ML20127C206
| ML20127C206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1978 |
| From: | Mcallister T J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A241 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-455 POP-N-713, NUDOCS 8506220168 | |
| Download: ML20127C206 (68) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . - - . _. . e ,\ ' J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CORPORATE STANDARD NUCLEAR PROJECT OPERATING PROCEDURE 1 1 i
.~
Modified to Fit Weerford Unit #3 Concrete Phase I Construction , , i-I Contract No. W3-NY-4 i P0P-N-713 USE OF DISCREPANCY REPORTS **
- - e . r: OF INFORMA[M)N
'CT REQUESI T44-45r 8506220168 850222 PDR FOIA PDR O[70T CARDE84-455
e . E J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Page 1 of 5
, PROCEDURE NO.
NUCLEAR PROJECT OPERATING PROCEOURE POP.N-713 TITLE OF PROCEDURE: Issue Date: - 4 USE OF DISCREPANCY REPORTS 3/22/76 PROJECT TITLE: Rev. No. & Date: WATERFORD SES UNIT #3, PHASE I CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Rev. 3 OATE PREPARED BY: DATE ,;, D Syj _ gy T. N. McAllister 2/3/78 g PR[MjR.
~
1.0 PURPOSE This procedure governs the initiating, processing and closure of J. A. Jones Discrepancy Reports. 2 2.0 SCOPE This procedure shall govern the documentation of all discrepancies concerning non-safety related items and all discrepancies of Class I items which can be reworked. All other discrepancies shall be documented in accordance with J. A. Jones Project Operating Procedure POP-N-703, "Nonconformance Reporting and Corrective Action". 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 Rework - The process by'which a nonconforming item is made to conform to a prior specified requirement by completion, remachining, re-assembling or other corrective means. 3.2 Discrepancy - A deviation from specified requirements (including procedures) that can be readily corrected in accordance with standard approved operating procedures or specifications based on good engineering l practice. Discrepancies do not require an elaborate engineering evalua-7, tion or disposition for correction. They are deviations from good
.3 engineering practice and procedures. A few examples of discrepancias are:
- a. Bent reinforcing steel bars.
- b. Materials received at the site with documentation deficiencies such as the Ebasco VQA release for shipment, minor errors on
. mill test reports and unsigned tiest reports.
- c. Welds rejected on visual inspection.
j d. Concrete honeycomb ,
~
{ e. Materials lacking identification resulting, for example, from
- loss of previously applied identification markings.
e FORM NO. 1122-06 JUNE ~74
- .._n- . - - -
,, , , .r,, _ . . . _ . - . ._ - , , , . . , - , _
e
- m .~
NM- J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Page 2 of 5 _ . PROCEDURE NO. NUCLEAR PROJECT OPERATING PROCEDURE POP.N-713 ._ TITLE OF PROCEDURE: Issue Date. USE OF DISCREPANCY REPORTS 3/22/76 PROJECT TITLE: Rev. No. & Date: WATERFORD"SES UNIT #3, PHASE I CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Rev. 3
. . - - - - . f.. Incomplete operations which can be completed with approved _
operating procedures.
- g. Replacing missing components.
_3.3 Quality Verification Inspection Supervisor - For the purpose of this
- procedure, the Q. V. Inspection Supervisor shall be defined as one of
. . the following persons: (1) Quality Verification Inspection Supervisor;
~
(2). Quality Assurance Engineer; or (3) Project Quality Assurance Manager. . 3.4 J. A. Jones Proiect Engineer - For the purpose of this procedure, the
. J. A. Jones Project Engineer sht.ll be defined as the Project Engineer , l or his designee. ,, .,
3.5 Nonconformance - A condition in characteristic, documentation or
.' ~. ~
procedure which renders the quality of an item or service unacceptable
- or indeterminate. Examples of nonconformances include: physical
;. defects, test failures, incorrect or inadequate documentation, or ,,
. deviation from prescribed inspection or test procedures.
The following are some examples of deviations from the applicable . specifications codes and standards that must be classified as non-conformances: , , , , ,.3 g 3
- a. Deviations that affect the structural integrity of the item'~ '
- such as deviation in materials; deviation in nondestructiv'e" ' ~
a , testing requirements; deviations in welding; heati creating / ' stress relieving requirements; deviations'from p'arameters of stress reports; deviations in testing requirements and under-
- sized steel reinforcing bars,
- b. Deviations that are likely to result in f ailure"or reduce' "'
. materially, the usability of the item, such as'deteriorati6n
' resulting from inadequate storage; use of welding filler
; metal other than those specified by the specification; surface. irregularities exceeding code requirements; severe localized corrosions and pipe bending radius smaller than p . that specified'by the specification.
. c..a I
a
- r
- .. 3 FORM NO 1122 06 JUNE ~74 e
.w - _ . , _ _ _ , . _ _ ,-
d,mbm J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Page 3 of 5 PROCEDURE NO. NUCLEAR PROJECT OPERATING PROCEDURE POP N TITLE OF PROCEDURE: Issue Date: USE OF DISCREPANCY REPORTS 3/22/76 PROJECT TITLE: Rev. No. & Date: WATERFORD SES UNIT #3, PHASE I CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Rev. 3 4.0 REFERENCE 4.1 J. A. Jones Project Operating Procedure POP-N-703, "Nonconformance Reporting and Corrective Action". 4.2 J. A. Jones Project Operating Procedure POP-N-709, " Permanent Project Records". 5.0 GENERAL , 5.1 Any J. A. Jones personnel detecting a discrepancy is responsible for reporting said discrepancy to Quality Assurance / Quality Verification. 5.2 The Quality Assurance Department is responsible for the preparation, issuance, distribution and control of Discrepancy Reports. e 5.3 Rework or processing shall not be effected on a discrepant item until E a written disposition is obtained from the Project Engineer. Quality .5 Assurance approval is required prior to the start of any work. 5.4 Discrepancy Reports may be either typed or handwritten legibly using-Black Ink. 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 Whenever a discrepancy covered by this procedure is identified, Quality. Assurance / Quality Verification shall complete items 1-8 of the Dis-crepancy Report. The Discrepancy Report Number (item 1) will be assigned by the Quality Assurance Records Clerk. 6.2 A Discrepancy Report Log (Attachment B) shall be maintained by the Quality Assurance Department. 6.3 After completion of items 1-8 and logging, the Discrepancy Report will ~ be forwarded to the Project Engineer for his disposition and completion of items 9 and 10. 6.3.1 The disposition shall include reference to approved rework R
.5 4 procedures. (Icem 9).
~
{ FORM NO. 1122 06 JUNE '74 4
** me h , , _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ - . , ...._.__._m - . _ , _ . _ - . . . . _ _ . - , . _ . , ._ .,,..-__.._m. . . . ,,,,-,.-,_,-..--..m.,--, _ , - . . . - . . _ . _ . . , . . , . , . .- - - -
bb J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Page 4.of 5 PROCEDURE NO. NUCLEAR PROJECT OPERATING PROCEDURE POP.N , TITLE OF FROCEDURE: Issue Date:
- USE OF DISCREPANCY REPORTS 3/22/76 PROJECT TITLE: Rev. No. & Date:
WATERFORD SES UNIT #3, PHASE I CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Rev. 3 6.4 ,After disposition by the Project Engineer, the Discrepancy Report will be assigned to the appropriate Construction Supervisor, (item 12 ) and the original Discrepancy Report be returned to Quality _ Assurance. 6.5 The Quality Assurance Records Clerk shall log the Discrepancy Report g on the Discrepancy Report Log (Attachment B). 3 6.6 The Quality Assurance Clerk will issue a copy of the Discrepancy Report
,3 to the assigned Construction Supervisor. This copy will constitute auttiorization to proceed with the work. An information copy will be to the Chief Engineer and the Area Engineer. The original will be
,, , retained by Quality Assurance Records. , , ,,
,; 6.6.1 The responsible Co'nstrue. tion Supervisor shall notify the Quality Verification Supervisor or assigned inspector prior" to the start of any worb i
i 6. '/ The party responsible'for the action shall notify the Quality Verifica-tion Supervisor, or his desigees, who shall assign a' Quality Verifica-tion Inspector to inspect the' discrepant area' prior to'the start of any work. , , , ,., , 6.8 The party responsible for the action shall notify Quality Assurance when the action is completed and will sign and date the original 1
, , , .- Discrepancy Report (item 12).
- v,' .". ,
6' 9 Upon notification of completion of the required action, Quality Assurance / Quality Verification will reinspect the discrepant area or item and'corplete items 13-16, as applicable, on the Discrepancy Report. 6.9.1 If item 14 is marked as " Accept", the Discrepancy' Report will be deemed closed upon the affixing of the signature of the inspector accepting the item. , ,,, 6.9.2 If item 14 is marked as " Reject", a new Discrepancy' Report will" be issued and the new Discrepancy Report Number entered in item 16. The old. report will be deemed closed upon the , issuance of the new Discrepancy Report. I, amo i FORM NO. 1122 06 JUNE '74
-.----_-g-e. . , .
, mm b^ J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Page 5 of 5 PROCEDURE NO. NUCLEAR PROJECT OPERATING PROCEDURE POP N-713 TITLE OF PROCEDURE: Issue Date: USE OF DISCREPANCY REPORTS PROJECT TITLE: Rev. No. & Date. WATERFORD SES UNIT #3, PHASE I CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 6.10 Where practicable, a " Hold". tag Attachment C,. shall be.placed on ' or near to discrepant item or area. 6.11 When necessary, Quality Verification personnel shall conduct-surveillance inspection of the rework in' process as well as reinspection after completion of the rework and, where applicable, shall complete reinspection reports required by the rework procedures. 7.0 QUALITY SSURANCE - Project Quality Assurance Auditor shall periodically audit inspection, engineering and construction activities for compliance with this procedure. 8.0 RECORDS AND REPORTS
. 8.1 Discrepancy Report (Attachment A) 8.2 Discrepancy Report Log (Attachment B) ,
, q. ..
8.3 Hold Tag.(Attachment C) . .
^'
g e-sh e
+ +
se a.
, .1 L 1, s e a
- em FORM NO, 1122 06 JUNE ~74 f
POP-N-713 Attachment A D. R. Numbst (1) J. A. JOlES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 CONTRAC'" NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report (2) DISCREPANCY REPORT ! ~ Item Description (3) (4)
- Location ,
Dwg./ Spec. No. (5) Discrepancy
Description:
t
- (6) i Q. V. Inspector (7)
Q. V. Supervisor (8)
- i .
Aisposition: i (9) l ' J. A. Jones Project Engineer (10) Date (11) I. Q. A. Approval
- Date Assigned to: (12)
Action Completed: Signature (13) Date . Re-insp'ection: , i Remarks: (14) l 4
- AcceptI l (15) Reject 1 I(15) Q. V. Inspector (16) Date I
If Reject, D. R. or N.C.R. Number (17) issued
~
l i Revision 3 2/3/78 j l
- )
+
" . ~ ~
Attcchment A- -
. .. r.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING DISCREPANCY REPORT 4
--- - - Item No. -. -- ..-
-*C-- -
(1)-. Discrepancy Report number as-assigned by Quality Assurance------ . - - . - - - -
"" ' - (2) "' .Date Report generated . - - . .- --
.1-. - -. -. . . - - -
"-*-- '-(3)
; """ Brief description or title of item
-(4) --Concise, accurate . location of. item .- -. -. .--- -- -- .-- -
~ -Drawing' and/or Specification number which states. original..requiremenc. --- -
1
- (5)
, (6) Clear, concise description-of discrepancy- . - . . . --- - - - - . . --
(7) Signature of Inspector reporting item -- . . . - - -- - -- ---
.(8)- -. Signature .of Q. V. Supervisor . . -- ---- - - - - - . . - - - - . . -
(9) J. A. Jones Engineering recommended solution for- discrepancy -.. - - - - - - - - (10) Signature of J. A. Jones Project Engineer and. date -- - - - . .
.'P . .. /
-*-- < * - -( 11 )" Q. A. Approval 3 (12) Name and title of party responsib1'e for physical compliance with-disposition ,
(13) Signature of party named in item 12 (14) Remarks, if any, of person responsible for reinspection (15) Status of reinspection (Accept or Reject)
. (16) Signature of person performing reinspection (17) DiscrepancyReportNumberofreissuedDiscrepancyReport,ifrequi[ed.'"
J--- 4 -- - ~ ; . e . s. . J - . ,, . . dcils ,
- J-14: i. . i 0.. .
* * - - *.. ., .. . n . . . . . - .
. 4 .* .: . . , , _ , , . . , , ,
l
~ f L) %
1, . . . .
** Revision 3
. 2/3/78- i l
- . . ,wf1P.th i 5
. .**.. . g 4
m
- w: -
E E w . W . 9
- s. .
.6 .
c ww .
>= m
<O -' ~ '
OJ r 2 o - 6-CH wm
* >= O 2 cm-
- 4. .
A e 2 O C u o J 2 4. 2 o o
=
>=
g o-p o o .2, 5 _ . u . A >= ac m
- D w wo
- 5 5 WW& **
>= --
;m :n **
. >=
< Z m. .
#2 , o
- Occ O 2 2 .
u "# 4 ..WM - A o m W 6 W E Z U C
=3' m.
O O
+ Ww
- 4 >= D
.<wOm
"'S = ,
,y) e, .... --o-e
- e
. . , i **M#
2 O
, - . P.
N I. . . N A %
~ @
E % u N m M W Q
. . I N
C O w D d
*w .U.)
.e M E3 >
- 2.* g OD *
. m
... *E .
.e
.-- -- - - , -, , w..._, ,..,.., . - .
i
- k. * * ." ' *
, i-ATTACHMENT C Pop.}.713 1
;Revicion 2, j I
12/8n 7 : i i
'. j.
./
- e. .
i t _. ,t O
#9 J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION CO. -
l
< !~
- . M@LD y l
_ . . . .,1 , i i - P - l Raf. Doc. l
. Item Name: !
i ident. No. l ar. .- . ,
~.' ' Serial No.
'~,~ s: '
. 1
;;, , . 8. - ,
Hold By: " 1,
. Imp.cor o e. ! j
- s. *
'.. ;* . s s *,
This Tag To Be Removed By .. / . I j .
~ l.
- 0.A. Insoector .. CNLY .. *1 -
Hold For inspection ; *
. . , Hold For Documentation ,g ,
-i
.
