staff will be promptly notified if and when any significant problems are subsequently identified on a system. The identification and notification will be accomplished vig the CIWA (Condition Identification Work Authorization) process. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Disposition of System Status and Transfer Reviews 2) Descriptio:t of System Status and Transfer Reviews

REFERENCES:

l All letters referenced in Attachment 1. i 21-3

ru ATTACHMENT 1 ~ DISPOSITION OF SYSTEM STATUS - AND TRANSFER REVIEWS * ~ SUS LP&L COMMENTS EBASCO RESPONSE LP&L ACCEPTANCE

18-3 W3K-83-0648 (5/18/83)

W3-QAIRG-0572 (6/20/83) W3K84-0853 (6/22/83)- W3-QAIRG-1405 (5/9/84) W3K84-1271 (5/28/84) q '36-1 W3K-83-0197 (2/17/83) W3-QAIRG-0342 (2/24/83) W3K84-1654 (7/19/84) W3-QAIRG-1439 (6/7/84) W3K84-1654 (7/19/84) W3-QAIRG-1439 S1 (7/19/84) W3K84-1654 (7/19/84) 36-3 W3K-82-183 (2/16/83) W3-QAIRG-0339 (2/22/83) W3K84-1560 (7/5/84) 1 W3-QAIRG-1440 (6/7/84) W3K84-1560 (7/5/84). W3K-83-210 (2/18/83) W3-QAIRG-1448 (6/13/84) W3K54-1560 (7/5/84) 635 W3K-83-0195 (2/17/83) . W3-QAIRG-0346 (2/25/83) W3K84-1561 (7/5/84) W3-QAIRG-1441 (6/7/84) W3K84-1561 (7/5/84) - i 46B W3K-83-0613 (5/10/83) W3-QAIRG-0556 (6/14/83) W3K84-1250 (6/4/84) W3-QAIRG-1450 (6/17/84) W3K84-1250 (6/4/84) W3K-83-210 (2/18/83) W3-QAIRG-1396 (5/4/84) W3K84-1250 (6/4/84) 46C W3K-83-0196 (2/17/83) W3-QAIRG-0348 (2/28/83) W3K84-1562 (7/6/84) W3-QAIRG-1399 (5/4/84) W3K84-1562 (7/6/84) 46E W3K-83-728-(5/31/83) W3-QAIRG-0544 (6/10/83) W3K84-1599 (7/12/84) Q.S.E.-1001 (4/11/84) None Required W3-QA-28118 (4/17/84) W3K84-1599 (7/12/84) W3K-83-0342 (3/17/83) W3-QAIRG-0436 (4/14/83) W3K84-1599 (7/12/84) W3-QAIRG-1372 (4/17/84) W3K84-1599 (7/12/84) W3K-83-0343 (3/18/83) W3-QAIRG-1442 (6/7/84) W3K84-1599 (7/12/84) 46H W3K-83-0450 (4/8/83) W3-QAIRG-0483 (5/13/83) W3K84-1453 (6/22/84) W3-QAIRG-0483 S1 (6/21/84) W3K84-1453 (6/22/84) 55A W3K-83-0688 (5/26/83) W3-QAIRG-0545 (6/10/83) W3K84-0769 (4/2/84) W3-QAIRG-1392 (5/4/84) W3K84-1378 (6/7/84) 21-4 i -- i -,. --...-,n..-. --,, - ~ --

n,,a.

enn.-wr,,,,-n--..,-n,,.,- .n,,. . ~,, ,n,-- e- -.., .,m,,s e

7- ~ ATTACIDENT 1 (continued) SUS LP&L' COMMENTS EBASCO RESPONSE LP&L ACCEPTANCE 56A .W3K-83-0477 (4/11/83) W3-QAIRG-0480-(5/12/83) W3K84-1563 (7/5/84) W3-QAIRG-1400 (5/4/84) W3K84-1563 (7/5/84) l59 W3K-83-1353 (9/14/83) W3-QAIRG-1403 (5/4/84) W3K84-1421 (6/15/84) 60B W3K-83-1936 (12/7/83) W3-QAIRG-1395 (5/4/84) W3K84-1564 (7/6/84) 71B2 W3K-83-1140 (8/5/83) W3-QAIRG-1393 (5/4/84) W3K84-1565 (7/6/84) 72A W3K-82-0733 (11/2/82) W3-QAIRG-0192 (12/1/82) W3K84-1377 (6/12/84) 91E W3K-83-1859-(11/29/83) W3-QAIRG-1112 (1/9/84) W3K84-1568 (7/6/84) W3-QAIRG-1112 S1 (5/9/84) W3K84-1568 (7/6/84)

This listing gives the letter numbers with issuance dates in parenthesis.

e* e d' e l 21-5 f I y .v ,-e. --c--%-.--,,,- ,., - - ~. .-r--~

9 ATTACHMENT 2 DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM STATUS AND TRANSFER REVIEWS LP&L EBASCO INCOMPLETE RESPONSES. SUS Letter Letter Finding Resolution / Answer Walkdown W3K-83-648 W3-QAIRC-1405

2. 22" separation on tubing instead

2. FCR-ICP-672 written'to accepti"

1. FW-5,6,18 and 19 not per As-built.

1. Nonproblem per ASP-IV-79 18-3 (5/18/83)

(5/9/84) of 24". this condition.