- Other:
I a i e J
., . . . 3 REMARKS:
' i 4
9 d
. . i
. I
. i This . TAG is to be securely attached to the . .
f
- ITEM BE:NG HELD. )
c . :n ' 4 8
. j
, . . (Blue) , h an . I ,
e t p i
. . f
**I '
e g
. i a .. e
\
e p p .
),.
ii .{ h'-l . - l e
- 4
.e
g g- N N . . U - A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPA! D . R . N umoe r [ 62. [ pg( o7 ~ }ggi VATERFORD, UNIT NO. 3 _ e f a '
' "" CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date o f Repo r t k/,f /'f[o O nw""'
e DISCREPANCY REPORT 4 /76 M {.f , a y .-
^
Ite Descr tion typeke. krysey/0,nyy
' e.m i Location 7 (p e/db/amN' l0 A ; M $ 4llb W u b n w,o $ ; 3
- J Dwg./ Spec. No. } af)- /54 4.~ $4V0383 .K/,gR lAQ, Lf*f if, $= 'fj - y (( - f"/d 78 Discrepancy
Description:
& /14M J A/ p Y M /A ) & d i'~^ k7 $ d,/ W.2/2 MM1$' -
u Vv d' Q
& Au.A) (n$rrid4 'NnN dised uln/0y d>/,/wM)i l9 ) WY ] - - * ] A&M / 9 .
a.m) twtue o D A/ /7 bed /s bhal& Co mv2t6/ AURA o Yt> . n $tA-)
/ bAJJH ld $21A/UWhtptA Y) A & L " h,Yh, RccE9cc I.4. E. "o2 7 q. v. inspeetor C'>fe JP,/en.8,J Q. V. Supervisor NM [ 78 Recommended Disposition:
Backfill with Pour # LOV-1564-G-499503 - 17, or either pressure grout per _ . _ Specification LOU-1564-472 - Section il Paragraph 5.10b. J. A. Jones Project Engineer d47 U 4 / //7.x - Di s pos i t lon: Fop.m Ar yo,s A a.o oc 0dL1~5 sal ~ k e YoT~b Ac VptLL b)n=ltel 7. b)Hal C A,PPiac /A/ Verh l1 $ upc.en'- .CeBMa y % R . 'IN k owsH M o o i
.! da t'e l Assigned To: Dale Coe '
Action Completed: Signature /./ j A7 , h e pp, if //3 , Date Re-inspectlon: Remarks: Jltth ktc&tjActu.ui i Y/,cApf d V&.' M-/ A&AY AM Ldb stN2 (YLLC b'l M. d i M ,_ y l;%ld4: &.u. 0 / L G Vsts M ~~ 6h~~l8. (l6"L C dhC 4 4f ' ' WY h b* l Accept LJ Reje'ht L.J // Q. V. Inspector 47 6 9 1 L ' 3 f "/ 6 Date m w , (1 x/ #/ ;'/'7G-y s fBEEDOM OF INFORM A7t0N If reject, D. R. Number issued. , ACT REQUEST ;
. 0 81 iionL g,<.usc l c./72.l l
l
* ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,, l
.. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAl(Y '
D. R. Number r$Cg7 9 l l WATERFORD UNIT No. 3 MAY 271981 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 DateofReport,4~/M/7d j f 'g DISCREPANCY REPORT Ite De er tion M l/M T '{o " fl)d &l Location /0A 36 Aea,& e)/ den.) J~ Dwg./ Spec. No. Ofl,-f.ff' - A- MQS89 d2 f) /fdt/, M2 bluf 17 - f, /d Discrepancy
Description:
Y d4.La) A '8 " X 4I0 $474 X ll LSt.b WMd a meloWl1,s 6/ M, rty a 11 t/Y A/ ADUA4 0 Y . 8lu. I LMP!b $444.) 4/s) wtJt24LA)
* /
&. hs) U / d W f ,Dollt A $930 S#l9.
Q. V. Inspector d w ff/9p TM Q. V. Supervisor / f $S f- '/ ,7C l Recommended Disposition:
- l Backf111 with Pour # LOU-1564-G-499503 - 17.
J. A. Jones Project Engineer ,O. f
, j&,/jf DisposItlon:
. ::: ' $# ' 2 0. :C 5 a %, ^ G,: S,,.?,^=2# ~ ne ~~7~~n $ %
= = As Aaa %me %ninw /s Acamomocd b Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer # 0
. / dete' Assigned To: Dale Coe /
Action Completed: Signature - Date I-/d '/,4 Re-inspection: Remarks: All defective concrete removed to sound concrete and er. posed surface cleaned with water Jet. ,,- A pp gm.g Accept Reject C Q. V. Inspecto s;
. LM Date E
/S{76 if reject, D. R. Number issued. ifMAA dy (pqqq.,
M *EQ. . ' T4-8frf r ._ .. _. ,. _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ @ S %. - . _ . _
e- _.
~
's W W ALL
. EA6T Vour 19 egty,2 . - ~
bt"! i'a,_... s ' ~ MAY 07 ISS) p +' 6% u 137) - h l (* 8&cd MRT 3 %_ ' 7- ' I1, u p Il SQR% M 90 " b ut.o d M M T p . f* L- . _ - se i 01 l Pour I'l 3
M* TjAUl_I J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN) D. R. Number f/G S A WATERFORD UNIT No. 3 MAY 271931 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report// [/ 7/ 7[
,b, 4 DISCREPANCY REPORT Ite gDes"c'r
~ '
i,,,=#
- ion hLc cod ,
Location d.bW/$ - dN9863 - 7 Ae' ] db//'&3 '-$m bn 7Y!Nbff Dwg./ Spec. No. /J)2//i6' d, Alb
- Discrepancy
Description:
A m:Osx s & //P J f r+ <'.- -- bd5~ rrl$.e.,% siuNs /s # Ae 5th " dlo # com 3 i, , [ (7 Q. V . Inspector Yf) ' - r S ,7$ Q. V. Supervisor M8# ) g- 7-7( Recommended Disposition: Pe u 12. /d tu t 7"M P C U /?- G = d/9 95 0 3 - ) Y J. A. Jones Project Engineer M ___o S/r/74 i/
- Disposition
$8Co aMnalb Sb 11/06 t 7?0W l.t k CCeDo r M e W k VtbEh PA w M b /2.
2.se m-ts P m n bEbascoSeniorResidentEnginee f Assigned To: DA/ / ~ Co #_ Action Completed: Signature Date g/78 Re-inspection: 1 l Remarks: few1te fw l? l l Accept Reject O q. v. inspector [ l Date .4T//74 If reject, D. R. Number issued. [gg fflEEDOMM INFORMATION
. ACT REQUEST TV- W f C[72 f- _
L.A kfJ lr.k h O ' ' ' t-~i J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Numoer /)CNM MAY 271981 [N C N 3 h- Date of Report #/d.2/74 e
# " '#%: DISCREPANCY REPORT
. Ite Descri Ion dm[ ## d Location J.072 /fd E - 4 A99303 - /f 8eletU 8* 7l'sM /Alabrd'be/~)
^
N&h VJe // , 0 47/ /PreX '/5 ' ~f/~0M Ed.5 7" J</* W
%g./ Spec. No. L o ts M4. .C . A 72- 1 l Discrepancy Desdription: 1
& V6 i ff I S h6 $se lo w be Yom dr.40 b r'd fo P , Net ~Yb
! u n if -
/s* ' -0sm r<s + tw //
/
, s'porsx Y b " /om v Ld t __. A 88 1
Q. V.. liispector /,/2 d E% Q. V. Supervisor / 4~-//-76 Recommended Disposition: . Repair par FCR f50. J. A. Jones' Project Engineer M: ~ 4 /p/pr Disposition: kAPLY IKAhua- Y/-Ab Doxy W bNketc Peg Pc r2 C //--szy
, 'l Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer s Assigned To: D42.8 C08 ,-
() g date '
Action Completed: Signature h h/ . - -- Date 6 ,, [ Re-inspectlon: ~ g t-1 Remarks: /?r,ox ErJ OacVt J/20 b4 kit) a ('ai s_ di1%r-h)cW2c/% T)ra 06 ? Id /f rss //hll bd. 6/W /8tbb A~dere k DlW m ?,O h // S U E~ b6 Accept 7 Reject O q. v. inspector 7f.u). d A Date d'/.g /re FREEDOM OF INFORMATICtd if reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST f4-TfT l c[72r I _ _ _ _ . --:--:_----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - v---_-_-.--- -_________________
i l fs .
.. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANT D. R. Number CCO WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 , / , /,
CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report W//G, DISCREPANCY REPORT ltem Description / 4 /F4 dM Location cu r lbb f.J f f f ' l1lA WAS' CS , $d6bf Y$fk9b Dwg./ Spec. No. ff [ dM ~
. Discrepancy
Description:
uns ~ albesbo M}<d a)s // bem a bo /e 5 % AJer/A b$ % h OLLll Y duo erw 4es- So ' , 33 $ ' M $ ', M' W 42 ' Usr-fA Y Su fA Adl//. anur kl,f.p,s.ko Es</ /ds //}ss %&Se. 4 / x)s e f f d ' 81 4/! Q. V. Inspector s . , . Q. V. Su;servisor _ _ _ . _ . . _ Recommended D:sposition: [ Repair per EIR 200-7
,--u.v. , , , , , , , ,
^ .
137 ; J. A. Jones Project Engineer g2/ __ Disposition: Eco d erubek i s.Pos, i rtoa lS hc e d7 A7 tqc e Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer ) dbkh, l Assigned To: Dale Coe Action Completed: Signature -fkd Date 4!f*/[, Re-inspectlon: Remarks; &p rp //d f?(cet~/* sd(' e jg),-/-h (($ Accept [ Reject C Q. V. Inspector /k , vr, Date Y9 if reject, D. R. Number issued. ,
. r ttDOM OF 4NFORMATION ACT REQuisi ST-95T C.[1 t o
i.54l h E. $ L" .' b;. !)Lc-l e i.4'
'N
- s. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN) ' D. R. N umbe r 6 0 0 6 VATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 MAY 271981 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report O/2-7[
DISCREPANCY REPORT lt sce ption M n- K 740 Y [ Location n /2 A ll10DP M l0 kd)7? Af v 4 /L?~// Dag./ Spec. No. b 8?d? $6 / / /lpi/ #$ / Discrepancy
Description:
D & MP t' &nAus A,% ,A n $a
~l(X G~ rx' -oA2t' ,/
/
/o ' di abd v
Q. V. Inspector [/ ) Q. V. Sup~ervisor [ M #[/[ l Recommended Disposition: l (Mo, n4R. oM 6t.f %- 9 l i J. A. Jones Project Engineer MI - --[- > ///z/74 f ( ) Dispos i t lon: 52.oM M em)h d L) 1.sfo s. t rioJ lS kc'ce9 YAB L F s / h Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer J 7/.e Assigned To: k .4 ///[,o.s[ Action Completed: Signa ure M.$ Y fe Da te 4/-//S < 7/ Re-inspection: Remarks: Accept Reject O q. v. inspector T7// ,b Date 4//3/7t_, If reject, D. R. Number issued. .. FREc.~m <- WFC LI A fiON ACT REQuGT
. ._ __ ._ _ q 4 M r r _ ..C-f.~1 0
UA V AUl. i - rs i J. A. J0!4ES CONSTRUCTION COMPANi D. R. Number d200 7 1 MAY 271981 VATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report I /'/C 76 l
- 3. ' :cq
'[ 137 $ DISCREPANCY REPORT ;
Item e
- tion a f OD [
Location fwt~ /3A Sou b kld6/ [0rAff &k R)1// (////f Dwg / Spec. No. ! d' /
- Discrepancy
Description:
< usose dahesho . Jro m uhs-h ala // 7~n /2
. $A 6 I bd 6 8 Wd/ $ P//// Ll /Arsua A lida f W G he D 6M f 4/ dh 0/A) W by ltb
~
/d
/" o 4 ' l6 d he fe ,' Cidfer bb/b A4 Y fu W N 7 " l*
E ib n /x /b. ' Q. V. Inspector - k2 ON Q. V. Supervisor M" /Ma k Recommended Disposition: *
'D4//<i' 88 8/k N66-7 , J. A. Jones Project Engineer ,h Di spos i t lon: F0k g, f f (WCL ' '
l d'Z.omme:wb e% bla/;'or 1 14eJ lS C.C @ 7% dt f basco Senior Resident Engineer _ </ r. Assigned To: /Qb E ,, i Action Completed: Signature - Date *7b Re-inspection: . Ramarks: ks 6 i A ((. M . Accept Reject O q. v. inspector I d- M Date f //# k if reject, D. R. Number issued. FREEDOM OF INFORMATiON ACT RZQUEST RL4 - M r c.ht%-
be o_ t2 d a w /mm h A q
. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY -
D. R. Number /'/d/[ MAY 271981 ,, WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report /07 $
,,o DISCREPANCY REPORT l tem escrl' i A4 jf, An, .