3. Flareless connectors not right..

3. Reworked 12/22/83 per CIWA83E165 Walkdown W3K-83-197 W3-QAIRC-1439 T-B undersized welds.

Generic problem addressed under SCD 36-1 (2/17/83) (6/7/84) 74 at time of Finding. Walkdown W3K-82-183 W3-QAIRG-1440 1/4" fillet velds-potentially .Non-problem. This.is acceptable per 36-3 (2/16/83) (6/7/83) undersized. the ASME Code. Walkdown W3K-83-210 W3-QAIRG-1448 T-B undersized welds. Generic problem addressed under SCD 36-3 (2/18/83) (6/13/84) 74 at time of Finding.- Walkdown W3K-83-195 W3-QAIRG-1441 T-B undersized welds. Generic problem addressed under SCD 43B (2/17/83) (6/7/84) 74 at time of Finding. Review W3K-83-613 W3-QAIRC-1450 AS-IC-1127-No spool number. Line number wrong. Line was AC-IC-468 (5/10/83) (6/17/84) 1177 and. Iso. was revised to add spool number. Walkdown W3K-83-557 W3-QAIRG-1396 OCR 1311 and 1223 had tubing with Tubing reworked by Mercury at time 468 (5/3/83) (5/4/84) incorrect slope. of Finding. 46C W3K-83-196 W3-QAIRG-348 Non-problem. All Findings were responded to in Letter W3-QAIRG-348 (2/17/83) (2/28/83) (2/28/83). Walkdown W3K-83-728 W3-QA-28118

1. Loose Clamps.

Findings 1 and 2 were added to the 46E (5/31/83) (4/17/84)

2. High points in tubing.

Area Walkdown Punchlists.

3. Valve tag incorrect.

3. Reinspection found valve to-be correctly tagged.

Review W3K-83-342 W3-QAIRG-1372 Various document deficiencies. All deficiencies resolved prior to 46E (3/17/83) (4/17/84) Ebasco issuing QA Transfer Letter W3-QAIRC-364RR on 11/3/83 for T-B. Walkdown W3K-83-343 W3-QAIRG-1442 T-B undersized welds and various SCD-74 and NCR-7680 46E (3/18/83) (6/7/84) other problems. 21-6 .. t t.

l ATTACEMENT 2 (continued) LP&L ERASCO INCOMPLETE RESPONSES SUS Letter Letter Finding Resolution / Answer Review W3K-83-450 W3-QAIRG-483SI Wrong washers -installed. Ebasco rework forms were initiated 46H (4/8/83) (6/21/84) at time of Finding. Rework was complete on 5/25/83. Walkdown W3K-83-688 W3-QAIRC-1392 Various tubing problems. W3-NCR-7147 and 7146 were written SSA (5/2C/83) (5/4/84) on 10/12/83 to address these problems. Both were closed on 11/7/83. Walkdown W3K-83-477 W3-QAIRC-1400

1. Coupling not shown on Iso.

1. Iso. revised per FCR-MP-219.

56A (4/14/83) (5/4/84)

2. SW6R1 to 90* El. not flange.

2. Correct. FW6R2 was to flange.

Walkdown W3K-83-1353 W3-QAIRG-1403

1. FW not per CIWA814747.

1. DN-SQ-745 (written 9/15/83) and 59 (9/14/83)

(5/4/84)

2. No documentation for CIWAs CIWA83C259 were written at time 82A705 and 825039.

of Finding to rework the FW.

2. CIWA82A705 was part of NCR-4552 and CIWA825039 was Non-Safety _

and in the CIWA Vault. Review W3K-83-1936 W3-QAIRC-1395 OCR 2036 and 2037 had open 9.ls OCR-2036 was resolved 5/24/83. 60B (12/7/83) (5/4/84) and 9.2s. OCR-2037 was resolved 11/12/83. Walkdown W3K-83-1140 W3-QAIRC Various NCR-7111 was written 10/6/83 to 71B2 (8/5/83) (5/4/84) address Findings. L-CIWA004871 was written to perform rework. NCR closed 3/27/84. 72A W3K-82-733 W3-QAIRG-192 Non-problem. All Findings were responded to in Letter W3-QAIRG-192 (11/2/82) (12/1/82) (12/1/82). Review W3K-83-1859 W3-QAIRC-1112S1 Various F&M documentation Documentation problems were 91E (11/29/83) (5/9/84) deficiencies. resolved mainly by obtaining additional information from F&M. { 21-7 \\* -}}

ML20096B229

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

REFERENCES:

Navigation menu

ML20096B229

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

RESPONSE

REFERENCES:

Navigation menu

Search