Location k WV dl~/5 f $ car.s4) $$ M. --16. 75' Dwg./ Spec. No. / pt/ ~ /f(D Y o $~ N bt$3 Ni 77~ - /d
- Discrepancy
Description:
/ $ / tt Y Y / M t A J 6~ A rnu n % d a d _n f s N J u k N ?tA w J $< 3
/M M N d M ! S 4 M8 M d 0
- u v nin}YI' A5n i ie eununw /
$.&L'Arw .'
uhat IDafl no AcaA6 n^>// //d eb A / " fnra/ X 4 " d1 e'% . J /us) m )s &Zu nM2%$n /MLu-Q. V. Inspector z2m ) Q. V. Supe rvi so r,, - # MM/Az V-2 7 7( Recommended Disposition:
/
6 N I) (/ b l J. A. Jones Project Engineer a p// [ Dispositlon: [ PPLY&Mhuse-Yi-Mah Moxv l 77/m \2v hR c v & F~C 2 QQ - So
- l Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer k[/
/ Y/eJ/pg d'a't e '
Assigned To: [OYd[ MMA/4(/b Action Completed: Signature M . B . 9/ /,o g d w -- Date g _ v.p g
/
Re-inspection: Rem.w rks : b aad/ &C . [ SW N da/u ;t9 alrfdA e,i. //Asa, 24)eL2 Accept C C V. n pe Y Date d~M / 76, 1 If reject, D. R. Number issued. lft' p UdLN a b FREEDOM OF INFOhMailON ACT REQuc.Si c: cr _ 1 '_ir_~ - z c:-- TJ
~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - -
ou_uce- c.l m -
l 1 - GA VAULT ,
.,. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN) '
D. R. Number M/~/d' l WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 ! MAY 271963 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 4/J7/74 p % DISCREPANCY REPORT t
\ tem esc lon ? )( E /'s O'In & d"/ e D N8
~
I l Location /bl//d 5 '44-M99Ao/-/$ W,E. 0rWeM U C D o r' (Kla b r~e h c D \ . i Dwg./ Spec. No. Lo LA 15foA- A 4 99' 30 / '
,' Discrepancy
Description:
Tle A;bt~hes3 e h lOs b r ;Ce !c D ~
/ec //) sek fy box,' s Ie~ Werk kCe 0 04cole Aa.S n 61l ez'Acrex d# /b/>c , / i /S 4~ t re 2 " o ft 7% ehe. o/ /%b DA 1 is on s,6a h J s,A n ! /s o s rso. 4-n4 ss n ex.A A ,/')
Ldid or,o Q Q. V. Inspector k h.' Y ?l7(,. rra m _ Q. V. Supervisor 4 27-76 _ rt . a Recommended Disposition:
~
/
72/ Q/f2
/
Di?"/7 $/S "?R]- 9 &$ ? W$A . J. A. Jones Project Engineer Disposition: lueme.mp AtuvReTameeChe me 2oo -7. Lere Son,e Mov 8e- Ace. ,suGn 2v 0 PMie. Era a Mi-Meh G>0nv s'7'xsvhev Pn ewe Per F=C (d C. A s"0 V/>//pl h Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer [/ vl/ l Assigned To: kOY'd5 M45A/EU/2d Action Completed: Signature [ k. MA ./ . . w Date //_ fp - 74 Re-inspection:
' Remarks: ll 1 H) /// ara YW A/ ! M~
4 % .#ek A%da s<A Re% K&, d Accept Reject O Q. v. inspector dp2Mz,E Date .8-/a/74 If reject, D. R. Number issued. OR 3h NA. - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AC h
, n ,
.. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANi .' D. R. Number OO/7 ,
WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3
't.
CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report Y-2f-7d DISCREPANCY REPORT Item Description ff ( /h4I [fr 47/ d 9 ~ Location g O4'
/ /fb4 A;44%'G/- // . 22.5I~ /L)1// ,/
/
3 g/W // hhp;ff~cD
/
Dwg./ Spic'. No. / et/ / f 6 4 $ 4 f f $ 6 /
- Discrepancy
Description:
TAC Te D eG e 0$ l~be l6 tdrF $Ur ls f d fe.O ks 3
/J #dre V
//
/4 ffG G nt/ 0 f-f &~A/Y kdh3 /A.i 0u!ef ho Ih. TAe A,nssl 34r-ks asore v /.s// r% ek/4
'Ahr H $ 2/ he nY _S O DDi~d V /2 Ald f~bb .
Q. V . Inspector
/7 f Q. V. Supervisor $ $ W // , , f V .2 7 7 [
Rec ded Disposition: - MIR -2?EA 2.I 12. '2e -r7<
' / --
,gg1' gcg g/T v n s '
t J. A, Jones Project Engineer b; Disposition: C OAA M G~MW 14PDLIT~l W l5 hCC. mal.f EbascoSeniorResidentEngineeh I A. #/ 9 d Assigned To: k, ,[8M)f/ [O /d[ ////l 6 , Action Completed: Signature h / // Date 4eE/74 Ra-inspection: Rsmarks: m /)p Ae N r 2,& b) $5 b SD ~~ ? s/n/7i ' AM odi ' Accept Reject O Q. v. inspector M.M ,Nuriv Date #/M76 If reject, D. R. Number issued. , j
, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST l
__. .._._._ . . ._.._______.._ N U M b.3 I. . __
. ,A S i . .;. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION C0td. PAN) '
D. R. Number r,C/ M l I WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report .4/ Sc/'74 DISCREPANCY REPORT ltem Description deJgtch hepa e F Location /6(d //44 ~ 8d'0fe#~C/ ~ /4 Es sT itle // ANm d No /64-s2 Dwg./ Spec. No. 46t/ //6 4 - 6d9946 /
- Discrepancy
Description:
Yot 6 dk3 %5W di 6 ch OJ'b r Al!rkr' A q9/>re X
//' /we J A k
- abh / es' A eA c/ A fow.ar Aedu
/
ffees1 hol'f //)4 ll 0 f M A
\g4 %
g Q. V. Inspector Q. V. Supervisor / [ M48h
## I 7-So -7f
( Rtcommended Dispos n: i E hijiA - A 's hsiC [l % ^s: ? ddE4 lA Afd M J8 Eb InsLi, fD$ SESA/R[O /Al AllDABANL l U / TAl [t f i f) (NAAM / /?4//US'5 7 50_ f n J. A. Jones Project Engineer 1 21/ Disposition: bf0l Y Erita bur. $t- Mok W O N W h AY hAc u S G>2 PCA G N - 5"O l asco Senior Resident Engine k j l Assigned To: / f, Ad A 3 b 0 e M Action Completed: Signature /P. 8. 9//,u/~ w, Date f-//- 7/
/
! Rs-Inspection: Sii.jo .s //e-J Cc,yps is~ RE Pit h ba cu c ada G 41 ~1.'IT hi $3&iNA Rimarks: T .~%.e cv J/* f& i . . Aw' < t&) /d /]ffn-42l &uw Orw /.$~ A s L . Accept Reject O q. v. inspector I !/2 N M Date # /4 / 4 i If reject, D. R. Number issued.
"Y R .
FREEDOM OF INFORMATf0N E - ACT R; % si / N k 71h . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ s
l l G pif\f j$ f l)II ~f. n n l bd 4 bI s. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANr' D. R. Number e r4M WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 4 [5d/ % DISCREPANCY REPORT lte
'tlon [WeA2.e NA //'
Loca
- n M Ap"/d- f$dff. 5d" /- /5 , Alr-sY d)v// /$*Yom 0 SDb l Dwg./ Spec. No. /0 S//Sd> $~ddff.,So /
- l Discrepancy
Description:
Yet 6 df# rot 2 60 c. 2 eM f f% $ [0 S$ & 8l Yor4MJf /bC4bo S h W o d k /<dt // /7 , e5/ l JJ ' 42 ' 4 r '. A er ' i erW I / 9 Q. V. Inspector g/.Sd[76 Q. V. Supervisorr ((#MM V ,Fo. pg Recommended Disposition: l fd1/[ /h! 5(2b /EAfdlf (U1 7/-/ FEN.r] Cr/ANAt 174Du'es 7 ?So~
. J. A. Jones Project Engineer [t %b _
f' Disposition: 1 l i PPLv Swnhe M i M h eno ox v sfhevface Pcne Pc2 C IJ -m hEbasco Senior Resident Engineer D [/
) da te 7/h 7 9 Assigned To: M f, /\ 9 a r k d e t /
Action Completed: Signature P,$.1/f M /m o Da te 5 ~- 4/- p/
/
Re-inspection: Remarks: ft A !YL //t OosFC/E/T pet *Aik lBEQ d CoxiY A/3'/f?At 4bsh4 A L u 's/ fu w w d Y orl1 b
- M - L , /f Pa :f',a f4/-re 6 ffes7W Accept I Reject O Q. v. inspector # tzl d Date s/#/s I
l If reject, D. R. Number issued. FREED M OF F RMATION l dB l ..-.. _ . . . - . . . . .- 1-f
d*A h-
\Sf 01 O GI b* -J . A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number M4 /
WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 MAY 271981 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report d'/.3/74
~
, y g., DISCREPANCY REPORT ite $ri ion b & p ff f fDd/P .
Locats el,/ /f/4. f.dqqj'0/ -/f _ .fejk /z)g // &$m o & LIP /L*/~ /Lbbrd$p Dag./ Spec. No. A.DZJ /fd,4 ~ LG-4f?aSO /
, Discrepancy
Description:
1 V8 &/es.s As 'e bees.) e ls d nsa L N ii1s // ude ' (4/pp(~ h rT'e$.f6O Y0/Y% e /J W GM b /d ! d^If N< 24 phde' X s?' eden 7hv are /c e s A d o f AJ/ows fen % + is// o', A ' M s?/'U s' ' Q. V. Inspector (( .:3 4 Q. V. S up'e rvi so r ,N-g;#'M @j;5 -pt," Recorrrnended Disposition: .
.llt A /A) kl (??? oat}l. E !UI[N f}ELh !ll}A!!L Nf N/ES 7~ fa J. A. Jones Project Engineer [
n Dispositlon: hPfl.Y m S/K A hlid YI Noh EPOXY W b/h' hA c Lt ?e>e P~G R. G ll - 50. l // b Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer [J!76 Assigned To: r, b5k bm Action Completed: Da te .f"- 4/- 74, Signature [ 8 9,ff n /.I m m Re-Inspection: Remarks: h npo, sphep uw t k N8 -SC . 05 w ll l ' n e/m to 'b fi f m' /'$ 5/ Accept Reject O q. v. inspector f ci,). M M Date S/M'/(, If reject, D. R. Number issued. .. FREEDOM OF INFORMATIO'N p y A[ ACT REQUEST U@n1U dii% 59 9w elm 9
1
- . . . . . --.. . . . . -. .... . . \ .dA...VAUL.1.-.. .
m A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY MAY 271981 D. R. Number _6/7dl7[ WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Repor@ % 76 p v.r E 137 1 z DISCREPANCY REPORT
~
Item escr' tion /Ae. ffYa Location /.92//564- d$.$G4'eC03 - Dwg./ Spec. No.
.Ed R/Y SY - , & /J Y b .i . ,-
/)2//.5~&. 875
- Discrepancy
Description:
].]h 4 Db
~
L A $ $4 s' t ea J Nds"A6 dx n 4 AJ os f.Acm>mu ,
& Y e5~
ef /d . /3 /7 20'
,-Q l ' , .-.24 ' B' As2 '
O. V. Inspector N e"S~~ /'74 Q. V. Supervisor M((- _ OS 7[ Recommended Disposition: ' Reoair per FCR #50. J. A. Jones Project Engineer /J/ __ [ _ c, Disposition: hPPLv EIRAbut-lll-Mah Boxv $ bRY PAcW k?- P C (2 0)l-50 l
. Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee bck ,$'.r[7(,
Assign'ed To: [A Action Comoteted: Signature Date5"/~/d-7[ Re-inspectic,: Remarks: ,u o' Dar f < hpj c0dd/2/>f ff4/hC, fat oda! " Acceptk Reject O q. v. inspector MA,mY Date e /o h 6 I f reject, D. R. Number issued. FREEiiO.,i GF ..An v, { ACT REQUEST J uit Umrd 24-4rf Chli
, , , = _ _ . _,. . . . - . . . . . . * . .-. -~ ~ - '~~== ~ ~ ~ '"* ~ ~ ~~ -~
/
QA VAULT -
- s. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number CCA6 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 \.
MAY 271981 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Da te o f Repo rt .4'4/- 76 pU '6-4 DISCTsEPANCY REPORT lte Descr tion - b m. ud, Location /DZ//f4 4-(SA9960A -/7 /$4h/ f 8m / /s& b1-ec_. bk! Dwg./ Spec. No. / /) 2/ / f 8,4 r b 7 % *
, Discrepancy
Description:
7l, L s k / b Am n!8h //Ad t Sw iP_hA / L_W
. EA Y 4-. k / ^%s- .
h i i y A> s, ^> ll4 e* & j t Q. V. Inspector /6.' 4v #/ 74 Q. V. Suli ervisor [ 8 S M f-:5 7g Recommended Disposition: Reoatr per FCR #50.
~
J. A. Jones Project Engineer - a Dispositlon: OPR.Y Stn%t-lll-Mob Epoxy <'hav Puu Pa l=c e c H-s a h Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee ff f Assigned To: , Action Completed: Signature Date CS~//O ---(( Re-inspection: Remarks: Acceptk Reject O Q. v. inspector) )_ d At osk Date b 4 d o[7 4,
/ t 1 FREELGs CF iuFCh.,uON lf reject, D. R. Number issued.
0.I ACT REQUEST w-w t.l'12o
. 5 7
.. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D . R. N umbe r /,R46 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT _NO. W3-NY-4 Date of ReportMd/76 DISCREFANCY REPORT ltem Description JA Location /fa #.$eujb $/ ) E t]~~ & d 'f'd k W 6,/ & p x ) L ' /d );l_
d " Dwg./5pec. No. />dfj /[f (( ~ $ 7L hf ]7' f")& ' Discrepancy
Description:
.~
$) 484) 0 J/ W V Y _eji
~
islnts &y JJJft/*/220// W V u k-$ W.'id h l /1A n h W1 m h l- 7 #iWHn X / 'A rn G X M " d e d , OS 1f010
. ~
Q. V. Inspector b bM I 8 "t Q. V. Supervisorf (([ f ~/ - 7 4 2 137 R commend ' Disp % tion: Back pour with Pour # LOU-1564-G-499503 - 17 J. A. Jones Project Engineer 4/ _
], S//o/7/
DisposItlon: ELDMM Gkk e% r.s par i 7*/ c d lC kCC & 7218LE iPathh & ?AT*// Far b I A ECC A P'E /A f/2a /tb c"2f - i b Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer 8 /., d6taf Assigned To: Dale Coe ,_ -, / Action Completed: Signature Date [ /6 Re-inspection: Remarks: All defective concrete removed to sound concrete and exposed surface cleaned with water. jet. , g f /O-76 Accept k Reject O Q. v. inspector k b Atojk Date g[/ o[%
/-
fBEEDOM OF INFORMATiON F lT ,i If reject, D. R. Number issued. I ACT REQUEST
- a. U2 !% g9-4rr y c.{~12 3
6 O3
~^ ~ ~ -
MAY ~o* J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Numbar M //d
' 1981 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report #3 7/7(,
l A- DISCREPANCY REPORT L 13 7 l.~ Item escri lon bu.t,ub_ f.e rde_., Location /_02/ /54E- 44Q446.8 - // //}r,/ /Ll.rJ/
/jnw /1/e, butte-D Dwg./ Spec. No. /D2/ /s/,4. 472
/
Discrepancy
Description:
Ye n $ a hs L/e A As/ou) u p p s r Lt.,L1 l W af/pr> da r fi A.>4 s1DDro y '7 s ,, E Al isis l\ )* v lsYi <)a $ ADDPA 2 - *
//' / Bale /~dfc0 /$
Nn lerraof-* v fnt 't / / Tk/3 AfM Llc r e /$ dp/st v 4 Z d b et/e_ W br /ou) u bbe r~ Ltla ke&.:C h A. Q. V. Inspector Z., [ 7/74, Q. V. Supervisor I ;- C//7/7[ Recommended Disposition: Repair per FCR #50 J. A. Jones Project Engineer M Ie / J" / y/74. Disposition: k9A' v' S/MhuA $/ -hteh SPewy D RYRaeu Pe%t PC 2 Gll .S*C
/7 h Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer M4, t'% t d Assigned To: .DAPz./ Co ( ,. . I ,
f _ Action Completed: Signature / Da te /> 6 b e:. Re-inspection: l#eT Romarks: 0lea Dr'st kt-//e* $k5 fft4 Whl7g, & fg" Qgr fgl , pwement /s.- h./) 5fste l has /J, // /v pere m .u.un a.
/rum
/ tt),// dwere be.
Accept F Reject O Q. v. inspector d./// MM D.tes/e;/px,
- if reject, D. R. Number issued.
FREEDOW OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST 99 4 S T' Cal 1M.
fLe ULl
^i. V M} [ g a - -- .,
J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Numbar /v1 </J7 MAY 27 1981 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report _#//7/74., DISCREPANCY REPORT Ite ion [a A;r r e b kroerf," Location /.C2/ /54~4 d,444.$(B -// M b3 f H!1/ N lm t e i,Doo r //,$.57tD, Dwg./ Spec. No. A C2//54~4. 4 72 Discrepancy Desdription:
%) a ppro v w"4 x 3 }k " h W 4k M hs /ow usa, Aksreo
< ij
,o n r ri si II , gor,cc v si ' .sou /A o/ &&A a4 //
Q. V. Inspector [ //.2 4'/dy/96,
~
Q. V. Supervisor //[//IM[ C-/ 7- 747 Recommended Disposition: Repair per FCR #50. l J. A. Jones Project Engineer - . S//p/pt Disposttton PA_Y l li s ll O h Yf Av Cu 696 PC R Q ll~ SO __
^ .
h Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer (,
* ~
Assigned To: 44z# Ce# / . f , date / Action Completed: Signature ) d /// p ' Date 4 5'M Re-inspectlon: dT Remarks: 0(*u hr4 fst~$/ S.*.56 SX1 cifAO '/da hfh!L h4/"' piareinw r to Y[0 t YA4) 7(o . $reA tDr II be /%ne tdilb w t'rk n w p m c/.utre~ Accept 7 Reject O Q. v. inspector #t.d du.4 Date er /';76 h e, FREEDOW OF INFORMATION 1f reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST ORIGINAL C(114
<a .3 3j 1 -
fiA$ V'i [ M V I l J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Numbar M 4/3 MAY 271981 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-HY-4 Date of Report =8 Y /h!,, [A - - DISCREPANCY REPORT {:' 137 lte Deser ion d Wre [g MafLyW Location /07}/ h4 4 S d$fe5'C3 -lf //)r$ /j)s /l d k s/e $ ,!-$ m A- /A* &p
%g./ Spec. No. L & 9)/.fSA . 47Z Discrepancy
Description:
_.,Y42i A 00ro Y O$ A Y $ // Y $~' I) /6de h d'be & $ yf swp i
/>J d r 6 to o i - -
illu 7~ ale // , JJ ' Aor7'A e E ~.S a7'A a.js // f ilcr Y f V +r A. l A l,ey,, =A s bse E s_f- e J />Js Lafon Q. V. Inspector [ /L . , M g/f 7/7f,,, Q. V. Supervisor [ [// I M 3 "-/ 7- 7f Reconsnended Disposition: - Repair per FCR #50.
~
J. A. Jones Project Engineer /M ' _ -s Ji/' fy/7g i . . r ' - Disposition: APPL y' Stubug-Mi-Ms Doxy 4' b& & Pe>e. FcP c Huo h Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer (,
'f 'da t ( '
Assigned To: D Al74. g _ Cod _ t .
- /
Action Completed: .Signatur h/ w u Date 3 5 7 /, Re-inspectlon: g Remarks: 0rn J%ca Ps,//d co?Do Pm Nao/7ts Y a si~e &rhd
- f. &. ll. debt. Arm v), II be & rel sehll /3derebe.
Accep Reject V n e tor N M. M Date.4I4/74 FREEDOM OF INFORMATIORI If reject, D. R. Number issued, h 0lk {;L Onsluiml I ACT REQUEST ew-ver c-hs.*
- - , . - - - . --. ,w- --
x ------.-.r --
d A V i4 U L i . MAY 27 1981 J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Numbar OW WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 6~[f /, DISCREPANCY REPORT
- g7 :
lte Oes iption O rorre h )?eSlse-l / fot m S Location f.02/ ff44 6Mf603 - ffo , /f //A / /_.9 /2,
%g./ Spec. No. LOZ//ffe4. 4 72 l Dalf /dy/.ff d A49966/ /.663 Discrepancy
Description:
0M f/r/tkr*id 1 Amsurtl0 f k d"/Jl/l* $/ h P/ll/ freM J4lfSb SAJ/r*C 7~uhr #t 9A//t' 8d Str$ /d ll. //S / /38 TJe / % i-r o rest s S e- k=. / /s emse ao's ef 6/ /. e e K Nrkda f 7e o o / /ide 1. ch'e/ /2 ' W s / 6,/ h a .3 4 Meadas 7o- 6, / //m 44 7 era / oreg
@ Q. V. Inspector '(//
i d cD Y//' 74 Q. V. Supervisor f!/8 4 Recommended Disposition: t
#g
~
D/d OAI kf[df0fO/WG S 72"f4 m2 a% /S r kEMEllE,0 klt 7-k M)A/EEAL 6/ff/IS , EfN//c//~~Ad7'c/Af~A y A~XXcd ('CAAst)/Drd 8 )( o
/e)&id4,
/
Oil pH OCA/dff rf 15'f}fM04/ib ali7 N $]o f ('o -l All ht/AfoS /**
/*' QRd ofH f) ssf FL&ktotM ec?"'Mf; T/a N TML -134 i ~ ~ s ik tio Ma ajo e !A Zd r MD J. A. Jones Pro]ect Engineer tsf
- _ _ = _ - > gf/y/7L N/b/c -BLAsTE0, $~
$'f/M- ,
Disposition:
$E AAbum'l1 AcLdPTAdW SwshrA An burr &L CAgfr Sunne ct Pt.pntArr seu AlEC.e's5My Tb /N.tyste.r_Scinf$Ar'ses s lA f 75GLe* A dau f A A mer.r $ d A L L E nF* S M A M g b \
b basco Senior Resident Engineer /h/ h [.O.dw/,y
~
.r/zo/7,da te l Assigned To: 4P/ 944~ C OE m Action Completed: Signature Ad m de (OMot.%
Re-inspection: Remarks: Ac.cssm ws
- Att. of Ms Du -tyg y.qqr9so3"-/g Ago rasene Cg gw,a m
& ~. ad e~mx wp swa. (wech.19M1,de%dc f-a-x 7 11m / w, . , u. _ .,,. -. i:;,t */;t &;/u Accept Reject O Q. v. inspectoM M Date v// g/,7/,
FREEDbM bF INFORMATI 1f reject, D. R. Nunter issued. gg p ACT REQUEST l U R dlg[p,gj jf (g f y -v r f c,/ 7s.1 . l l l
Q A V A U i_ T J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Numbar [8dh l MAY 271981 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report -b"[9/7g, DISCREPANCY REPORT ltem escript on fo AW re be ktDarN Location LDff /564 44f-SC ; /f & .s T t%lx // -55 ' Weth n h & b k/1 // Dwg./5pec. No. L ()*3/ f f d,4. . 4 ~/f., x. Discrepancy
Description:
3 Yoib ~$ d Y r ~S $" u er // l72 r$ l~00 /}fd b & h 0 S be'e l , N t'- Voids s re nero se 2 h" uJrA r !A." hia h / 3" ' ' Deco . %e he als a re n: se nea e -F / % ' i A> /&a /4 -l"ro m 25' LIo&h n -f . 6sa /b u/s // Q. V. Inspector .
.c d # 9 74
-74 Q. V. Supervisor L /
Recommended Disposition: - A9co/a Ti kn Du i- ll,' Y k 1 E rex v i De-1 5% t y& Lo0-574-
' '//
/ /r i
' f 7 2 - Se e4 r d ~ 2T '?b n a . 5. Job
/
, n J. A. Jones Project Engineer [//[/7d DisposttIon:
/
0M Ans>A Eb f CPo L IYIOst l4 kCc 90 7~)Q A C C
, A Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee bd Assigned To: hv !4 Q (2
.U' Action Completed: Signature /A / Mi Date b, J PM Re-Inspectlon: g ;- g,e ,u,f,al s<f e ( Dry.rW Remarks: iTr a M w et/s / 4~ h e b b Cure 6 7dr 7 */ u) wr.i)f/7/76 Gre' a.,
tei iI he- enrJ o A a<>-refa niseereo/ // Wal 44 .sVs/n j Accept [ Reject O Q. V. inspector # e'd Mme. Date #/#4/74 ! l FREED 064 0F INFORMAIION If reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST l DR GINAL -" i
- c. 1
- m. . . . ,
- . , _ . . . . . . ~ . _ . _ . . g ,. . .
A. VAULT ^ , T' 2r 4 ~ '
. J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number /")d [ 7 MAY 271981 VATERFORD UNIT NO 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report /!/f/[74,
.p 4
- g13'7 Yco DISCREPANCY REPORT bAJ/*r?fe' ht*pa /N
~
item escrip"lon Location /D!/ ffh!,45930.3 ~ // //b<k LL}or // , feedef~ /11e b*r%f4p_
%g./ Spec. No. / Old /f44. Ai 7Z ,_
Discrepancy Desdription: Yei AY r _b<> ti e_- We dki/Os^j 40 t/A)$duY l%de*/~ebe- et,D,Jrd W [Amfb n h Werbb tds // obs 4 $ belcta lmde r fth bet"-SN/2, 1a } & n%lsr-$bo ' L~% ' *
- nef _r ~ tasep ~ } , yo '
QA ls---1' d - K J ,b - f' % waI
' # * ---s 7 ' --+
Q. V. Inspector M. a), vM. 8 /9 /74 Q. V. SupervisorMMM 8-// 76 Recomended Disposition: . WeY l 2. Noors - Fece and ?>ack. h r Oder u derston i ' 6et /, Harcs I Anolv 1:cox v h d ev w e t. i Aftec t 6
/
hr4 n c5 , $4rt0 op m % avw 0 cea n C u$ ', 6 hee ktt-i, ek $YeicN . J. A. Jones' Project Engineer m _ _b ,S//,p/jPg i DisposItlon: - i b//D2' f /* , d2. t Y d/ b <_ &kW 077 lv- hY " stere o f kvie 44410 % -/G Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer 3.dh I y*O date l Assigned To: B44E C#4_ _ - Action Completed: Signature // Date 7 fM g i
/
( l Rs-Inspection: p Remarks: rah 6Y fou (~* < 4'g. bm /2 '/S?/H YOob7$, $ld strd'd. hv yy en. wa.T .ca w?s n 9eIb5S/'2e/z'/'yne4fsef 0rn m,!I ko Airw/ah/h t%w/e o/ dermo l /h q.w w .rtz<,- , Accept Reject C Q. V. Inspector M/// a,x.1 Date f/Jg/pg l FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST If reject, D. R. Nunter issued. wn Q j fg .g rr B. l 1 C/73:
*NT- - -.
,R ,,.
,D o. . EA9T FA 2 oF POUR 49 %o 3 i NS NO. 00 V7
->- A 30mm , , , , ,
WRM 70E V//////\ ,pg,fpgcg5,9 my i ,- T< , _ k\\\\ \j MER rs BE
$*T/!!fD g fdt,)Pfs
\
sooooo
, \\ ' \ .
o c)cs % % w re.t o \ o \ m % \ M h e n *s L ' ElEvi9710N ~47'O oooO . on\-s a\ w N \ e, \ . \. \A 4 4 ~ ~ /
, N.
i -*- A Q A V3 ' O' L T ELEVATION A
; MAY 271981
; o a' te,
?
}' f u -
f[ i
= 237 e {
l AREA 70 BG bRyP&m y, e fs>w NNgMM%CP n BE 50770tts N ' p wp ' 4 70aisso WATEEST67 ffy /,,; ilEMTE0N b-
~ Ary one sli
,97, o - a s oa. . a, .e a . .o c. oe - ,.
/ . ,,,,., , - o o e.o e . wo A % b - - u -- a .. =
/
N' < swW /
/ Mem) ('
SECTION A -A fviETHOD OF REPAIR I.) Area, to be. VJet for 17 Noors Priac += 7eyair. F d tee 7 4.cel 2hArew below Water Oop 4 too deep to <d ry p act, will be. Ormed and thew poor w;th cowcrete 4. v;brdec.l., 3.) Concreb W'ill be. Scr ded at B ev=4i o r of Troy er Boh m ujahr $ top Eleos4; o r , And EoqyUnder P Waterdop. 4 , 6ik fpo rs :after coated wPth Csncreie., 4 exy wnd blacement' drypacW.hma.ining arau)5 "Ji d 5.) be. Forms M+r'iped bec efryyactig
- Co ncrek Gecd
- J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number / M /
WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 6hopb DISCREPANCY REPORT f " l tem Description WMSPS73P fensp)2 M enlimAl Location blAlE _~91 y t gj MAY 271981 Dwg./ Spec. No. l,Af1 /b~b Y - ~h&Qb0l $ Discrepancy
Description:
f 137 .$ e k
- I Y lo O
2t) Y V O et ' h 4 YsY m Phn2AL2$ /> w ) lJuior Abit $ a> W p N & JA & ' M 2 L sa2%% m MJ mad O o n9wk AA unw wu2ldwr & zr k aam Julh Q. V. Inspector d Jo/'74 Q. V. Supervisor . wk /
"2c)
/
d Reconsnended Disposition: , Repair per EIR 200-7. I l J. .A. Jones Project Engineer M _- I> f/schz DisposItlon: l OCOaAnnGWhd /Md /790H S dW &la f l h Ebasco Senior Resident Engineerb
'g M sh date i Assigned To: My c o/
Action Completed: Signatur # - Date 6 I I - I Re-Inspection: Remarks:
~
Accept Reject O q. v. inspecte d ,; ,c o [ h jD.te
- 5. 26 7g If reject, D. R. Number issued.
[ FREEDOM OF INFORMAllON ACT REQUEST
"-~"
ORIGINAL. C /735-
6
. .O q x ..
J. A. JDt:E3 Cor:ST ! JCT 10:1 CDitP/.i. / D. R. Numiser OO WATEarCR0 U: lit HO. 3 / CD::I :: AC i R.' . '13 -f:I-4
. Dae'of Report a")/M i (
DISCREP'W Y 'IEPO R T
#" 1 9 4 ""
- i j J l tct's Des cript ion ,t/Mgfd " Mrd '
Location bC(J/$$hd $99503 - /d, {Wl/(fM f UhY 271981
/ <
Dwg./ Spec. No. doc //'M<;&, $r72 A Discrepancy
Description:
. 8 137 ?
a:
/W W/W(26/[ n C/ //WM/G- Of(hA/S~C(JN [CH
/xJn2695~ />s SA/ a1/N ius M'3WAlm ,ews Q. V. inspecto f W Sff C- 2.0 - 74*
Q. V. Supervisor yu - n Q\ h.7 Recom:nended Discosi tion:
'Jo,'dr a s d . w .,
an a Mdad clMek wlIl La e ksoal I.o a rzu,e rou nd ca.,e ,. ,f e , Volb ~', Il 6. g lan ad la & ,s a,- a ven la k., ac an',- Ju<,,, ., e o -e,<4e o lac e n+ noeas n.+ ve J a3 wiiIt,e Ja.ua eeact 'se'sse ima ns., tou /ssa '-nz s. 4,s,. n~. o e ea a e a si, s. Job As ma a,'a A < .rneai - , /J de suk oo v ea ./ w o'/l ' lar ist+- 997 s2o18 J. A. Jones Project' Engineer M _ - -
-# .sfe,/ye Disposition:
/hsr /3 &c c2 ia 7,*19L E pao U/MA T A')4 7 1 A. %v.r s D. U.
Pf ? SON #YEL 1.v / TNrr r AW8 DQcM A /V7 ^7N F f"/ L. e. th'& op 7//C. VO /14,s wiry g, oaf C.gGr2 A)Y b VEAI /" / I"'* 7 I'!d O"'N I S VO' ' ' # # '960 vid e 7es 7#cdC46#'7. Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer f-10-7/, Assigned To: Es#dg
/ date Ca4 f , ,
Action Completed: Signatur
- , - ,2 /,/ /
v - v-A Date< 7
%f 7
,b Re-inspection:
Remarks:dreds dey cuttle $ 7'o aS$ure. t/c flit ~ dn/tsornts)h S4'#h4 6/es&s $$$a).h drsnE Ultre inseeY 7breuebeuf C/dt1*M*Jb . 0/l Voi 4 M er?' Vibi'slr adequ k/y Accept
/ O r"f7frfly'Q .t'sv.//da!
Reject O Wrr' /I 00NNYC-
,z?.ex). c8,A WR). 075* ~*7.04/7C-Inspector Date ,s/src /7c l
if reject, D. R. Nurrber issued. l' g j ;m FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST sq 4 rr .c.& Sh ccS N** ' *j ~
e
, 4
. av #... marr#hf ^t susaect . EA E .Ed M ... S swcar No...1 or._..% ..
~.* # , esxo. av... o ate . 91A.CEi M.e '/T ... N a 8a.- . < . . . . . . . Joa NO. II .* 3.b7
- n. ep a 13
- ~
a a n,3 J U.M y.,714em j
~
~ ~-c MAY 271981 L y ~
i , pw
,Q G.
I j I" 137 $ 0 - l 8w l.
- l. :
1 s p : y 1: s
") _% o ,.
i
- I i
', G s
a ' i .'
}
s i @/ ' 4Iy
$. 1 iD.p -l ) EEk 4q h i
%Yc i.-- / .x 1
""!w'[u[ DQ-qq Q
xe -
\' is k'0 ' '"l % I %
_E b. , Z1 tik-o 4 V [I D
-"4 kQ )
3s ,
' b6 R
'0- O 0
o g, i[3d1 e o q b,. Q.
=
R
,r:q: . \ .
k (R Cl a - (f.?et. V :.
~ '
... k m
=
+ b 1
.e s
- u T
+D/
1 9
~( ce h /e ,
i$
.\ p .l ik e.
s, ' e. w W
+ /g
..}t.ej l"a o
e o f e. =,
% =
g ";;'r.. .- - +
, D eQ u1'
_kb J/ J/ m,
~
o , o . /.
- r
i 17 '- da# 2 '- ca _ 3 ' lo " g: O r i e,h I s. l k ,
. ;.3 v one i i !
i!. gw m
% :. 2. O.e 29a DEEP u u s g
to xn x a's.g y .,.y .7.,, , 2 O;so DCEP FR 'A ~ EE.P
> jii '4 1 ucs or yp. .-
. yg c g preg _ . .. . .c n.
- .- . j
._ g' u O WN.'
' ~
- f. c f,eG
;-y n ,
f Ag qq_ g .7,9 __2 x . , kN
&/
__ ~
~
.ff Is** stx s93
/ ):~ f+ - y DEEP FROM k -
- --n- pegggy
, para:
d an fArAPAD A/EfA CH/P/*fQ
?t F/20M 2 " fd $" pddP lhi _
Alcarun
/
EAST FACE Pt.sc m s u r A)o. No . a..
*ee f a1 j
("% to ; es
<-* :a 9 2 g
.- L. .
, .' H gm p; I H C$
W i I
-2 -=
l f D. A_VAOll~ o o A .$
',g* D. R. Number dOfC ygg J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 p CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report o ~-2 0-76 137 DISCREPANCY REPORT Item tion Ct.4/? fN,c"4 /
Location & yfo M sf dos /c. sc er*t' fo t.uc L.o f) / C/V-4/9939 y /g> Dwg./ Spec. No. / ots- /J"GV -</9 f,fci.r ie-7 ' k (A /rG V W L Discrepancy
Description:
d d 7 c~ L Arm f ,,c,tg g c_ m y-p: x ,% y 7s u ec ,wc
$50?L' Arcfch Po a e / s~ x3 7- e e vr -n f > YMC
.r4% -
A fk 6 /t 1 A 7 / ~7 M~.c M /r CMo.t* d . [4'C AGW/96"/Af*D TA-% r' t'A'./ A&^'.- 4s CM 7."a ) Q. V. Inspectoe s $ W/WWpk $~-2-o-?t' Q. V. Supervisffh/S/ A"- 2 o-7C' Recommended Disposition: Su b lech k r Q a. w l l{ be- covere$ w % \/ iN g u e e r, haAne eo<>c<ek 4 ohea.). '. J. A. Jones Project Engineer M . ._' ; geo/7g Disposition: COMM gwh& /5/02 /7"/0N YS h C f G P 7)'18 f L'~ b Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee & 20 4 Assigned To: PAF4. / bd _
' Action Completed: Signature t Date 6/' z6/*76.
Re-Inspectlon:
\
//
Remarks: Accept [ Reject C Q. V. Inspecto MM/Y8M Date f/24/7/," If reject, D. R. Number issued. - fBEEOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
. _ . - _ . . . . .. N-?F ..chiY . _ _ _
( ., m . 3 ea .. SKETC H SHOW/NG uNc ost E.? E O SH fll 20 CAT /oM AouR - 4 0 0 ~/ 54 4 ~ 4 99 S0 *? ~ / 2 QA VAUi_T l 1 l MAY 27198) i
\b Tg I
j
~ 137:; i
}
1 m 6
)
1 l i zo' l
, n'-o" s s' e- ,c a'- c," s is-o ,
s s.o". s s", s,a s N x 6 s k , l ctc a ,N
' Y'G" s'
. s'-d 's , , 3s 44;.
s . s . l f
, 4 8'- o" s l
l\ k D.R. No. o oro fd td& 2 y 2.
3A VAULT n'J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN - D. R. Number /)/L<~/ - WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 MAY 271981 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report ed'/Jd/7( av te, DISCREPANCY REPORT
\te D$r tion ~
? Y ,O}l[ d)4 ksMkQ , -
Locate Z//564 $899e1~d $ ~// , her'fb /4)s ll , h/4W l2)rbre"$~ 00 Dwg./ Spec. No. / 0 1/ / / O 8 8 9 % $~C / ~ Discrepancy
Description:
beu443 v
/d a 11/d't'* lb ffr'cSbD i - d4> Ju s~ fdQ i
d'f l0tW/Af l6ee f&S lPs/Yi 5 sk /Ll4ll. 4 fAlobe b,<) /r bulb /dAl0Y Peneki fe)) V 'l" . /0 dW . /3'f'. ' Asuses m 2 As Dh h)4ltr~ OoD / 7'A l rem "d.$ kl4 ll I Q. V. Inspector [ft/ e:en$r /c? 7% - Q. V. Supervisor /W$f8] ,f'.-2%7dfylM7e)r Ricommended Disposition: Senek s.1 p e< - ' E./.f. 2.00 '7 A' J. A. Jones Project Engineer -a 4/" apr/g , Dispositlon:
- _3 //Je_:z2 A di r'^ '!'b%
Ebasco Senior Resident Enginen /, /_ . f Assigned To: D/9/ / CaS Action Completed: Signature
..y 3 2%s Date M///M-,/ofMr, Ra-inspectlon:
Rtmarks: MMd AFW,K.4r FAC<t//4M rdY MrTfte b.R. r,cArsWAW As?' A'n a arr' d# M i^m dO ' C' . kW ~. & Accept Reject O Q. v. inspector 8.MMovva4/ Date 5/2 4, ,/v4 4:,4 i - - If reject, D. R. Number issued. FREMM OF INFORMnitON ACT REQUEST 75
\
i
~- ~ ~ - - - -
u.,-s wao .. - m.' MAY 271981 J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WATERFORD tiNIT NO. 3
- 0. R. Number d C 5h 2 M s CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 2-7 /'7(,,
g137) DISCREPANCY REPORT i i lt Des iption ()frop s >cimp>fsC bgc/?c7f i.ocatIon {cM-WfM7H63 rf' 49ffo _T -f V
%g.iSpec. No. &c/ -f S~64. h2. Smi+m./ 8 &u'-/Sz;47 d4FQ.fof"/9 Discrepancy
Description:
[b_u. , rm $ m n -
^'s. pyr-ff' cus7,4tr' W i&& Of h d 4M'Y Ss3 -/T h r ,4 W6n t.T c a rssv' /9 '- 6 "AM of nf' WOWWW CoNd4CW YW A'W AffMS d"[Al4 GAD 4./ AMe'~$~
fji&Xr .3& W 7"O - 3 7< ~2 T s r.o r e o ws m o m .r. f Y'$ MAOY & A.l0 W Q. V. Inspector u i t41\ L _ f/"J7/~76 Q. V. Supervisor w N If '78 Rscommended Disposition: k h v a. a r- s < wa f f b e iN ued e L h ve r t $idb S y QN' '
- A7 n,slv i i SiEsdis-lll Mod 6~pocy Jo sub .' ee f a re a . Ai-e l- 6< J~ ,o uted p e i- spec ,4s t,.u '
4 o u - 1s44- 4 72 Seelis., ri~ e,a ro e rni, ,s'. io s A/a i,., ei e J/.a , fly c. p. sh %f f f. e 7:il . c . J A l- o.s < ie-i;.c.
' a r a,,' +-
/ ~ '
J. A. Jones Project Engineer g w, , .3/g7/9g,
/ '
Olsposition: Fwab CHAx4e Braarcr G.R-/.ca /niu. Aa.ow -rxe Asove. Y0&IC & y' a c.M hfasy 0Cd'IPT* O t' 'llfd~ fC h . hEbasco Senior Resident Engineer [ h G Assigned To: //ar o/N $ e e,Me f .A Action Completed: Signature a _I _ It / Dates 7 d Ra-Inspectlon:
,/ &
F4 marks: a rh A2'.*-t/< [ a_ rk a Z2e v - ! -AA w /rdde d ela'd~ Accept v Re;ect a Q. v. ins, ecto, eg.42 A Chf7/p% oare Uvf% hh ir reject, o. R. Numeer issued. FREEDOM OF INFORMATON ACT REQUEST 14-4rr e,jg S'Worf /o/ Z-
~
y n - t tO i a x < g o \ N l
\
, 4 sn a i
M N A
> \
c i %i ' 4( :"4 e M s k os -s e m u* 9 A c o g +
=
m~ ms c
+
e .,nm< . '; e 3 O Y
-a' s
i 6 Q
<a ~n .
a-u i *e~ n ,S w H t J
" ~
%'4 8
% /u
/O
~o~
s - , g . G.D R f)
.ss 5
h:a c Q \ w 4a '
'N .
$a in,j l a.. v R
b h - [86[ 1U AMN
, s .x,6
]
- 1BVA t/D
-on ser "*" I' ' Sk"-
_p..,o-. . p. .ou .t:3 s. 7.. . ums uno
- k l
5
a
. QA VAULE - ,
1 l g' ~ g J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number /)OW , WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 l
, CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report (-M*M Y IU )
DISCREPANCY REPORT l Item De son C J n'c sc 4~r'.G' , p')scur / Z g.s r%'ct' l l Location / O k /f4 Y c'"; $'99 .$~o 2 -
//A f Y99502 ~ /Of3 Dwg./49ee-= No. l l) L /76 Y G // f f .$~O T Discrepancy
Description:
%~$ 74. -
$AAAC't f./C, AA/ t eauxtemwo AAw u r o/ ;e x- oie p.ar rsit c x> p%
f4z~ bt/A:;rY WAPd.) WwX-< G.<vc fl0$ cat JU <rse ///r'.. ,"//C dsMcr%e a4<s:nr
/J' AAAeek. ._$a X 30 ' Sca arm i> /7 '/ Col. L r v ir" 4 0, v 7k' rai" ,,4/1.e y W
}?A/O 2.0 to Arf 0 M 7'WA"' // d' /~7 8 Cv" f Q. V. I ns pecto r ,/ $$/f ^~
J ~2J' ,7C Q. V . S upe rv i s op,Y.a-$ $ S/ 8 l & r-2/'~7g' Recommended Disposition: S,Jie & o,' } on re,ns ne..% rieel a h 6 eia n ove.l J. H n i d eal ro ,',,%
" 4 /
f
, insas afs che er- f>croa, Ceep. -
le toU.M. 0ll on e.onc e ebe s's J. f e e e m a a.] w l N f
/*YOreo-)t' A ll /> J /~Dore 0 $2sebecs b' $v NotYY*E Co- Y d'1 ll1 e a e e d- #3 l* $d TD r!n X/t w ii k e amW 'f W-jcito -Bla s Fe A '
J. A. Jones Project Engineer 48/ - e_. -- v 4J" '48/pr ~
/ /
Disposition: b fkesUGl&kCCGPTABl.F othEh AY khhrr*toaAL A/cAf7Y, bintVACd* SRGYAAA'i'lav YECd's3AAV % lM4TMLL 0oTscyNE 0ywe.s Stu4L i sa- nxwas er m.v.sa.s. Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer . J/n WT 4,e b/l) . 4/ Assigned To: ///gdd',C C (/ / 6 / 8 ')" m Action Completed: Signature e_A A _b, - e [ 10 ate Re-inspection: Remarks: Accept Reject O q. v. inspectorA h Date* r/3/yg /
/
FREEDOW OF INrORMAltON If reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST
~~
ORl81WI. c/73g
, ( J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN D. R. Number /J/) -
WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 jj 1 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 4/.f/74 MAY 27198) DISCREPANCY REPORT I s5i iption d// 8//d /6a dred'!##
/
L -ation DZ//h 4d-64ff-$6/ ~ /2 A d b fo ft/MA.)
~
bff Y Dwg / Spec. No. /$2//588 -b4'V'V$Cl ,
/ 0 2 / / $ ~b 8 . A l b i ,
Discrepancy
Description:
4pe)( J 72 '
//V fo /tnuA) BEN, W $ e3l/4'blly &S T . Tkre /Lis fe*P' 6CP fisiI:?tNe'l //) 0f6 l]ss deVe/W / den Gsuers (norov &, ) w ees /ee bu/A . r % h r- /lu/E bSes No) ms r- 7o be ouo e/uees/
Q. V. Inspector (( 6</** d 7d Q. V. Supervisor YWf -f$// #W& [2 ~7C , Recommended Disposition: l pm 'ElIl - too-7,
.- f6.P41E .
J. A. Jones Project Engineer o/ - , 4/2,/ 74 Dispositlon: d* c- o ~+ M dMb & /.Sfa s /71o*.! l$ k C c Md f.C "Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee -h, m, Mt 4!s/7f Assigned To: Tm/'/', y7/fe s,A///A/ Action Completed: Signature [,[. M,g/ , - - h Date/;- 4, /- 7d Re-inspectlon: Remarks: $eOa rt es! , De f" OIb 200 ~ ? ! l Accept Reject O Q. v. inspector Nd. Ma , Date M/pd4 l ret.uowi 0F INFUNMniiVN if reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST ORIGINAL ~*. chn
~
^U 58o aso w , ,
, J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number /)/")f 9 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 I , CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report lefJ dl'7(S ' DISCREPANCY REPORT ltem Description ZO N1(_.l2 b== \ t::. M T"'>O,t E MAT 27 158) i Location EL1;;;A/Avc(2 PIT- 199609-l6 Dwg./ Spec.'No.- 24Cl SD'4 - (7. -7 , ! Discrepancy
Description:
VotD cKt<ti's A LOM07- t5eTTON4 oc- E'L.GWlT CE Pt % < ou Mord -h t O G . D OfE TD tM m m cF. A %LC 1Eod. VotD t$ 8'- ( 1 A d-s x o'- 3 % . st . - 3 9. sd Q. V. Inspector M 3 4f'lb
- q. V. Supervisor M ffff///g W 6 rf.7(
Recommended Disposition - gg j7fg y, 0, 0. as(? cGA // V62 - 64.. g J. A. Jones Project Engineer // / j (/p/p6 DisposItlon: n_sta Ar Y t tn 7N DF Adoe)Y O /S 0 3 0s/Y/OW y -
'Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer / 70 Assigned To: MAgd/_,p g V/ 6/Ef Action Completed: Signature 8. ,4, 2rf,c/ w Date n - V - 7 ,d,
~~
Re-Inspect!on: y , nemarks: $2/HJa> dAlds /W D / Yit44./ /tMNu l'~f/E-/S~a :2 - & l
$ }tiwta/ Ab a ace la .Adll/ M & +)b~dt.&W!b dT77N aWhY Acc Q l r Date / /7f FREEDOM OF INFORMATION If reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST 0 4 94-45f l
l _ . . l
- l -.
9 J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number Odds WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 - CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report (o!9['/G DISCREPANCY REPORT ,
~
Item Detcription WAf_s;E sTc>P N A.t2- [ (o" Location l--S WE' & 'I Ft_l I li G 6. CP \g A Y 271981 l Dwg./ Spec. No. MM %Ol (2, ~/ b d 137 % Discrepancy
Description:
Pc;L F c R __ a_L I IO f2_E VsW_6, R _ OF: lGs4 W A'Yl l v/ 4 . T' he ro eg vtov m /o ^ re, Tite-t EEMT. I ' Q. V. Inspector bd 4 !9 ~7 G Q. V. Supervisor MM 6-9"78 Recommended Disposition: Ater, eve exisHny WN$n J e e ,oal e ase E IR " 2 oc - 7. can.<+<ae+ a n,w W s. + e e y er E IR " B o o -12 0. J. A. Jones Project Engineer ,d_./ ~_ e 4/f/pg if-Disposition: 40 A4A4 sAddFO Af*/9 0.s / 7"/ *~ !.5; C 0d!# 7# 4 4 dr~
"Ebasco Senior Resident Engine k ) d $P.
Assigned To: 20 Pt# Mhg8vM Action Completed: Signature , ._ \ Date G///[>A Re-inspection: Remarks:
, Accepth Reject O Q. v. inspector 33vwC Date /s//l NG
- mece. ur o,ren , a If reject, D. R. Number issued. ,
DRiIn: ({ ACT REQUEST tv-vre d e _< c m o e c/7,.
G 'l J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN.- D ., R . N umbe r /7()($ 7 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report d[9[7(o DISCREPANCY REPORT ( ltem Description M an// I A N //ss// M Location [scu~/Sfa4 =4Q W 8-{08 disb - /A - h / Dwg./ Spec. No. $4Ll=lf"fotl- $ Qt? - j y k H &, d [
,m 7 Discreptmcy
Description:
- 0) f>sdnald tinu i/lo To} 1b2 % . .flL mAlusi AlNo>>/wsns '
f W'u/d
/ / /
tir1D 1bd nHddl7h J/ Dd Mht- 4 79. rlla, stuidd' dPAbn/d staal edit - 6 i
>= wattb'dhL a}mu k stjaa) //s slicia. . 11> two .sh wea thua i !
h2 b h1p/s &j Lin13M lJt{t) 6/_42M f>)Jbfn h & $ pr l,a t u' ' Q. V. Inspector MM MW 6 /(9 /76 Q. V. Supe rv i sop- M -/O - T Recommended Disposition: 110c> 0/jA77&)er70u 70 00&tPz? M/7N Do ADetriouAL MS& A-r 7F//6 kru?' /xt /56. k7 k/-7h&c bfv'Arrous, Amnm x.trn s A/fes /yj /9AR$ M efut.n s8M 7c L="fthn ey,,c Ftst H #1A N A 770x !, J. A. Jones Project Engineer A 2 / 47////74 f / Disposition: COMMEX/h$ /SPo s / 7'soAl /.s A e e mn,<. e kEbascoSeniorResidentEngineer p Assigned To: Yu_[ b>__ d /~') ) Action Completed: Signature G. ArAo Date F C A/bu f Re-Inspectlon: l Remarks: MY & y'Jiis,15 AnJJi>>
) ' do '
ntJgtJm.4/ W
# d l
l b)YMAYd>fY & Y & $ALH19Y, V ' " l 0 J , .. Accept 0 Reject O q. v. inspecte d & Date //--; s 76 s If reject, D. R. Number issued. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST 0I AL t I t'4-y r t' C/7W
-.-m - _ - _ - - - ,_ . _ . - _ -_
R R '
~-
J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANi D. R. Number O () 6 [
- . WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3
~ ' '
'CDNTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 DateofReport4/9/7[
DISCREPANCY REPORT l item Description /
/,7g.g MAY 271981 LocationJu /[dM-fNdd2- hA $ 2'.
Dag./ Spec. No. Y(A ~ IS"6 Y~ 4'79 Qt b v 0 T - /.T d $
" 137 %
Discrepancy
Description:
0 k l'ANiidY /ANIA) s/LW)YI I/1sf>>>7lbs, NL, YY /r isAbejajjyr .
^!'uld wzea) lw_, $5 al 1,n /SE4 -+79. db! '
eadu>dd awnt Jus( oL i w L .sMa, i
- a. , m s
112$4/ udADJ Y Aet) 11 OA/ / 11. / 919h 4 fd 88h bY_AJM/1_p AA A2D Q Q. V. Inspector th; (f gll' Q. V. Supervisor / [/ Y [ /O r/if Reconinended Disposition: kLloti) 0Als*TGtJd 77C A/ M SorM LJ/ rH Ato kOD/Teup! w eex-A7 This Sint tri by .07- Nipps72 E rt/A n cro n Motat o saru P/fr6 CU /9 M S te delive RM w Pimi cwo Fmet Ec.rewmrx3 J. A. Jones Project Engineer d3# __'_. - tl*////76 r i Disposition: MC OMMdNb & AA::rs s 7'/M l5 k C s.d>* 7;QAf d* Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer Assigned To: , Action Completed: Signature b md Date Pr do u p Re-inspection:
+..ma r ks : /}f h(u. ) mf 21, Co, fkplu i O sisRajd m& A0 dw.wle /
y i co r y p An@FF" yim M Y11Y Y MAAA F& $ M Ad>* *
.o Accept Reject C Q. V inspector ,% Date //-2 5 'llo FREtv0wl 0F trirunMnuGN if reject, D. R. ilumber issued. ACT REQUEST TV-VTf' C/ 741-
--. ,--,-,g, - - - - - - - - - - , , - - - - , - --m--- --- -,- ----------ri
O. S
/
, J. A. JONES CONSTRUCil0N COMPANY D. R. Number 0073 VATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 D N P ltem Description Honeycomb in column K11 A , Location Column K11 A at elevation -29.75 and -26.75 _ Dwg./ Spec. No. LOU-1564-G563501 R-2 Discrepancy
Description:
Honeycomb areas exist in column K11 A at 5' and 8' f rom too of mat. Approximate death 4"-5" on north face x 4" wide at elevation -26.75 - this is deepest area. Honeycomb extends around column at both elevations. Q. V. Inspector l '%tw G-[C S f 7 ( , Q. V. Supervisor [! -JP.7 - 76 Recommended Disposition: Recair concrete columns per Soeci fication No. LOU-1564.472, paragraph 5.108. J. A. Jones Project Engineer 42/ % , 4/pp/ra
//I Disposition:
f S .5 & W 04/ C oMA cLAnAuce o2 5A [ J A l;. u 7so w E v' 0 0 2 EA/C/WM/A/G EbascoSeniorResidentEngineerM _ / 7 ~/g Assigned To: )/ M e /E p Action Completed: Signature // A 7r" en.<;[ri < / / o Md8 ~ Date Re-inspection: Remarks: Non e.s t'es>rk Gr?a$ (L!sre, (b p/2</ llc v t-hb e/~ 6 f bos) /~e' Guiref cousrr~ra on , bts dis L D P , ANeuAlbabtllby Trnitts krr' d, / n WCA IA.T-W%~<f$
~
Accept Reject O Q. v. inspector S,7b[ z,. 4 Date 7/c7 /74, If reject, D. R. Number issued. , FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST ts-trr" 4h43
~ dA VAULT m , . 'J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANi D. R. Number (/)f MAY 27198] WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 'e f '25l"7 G O e.
# 5 DISCREPANCY REPORT
$ f MAM Fszz _.
I m De s' i pt i on > * ' ' " TD L. 6T'E, t O
~
iEENS r;GCD LM d.c M ( f g e;~ Location % ET MN PColl.$ 6 66-( Y 5G S - G 'MT PW , Dwg./ Spec. No. L_3 O f6G A 6G.,6 Discrepancy
Description:
C .mC d Nat/.NT2.-- $TRtO R! A/3 iNJ 6 T A L-L t":D@ c.,07J s --Lwxt <x-4 @w-- t517 'M e;EM P c 0 r2 A =, TGG -/ k 6 />' 6 - 1I:> . rT # '22, 6TI LL, t~M 66CDGC Q. V. Inspector h-//!% Q [CC,[T (, Q. V. Supervisor / M f j P' I M fi- 2 7-p g Recommended Disposition: . Remove chamfer strip and patch concrete per Specification No. LOU-1564-472 paragraph P 5.10b. J. A. Jones Project Engineerg d dlI/gg//' pf Disposition: GC CM Md*Mb EL I s />c s s Yso w h k C C #A7"-At3 f er" "Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer (!7(e
/ 'da t e' Assigned To: .1 / u em/2 Action Completed: Signature , M Date / [/ VM Re-inspectlon:
Remarks: MM'ii[> E 44 66, Accept Reject O q. v. inspecto d y-td , / fe w Date y-js -ry FREtuvM OF INFORMArl0N If reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST ORIGINAL w-C'[ 7W
J.
) /
A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number 88 7 [ WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report (_p l O$ !'74:- DISCREPANCY REPORT , Item Description 2x M ';;Ei
._ T- N dcN c G2..-n-Location PoO E 6 (o 6 - 3 E .E2/ L - 26.?C , 22 h M. ci- G , GX.f- Pt-c.E
~~
Dwg./ Spec. No. L.c v i% &4 G (.s 6 - 3 Discrepancy
Description:
91[ dlEEC.~~- CP- d X. VJ /.L6 LJ17-T- 1%1 ' SM- 3
. m ,,
W CO O 3 , . t5 o O 'i~ , Ph 07- t LA P 2.t M T ~ CE M.aA A6 it i; ?.i is .3 ; Q. V. Inspector Av>t l.,- Z 5 ~7 (
, y Q. V. Supervisor $?$0 $~2.T 7[
Recomme position: Clean imprint of any debris and oatch concrete per Specification No. LOU-1564-472 paragraph 5.10b. - J. A. Jones Project Engineer M ~ d/gp'/yf. Disposition: l VEc. emusuA sf is pas ,-naa is Ac eaponygw .
'Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee # (/' pt.
Assigned To: t)/AA o GAL Action Completed: Signature Date [/M l Re-inspection: Remarks: 44Lg) &pAAifi ' &__a s Y Y, AinnaAn aid Y . D h1 h d /2)/L hlbbt/ 1, Accept Reject O Q. v. inspectoMM " J Datef 7//hWo f FREusOM or e. don.uniiON If reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST ORIGINAL <-m ;
'/79f
m .m /
. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number //')Rd' WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 Date of Report /; IC-31/L[.,,
/
CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 DISCREPANCY REPORT
// A Item DescriptiondEne rJ C;- G L e-p usice--
- (2 O eJ v GK/;OmcT) i K1 Cc2 Location PC O (2 4% 604 - G, A-( 15' rs.. o:- I A y IIG 81. o c- O . T J Z.T.7 6 Dwg./ Spec. No. {._00 l T6. d 4-99 5 C .S. (-, A - (
Discrepancy
Description:
I A F2' n D eJ O'- G LEDd-CMT' ~~2 0 r t @.[ t$ EM'S LG O'3
'C# d.1 /L L. L - M &O O v'S L O C.'E ( C#J uw c, um Q. V. Inspector Aw G[O S f-! G pB 4 .i.
g 137 Q. V. Supe rvisor,g MM8d 4 2 i".7( Recommen position:
- Remove " Elephant Trunk" from concrete. The area to be dry packed per Specification e,
LOU-1564-472 Section 11 paragraph 5.10b. No more than 1/3 CF of grout shall be placed at one time. , J. A. Jones Project Engineer 42/ M c/pv/pg Dispos 1tlon: J/acd:- Quak.- MA.5 A/#T- 3agbrA/ 2dr.Mca 4 , / 7--/s A/ a)
?e ssM3 e 6:' N b ar7An2NL,nvr d"/ E! c'0F 05ee.7~MC Velh #dard?@df Mo'72fsb 0 $ AlA/NG, 0wer'Scbf73R2.wh06 . PER 6he /7~ k 2, b)#dGV
%wser. /.3 2d!NavdC "Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer 4 4//
a9 M7/' _
/date Assigned To: Royce Mashburn f_
Action Completed: Signature [. // tw Date [ - / - 7 [ Re-Inspection: Remarks: /5'bfB[f05"c22 M'SMc ?30 Afb [ YAftC
}JkckMA/G?2 AMA 7W02'cW&d'h / A;V &SM. '7 rN Accept [ Reject C Q. V. Inspector
_e Date 7[ FREEDOM OF INFOftMMION if reject, D. R. Number oc 04 issued. ACT REQUEST ORIGINAL - s/ w _,------,__w, -- ._. __-
,. _ . _ y - - - - - - . - _ _ - _ _
^
J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 9 D. R. Number
/ AdW WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 ,
CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of kep~ ort dI
/ '
[9d 1 DtSCREPANCY REPORT Item Description h //jdd Location M -. 6 9 8 M 4 - g MAY 271981
+ Dwg./ Spec. No. b)tf f.6Tb h~ AYb
! 137 %
Discrepancy
Description:
. e a t .if w a1 's -3 A 7s- J 9 '+"M W ad -
d Y B4LL/l) .6?e$~~5. Y OhJ Y% M 2 ti N,
/> M bb Yn > /12$ W V f./
{
- 1) lMAYlN 1 Y-Q. V. Inspector _ 4 ff f Q. V. Superviso m ~ fE/. C /// f M o d -
Recomcnended Disposi tion:
$EPhe in daMDiscf tui TN s/J6*Etxw/1p6A/>uW RE8c/6W & 200-7, *
. n J. A. Jones Project Engineer . [/t 17)(4 ),
Dispos I t lon: Mc DAA Att s NhEh I L P O C / '7~/O A/ $ C C. W 7' W A b d Ebasco Senior Resident Engine M $ 79 f
/ date /
! Assigned To: /M [ , [i m /)f /L . //?!/ An/b Action Completed: Signature _ _-
, .fA Date h/f9,/74 Re-inspection:
Remarks: AC [I8 286-7 Accept Reject O Q. v. inspector I J// N W Date 4/#9'-'d FREEDOM OF INFORMAfl0N If reject, D. R. Number issued. ACT REQUEST U nlullD""' ff-8/TT
\ c/7f7
7 O -
)
% J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPAN. - D. R. Numbar MOEr /
WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Reoort 7/i[74 f .5 5 f n '5 y ' DISCREPANCY REPORT %d. 744 NNh f<- item Description AJ76/~g/) 43 # 8/,0 . . . , __
^ ui LcQL Location bluleed Pi E $ i Gn bltm/ l/+T lA ~
Dwg./ Spec. No. [gv /f2p' f-/79 in Discrepancy DeseriptIon: . a w -u n-w < D a.a a
.)bihrYiNL f)^^hM' ~ . -T/ . 8& W 12hrAl M // W
-# 9 hasi ' b /1o a d % m to
, . D h a!aaitbba' anuaE s/ 6eA) 2hf Ud)) M smal ll l1-Q. V. ns ector M 7///#ff Q. V. Supe visor cd #/'%
Recomciended Disposition: ps:., _e - a- s-- w .wa- .7 . g = + - - y ,s. w 4 , Q g g g A n w s m .:." .h se s ~ $ P- - as sn** stirrr esadrLV m Mesd'vs* //d W daowswo . B R- ca o w ne bw Baes or dow Laceror.
. A. Jones Project Engineer M _o 7/2/76 Dispositlon:
A N \ l Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer t date I Assigned To: //tA O/2R l M Action Completed: Signature Date l Re-inspection: l Remarks: lyn Aff/A/?/ YA /d f /?) ~
$/120) C D 311 $ l$ OA'1 -
w- STniown hw '~!dX? ,, - , Accept O Reject O q. v. inspector A d M .3 d. b d bm
)
If reject, D. R. Number issued. M FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST f y-WT c/7W
nAVAULT - , J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number dh MAY 27198) WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 7[cf "?d
.M -
DISCREPANCY REPORT a 137 .= ite Descr ption Gir"kl S/ch /? V 76 ew S 7 sce *"" 4 47s '. i Location /02//5d-8 8WVSAOV //}~)72 . I. se in/ ei d/ 2 il. e E T f/<<' w7. Dwg./ Spec. No. 52//544 $$?5NOV , Y'k I 'b ~ Y %Y DIserepancy
Description:
Pt9 A/d &A < n r s- A A t2L-l c>u Aus Ak < 7 i -
/sw/ rues _le.* & S.Y (b&,?'$m MeY /dfM 6Cs TM ? hw l is . $NrI c co ir Y lll-/d0- 6" $4L Va l Q. V. Inspector . gow ~7 .S 76, Q. V. Supervisor 3 7 G Recommended Disposition:
After placement, strip forms and record I.D. Number on embed map log. J. A. Jones Project Engineerg 7/2/7/. I f Disposition: 6 COAAAAdWh S (E.Sc.x, m 04 lC kC M A M 84f Ebasco Senior Resident Enginee
/
h "/ %tv 3!74 Assigned To: D e e/ A E/./. E )' Action Completed: Si gnature 7 Date 7 " ~'7 ~ 7 7 Re-Inspection: Remarks: [Mr.V.28/L Accept [ Reject O q. v. inspector (#/ab/
-~
Date 7,/,9/ 77 l if reject, D. R. Number issued. , diq FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST 4g i l TY. WC ._ ..._ .G/7.f7 l
c e
'J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. N umb e r CLD 't WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 .
CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 7I7["/d
~
DISCREPANCY REPORT ) ltem Description N) /[ 57kffp 7lo c Location htju2 A00$n A -bA l f/.T's W lA ,il?'AI 6$ /),,, W Y EY 1981 Dwg./ Spec. No. ~ b tr /f4 4. -4 'ff ' Discrepancy
Description:
E
- 127 $
g
~
W /?1LQ44 dD771 1 l u h9 W11t> #D T. Th # $m> L 11 S A ) A m W l Erm'smDZ,ida/], dhD fdt AJ m2 & A/ /nra t3?bmde /f () { . 0 J b l dea fY OnCAf v, - t Y2Al 1A ) A) ldd) 7 - i - - s e
/fMM11Y1 JJJ /)D1L0f YbA Yb . ' '
Q. Inspector kn) ,.9)%off,d '7/8/'7b Q. V. Supervisor / Ww b/- M6/76 Recommended Disposition: V JN A/CE (J/77f $91/70+?NM)
/All-/W 41'E '$W $. $&" 71/Ax.) k& WW tL Be Placeno A r ens./ E WmAE'
~
J. A. Jones Project Engineer M '
-m -
m . 7/p/pd '
//
DisposItlon:
$d'Ce MAA &Nh & f.1 A O 2 : mom l.f kCC*Fr2Adr -
Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer ~7 (, Assigned To: e [e; Action Completed: Sign ure [.[, gg a% Date %/3 ef/ Re-inspection: , Remarks: Accept Reject O Q. v. inspecto g e & L Date k/v(, if reject, D. R. Number issued. FREE 00W OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST f4-vf r
- l 7Si;A
., 'tV s7 I 5 Y -
i 8 i 'J L
/
. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY D. R. Number /7// k.5 WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 .f MAY 27 1993 CONTRACT NO. W3-NY-4 Date of Report 72' * ~
DISCREPANCY REPORT 3 , q. , It Nic ption b / M,cI /F/6,/ Loca * /6 '/./;i~/,d /r ??5$ // f}) l15)C l
. (sdJf Dwg./ Spec. No. /02,//S$,AIN fff 6~// $10. k !il- f.L]P ep' L'sm Wf Discrepancy
Description:
$ Y.e 2^ >Y h> S/d. l ?D;rL4 1 bjb' n m
- r b Au, n>m / d V Awl;6,%
wha >e- LA BE~L , kJ bee w L u
' O' /
u rl $l_. )IL)- l0?- $ LA. tA h. l Q. V. Inspector /,f./ .x / / 4 Q. V. Supervisor / // $?/ S f/f$W .
'7 ~ ' ~~
Recommended Disposition: Nfiff TAf &f 0/Mff.s/.og/< 4fE conse r ros s A/6. / . srrde k m al e CD M/LM77 .Xxst/) MAh 48 6 8 4 7A W Jfe7~~r A Af J. A. Jones Project Engineer M % 7/z)/7(, Disposition: . GC. OH)M dhJ b 6 /S yc.s/7704 fg k c c., 0P'ngf86 t?" Ebasco Senior Resident Engineer Fe b h J ~/L/M Assigned To: /Af A Action Completed: Signature d- / Date 9 [/,3'If 7 Re-Inspection: Remarks: llt u e l /2/ /*/rv hm 2tum fM'u M Wcu' W ~ Lnt l 1:ow d ' fA'b% Accept [ Reject O I.v. inspector g ez). d e u Date 9MR, If reject, D. R. Number IssuedFREEUOM OF INFORMATION qp gp y q j ACT REQUEST bp,3g3g g tv-v r c/7c,
g Attachm2nt A POP-N-713 D. R. Number 443 J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 i CONTRACT No. W3-NY-4 Date of Report S/8/8 DISCREPANCY REPORT , ,, Cadwelder N. 122-W, Numbering Sequence " 2'$ ~d F-} LI b I gItem Description I Location Reactor Containment Building uav nr , -. .
-v ... w Dwg./ Spec. No. JAJ-W-WP-4 i n .
g , . Discrepancy
Description:
f137 ,
)
O d /4/7A: Welder No.._122-3L_losc .Qualificat. ion.d_ue_ tso . _Two (2k,Jteigq;s . ' ' ' een(15){ W. Af ter Re-qualification on 4/17/78, numbering was started anew. Numbers "1" i thru "32" were then duplicated between 4/28/78 and 5/4/78. (Original qualification
. i lost on 122-W-54). l Q. V. Inspector [T -" .s [ [ I '~ E 5 Q. V. Supervisor MM #f' Y -Disposition: .
Although numbering sequence was duplicated, "1" thru "32", all welds are traceable and identifiable by Map Number and location on same. All duplicate numbers shall be f indicated by an Asterisk (*)on Daily Cadweld Inspection Reports and numbering will continue ! with No. 33. D.R. Number shall be referenced on each of the affected Daily Cadweld l Inspection Reports. J. A. Jones Project E gineer _ M Q. A. Approval _Y 3 Assigned to: [ Se, d Action Completed: Signature Data f f' R -inspections Remarks: l Accept Reject l l Q. V. Inspector Date ~7f If Reject, D.~ R. or N.C.R. Number issued . FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST tv-4 tr C /? %
' Wr%t hew? A/c2 #
; CAbwELb ope' " / 2 L W PasH;m/pg s:se 7%Ae "8
! o f J.-
~ -
cab w E t b 7e'.s f .Sepe-a m./ Sp//ce pg ,Q g3 NwasEA A/ um6st Atum ber
/ E 2 u Id [
l o ' n+n re-,A WA.nvueso I 52
' i G +
- 5# ' 4 w. ffrser 6 h p-
- I 33 f 31 1 39 -u
/22 s #o 9 t
l t-e i
$7 vat'Antd A/c2 #
1 Cabwrib ope < " / 2 2 W p ,3;9; ,,/s g 3;;e A biz. # // Do I ofb . cabwei.b res t .seyn, mi spee pg ,g ,3 NcunsEA M usM4 Num ber 12 2. V I l Z. 3 4 5 l & I 7
\ 2 4 /Zz u 9 5,3 % -
Jo
//
/Z 13 ,
/4
/5' t-
/fo
/7 19
~ *-
g 20
- 2. (
22. 23 24-M 26 29 29 ga /Z2 w 24 %3W 30 : 3)
.7 2 33 if
/21 Lv 3 4- 34-
Anm4newf Act#
- CAnwELb ope < " / 2 2 ' pos;9;ay s;ge s z. =n va t of 2 _
7esi sepa n m/ Spice cabwe&b p g,,pg_c NamsER Mumsat Nw 4e' ;
/ El v 35 3S i
36 . l 37 37 39 l 40 4/ 4E t 43 44 4<
+&
97 e 4Y 44 *
/z t w i / 22 w I $s w f d b e w 4'4 3 2 /
- +. (
3
- 4 - '
\
5 ) G l 7 l l q l 9 L , /(7
)I
/2
/3 f I-d
/s \ :
\
i /6
/7 \
/r v /
/"L.7 v /9 &f !
(
W r % c % e w 7' A/cR *
- bawELb ope < " l 22 LJ pas;4;,pg s;,a Abo' g. .a n po _ 3 cf & __
C a b w E L. b 7e'S f Sefwee M/ Spice pg ,Q y3
^/wasER Numss/ Nw.a der
/12. v 2.0 67 l bP
- 443
\ 2/ )
22 13 { 2 4-I 25 j' 26 \ / 27 l / 2f- l 29 / 30 l 3I 32 3 /z 2 v 71 L'.s*- ( 34- ) 35 e- / 3to - N 3 ~/ ) 43 ..
/
g . 7 4< ( 44 \ 47 ) 48 /
@ f I
(o \ f/ \
/ -
<2 f4 /
G5 \ n
\ :
I 57 I 58 too 59 a
\
\
\
I21 W lod I 6 L. .
AWArc.Asad A/cR *
- bAbwELb Oper. " l21 U pp3;q;,jpg 3;gef r;q, h //
pa 4 ef 4 - CAD LJ E L b Te.S f S ef w a 'Rs,/ Spnee gg,p}7y3 NcunsER A/um6st Atw 4 +'
/ 2 'L W (o I 10 3 (
i _ / Az / I 63 l 44 I I 6 s' \ 6C \
\
67 4f I in w 69 i
?/- l 77 /
79 l \ - M < l
$ l 11 e- I El /f7ECY \
xe \ g4 . s. .
$( h f4 l y, I ff V /
/ZL J 99 I E 3' /Z 2 W- f? Sis W Ec
- -- L, 'l d.
\ ,
>A
-.4&,u , % 1M_ r
- a. i , L l d , L I
__ i I 1 I I .
, m- -
wwwwmm-m-m------e.-,-- ,-------n-----. -,ww ---w_n-e---.-, -m,---v--,e ----cw -ww.m-~------m~-+-
A/cR
- WWArcAmew7' QADwELb Ope < " /2 'L W fp3;q; m p p 3;ge S 2. * /4 na Ief /.- _
; C a b w e i. b 'resi .sey n m/ spice Atm de<
pg,g},3 NcunsEA A/umsst e /11w S3 / BR *
- I 7n L i _
f 7/ 3 7 2_ 4 23 S i
>4 G -
i /Z1 v 7c 7 2 g t 9-
- . ?.,
I I N # 1
A7VA'CAmewf A/c2
- CAbwELb Ope < " l L T U y?pS;9;,pg S;ye pWL7 * //
po l cf- ! __ Cabw5L.b 7e.s-f .Sep n m/ Sp//ce pg ,g g3 NcunsEA Numsst Num der b72 w 42 / i:: ty+:- + bde 5,3 m.+
- e
- t, .
I Dupur ATE
a. y PSV Auvven nam at.,a nvng. ran,. n. ,,,,, . .. . ,,, _,, SUBJ. SUBDIV. SHEET W ~6 - M AT . PROJECT
; A 8: ' f 3 YI f I & !. ; S E - PR E P. BYl 'd l DAT E0 8.'o4/t S_
CLIENT !o9 l2
-II "A 8: 7 8 : U '/ ! O ~ t i 8. Z . . ; ~ I CHCK D.BY A }l- DATE 8[s[t SUBJECT s ;. '
F. F ,, c, 7 10 :1 ; o J. c ; ! Te 7, . . 72-l_- . U 3 ! 4 G T !'. E I/. A c i: : 7 0 D I s o F trt t o 1/, f 9 7 i t. 9:1 rA<t 4, p ; ; g 3, if, ; ij p 4 H I T I E T. 7R1 V N D r 1. - l ;;[ ,h A II c r. r- ; 15 : ; T. tJ '. T U T. h !. ! T A D F 0. V A T F ;l' j- h-LTI4G t.ff 4 F o t.0E t ' 1,
.i1 i.i 1
s t -- l. s o ' ! ' ' l.j..{[...
,p,Ij , _,
. , . 4 _. J
.; ..;. . .{I 7 0 s T U '. A T-I D C F. A C t ( Lo u s t t's A ;;t V E q g T o Cl E W T A T loju !
i i 4 t. 4-n - :.s o' -
, .. { . {. -
7 i : . . . .-. r t ....
,eV, /
.t_ _.
j 7 ' ,}, ' , , , _ _ , _ _ _ , , Tgg 1 g r r c ,'; of ygg c p a gg g j p,7 , g ou t s t r i. m i s r x c e r. r t r e 3 r. o m e r r A : ' ' t. '! H . p 7 5 F. 3 D YJ G .) 3F fLA3co t t A w l u G- tou-t 1 t i 19 4 4 - G - 5 01 / L E '/ . 4 0 . c / rm te is; :,ITe (tserr.ruers) W.* e t t) ' o,.
- i i
. @ i:e :z)
'. I_
l .
;4
. i ,
It. ; 3 r s e r g V S I E A f. I 11 G . T o' I v T J A T. E .' ';. D L E, A u t, it l u c k : ,it & i t R fr I F F o T. c l i 11 6.
'! O ' A P k T. I', T- f D U C le
-Q.
. }l I. ;_4
=
, ', 'i F T, a IA P. 4. , T 2. L 5 t{ k / @ .: ;
*- [j
- 7. A *i 7 % ! f. [ TA ,
C o v, F u r l u G til . 0 T. f i. o p f A t 5 ':'J AA l i u t st ! : .
, j_,', ;
- 1 R - F u nso- + - co s s o , . .; , -
.4 g.
M f tL5:4 x 0. c 4 2. 8 , j. !C = 2,4 J 2. t x 0 14 4 0 W 'N . Vi tesisx = ny:+x .- j 6 'l; L -- - - - . . . . . . . _ . _ . ... .. . .__
. i L
g ,o,o,~ <.n~,..,em ~ ~ .-....... ~ ........... SUBJ. SUBDIV. SHEET PROJECT
' ') 01 : ; A N A PowE1 4
- 1. ! G F 7 P R EP. BY ^M O DATE 0 2/o.4bl CLIENT
- TALIL!rT CHCKD.BY 4 }\ DATE Bf8[t3 SUBJECT trsri esu Ainvrn- .; _.
. .i ).i..__.
, J ..
- i. l.. _ . _ .
H = I4454 h TEE' TL-. IS
' V.
- U A s t u V. E TiAT '
da D ; t 7 1. ; 1 U T .I Dl . ~ j i
- r. E 5 9 t i A u ; of 73I- -I nuso it A L LT F o s. t 5 t E 0 V14 ou 752 t. E F T . '. . 3_
. l . ,, . .l..t : ._ .
%." i i . j '.7~. -1
$.'.h.. . .
l . s. . -- g;~ l '
- 2. .
..tl .j ..
.,,, .. 8 7
gg . f . i i_ . [f I u,so \ T F. E il - d I. ' = f ( U.) d /. . jt
- .fsina adu ; !. [. f -
n * - *. ~. .' 1' . ,i--}' .
). ' s I { s t u 4 /t, d M ?-f T
) ,'. . 'i j 7 E'O g l . .$.
.i1
[ . T. ' s - f /t. ( t o s u)!* = 2. f A. 144;Ek 1 o t 'g. k 7 : { :. F. # :.
. E 2, t 1o.0 .
i
,3 :
'-]
I' f = tosi/s >
- !..' 3:!. .
; 'r c o v. F o r t u G TIE 1 !. E A L ! ! T.1 0, 5 dr u. : .
3 1 l. 3 4)~g = \l u - Io3 h gi 'o d 0. e 5 x l L " y. 1. L. S X ( 2. , ..i t i .. l
- t ,
l 4rv. = o.Itc 1.:: :: I(c ?!! .
- . J.
EVALuhrtilC AT u A G A I ll : f L \) {.e,' , .7 0 L 900 O f;I Cro u t A I T E ! ; i (,11 E 'l o T E , LEF.3)$ , f J. 9000 = !AG51I 7 Mw 0 $. I If
. f .
V. x . e I I k ,- ( ,
se- g V g, HARSTEAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
- INC.
I 169 KINDERKAMACK RCAO, PARK RIDGE, N.J. 07656
- Phone:(201)3912115 WATERFORD III SES ,
ANALYSIS OF CRACKS AND WATER SEEPAGE IN FOUNDATION ~ MAT LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY REPORT NO. 8304-1 SEPTEMBER 19, 1983 Prepared by: A. v. du Bouchet Reviewed by: ( w A. I. Unsal. Approved by:
. A. Harstead 11qpp, ymu og ,n,ogMA7,ON
.) . Vt ACT REQUEST 64 4rr mg3 @ MSD3 ~ c j ,y3 1 r . I
6 .o 'S , , -J TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Site Inspections and Interviews 2 3.0 Foundation Mat Design Concept 3 3.1 Site 3
~
3.2 Design
. 3 3.3 Construction 4-
-4.0 ~Significant Events During Construction 6 4'.1 S top Work Order No. 1
- 6 4.2 Concrete Placement of the Mat 6 4.3 Change in Allowable Soil Bearing 7 Pretsure. During Construction 4.4 Site Settlements 7 4.5 Cracks Observed in the Top of Mat in
~
the Containment Area 8 4.6 Cracks in Mat Outside of Containment 9 Area 5 . 0. , Analysis of Waterford III Structural Foundations 11 5.1 Structural Concept ' .' 11 6.0 Review of Engineering Design and Construction 13 6.1 Geologic Studies 13 2
s s o l g/, - TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) 6.2 Development of Engineering Properties 14 6.3 Foundation Design Concept 15 6.4 Design of Combined Mat 17 6.5 Earth Pressure Considerations 18 6.6 Groundwater Environment 18 6.7 Excavation Sequence , 19 6.8 Dewatering Systems __ 20 6.9 Subsurface Instrumentation Program 21 6.10 Construction of Mat 21 6.11 Summary of Movements Recorded During Construction 21
~
7.0 Evaluation of Cracking 24 8.0 Corrosion Potential 29 8.1 Passivation Mechanism in Reinforced Concrete 29 8.2 Job Specifications ' 30 8.3 Laboratory Testing 30 8.4 Steel Containment Corrosion 34 9.0 Steel Containment Stability 35 9.1 Ebasco Calculation 1352.063 " 35 i 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 38 10.1 Containment Vessel 38
- 10. 2 Foundation Mat 38 e
e
, i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
REFERENCES 40 APPENDICES
- A Basemat Crack Maps B. Properties of Subsurface Materials Design Values C Synposis/ Introduction of -
State-Of-The-Art of Floating Foundations by H. Q. Golder--- -~ ' '~^ ^ - ' ' D Generalized Site Cross Section . E Effects of Soil Modulus on Shear and Moment . F Design Envelope's of Mat Shear and Moment . G Effects of Todndation Stiffness on Dynamic Shears and Moments-- -- - --- - ---- - - H Abasco Services Letter F-16919, W3-NY-1 dated June 29, 1977 I Composite Foundation Mat Differential Settlement Contours , J Composite Foundation Mat Settlement K Crack Width Calculation L Steel Containment Stability Calculation g
)
., i _
, 1.0 Introduction -
This report summarizes a study undertaken by Harstead Engineering Associates on behalf of Louisiana Power and Light Company. The following major evaluation items are addressed in this report: - a) The engineering criteria employed in the prepara-tion of the site and in the design and construction of'the Waterford.III Nuclear Power Island Structure (NPIS) basemat. b) Cracking and leakage in the basemat.
~
c) The~1ab~ratory o tests performed on water and leachate samples extracted from the surface of the basemat. d) The stability calculations performed for the Steel containment vessel. As required, relevant source material is either refer-enced or contained as an appendix to this report. O e e m~ me . m. m . .e -- 3 9 9 4 O O O O 9 h O e e a e t J . e w . ___ _ _ . _ - - _ _ . - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - . - . -U *
- O D -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ -
. t
.[ 2.0 Site Inspections and Interviews , HEA personnel have. visited both the New York office of Ebasco, Inc. and'the Waterford III site. These visits are summarized in HEA Trip Reports Nos.
. 1-6 (References 1-5), and were conducted in order to meet with key personnel familiar with the design bases of the Waterford III NPIS basemat, to document first-hand the
. extent of cracking and leaking at the sitrf ace of the base-
~
~
mat, to'~ gather pertinent reports and drawings, and to confirm a scope of work and corresponding schedule. _ , . . . . ....a.- .- - - - - - 9 6 e 0
, .. ..~. ... . . .. *-een e -we e .- *- < -- * * ' -
- 0 9 54 S
, . . . 1 e
~ '
9
^^
^^ mm - ee e
, I p/' '
3.0 Foundation Mat Design Concept 3.1 Site The site of the Waterford 3 plant is located next to the Mississippi River. Natural grade is at about Elevation
+ 15.'0 feet. To a depth of about 55.0 feet from grade, the soil consists of alluvial deposits which are relatively soft. At greater depth are the Pleistocene Age soils.
The
., upper parts of these soils are stiff. . -
3.2 Design - The safety class structures are supported on a con-tinuous mat 270 feet. wide, 380 feet- long-and -12 feet- thick. The bottom of the mat is at a depth of about 60 feet below natural grade. Support for the mat is provided on the stiff Pleistocene clays, where the natural soil pressures were about 3300 psf. After the completion of construction, the soil pressure under the foundation mat is about 3100 psf. These preIssures consist of the weight of soil and construction above the mat less the buoyant pressure due to ground water. The water table is generally at an ele-vation of + 8.0 feet; therefore, the buoyant pressure is about 3 4 0 0 ps f .
~
The weight' of thi soil whicE'Ua['eEc~avat-ed was about 5700 psf, while the weight of the construc-tion now in place is about 5500 psf. The interesting
~
feature of this is that the soil below the plant is exper-i'encing almost the same pressures that it has in recent history. Therefore, increased consolidation of soil and the accompanying. settlement that of ten occurs when new construction weight is added to soil does not occur in this case. ' Inasmuch as the water table is at about Elevation .
+ 8.0 feet or almost at natural grade, walls were erected D '
3
'7*-
-~ -
l <?s
..)
, I
<* *+ around the perimeter of the mat.
These walls must resist the lateral pressure of the surrounding backfill soil and , q the hydrostatic pressur'e' of the ground water. These walls j extend up and' provide flood protection up to Elevation l + 30;0 feet, which is 22.0 feet above the normal water table. The mat.and the walls form a reinforced concrete box ' f t . structure, with interior walls and concrete placements i referred to. as counterforts providing ~ additional stiffening. i The mat and the exterior walls are monolithic and there-I fore prevent water flow through joints and in the sense j that ground water is prevented from collecting inside the j structure, the structure has been called a floating struc- ~ I ture. j 3.3 Construction j The steps involved were: ' a) Dewatering'the site b) Excavation down to Elev. - 47.0 feet c) Construction of the mat d) Construction of superstructure ! . .. e) Gradual . release . o f- Dewatering - i f) Backfill of excavation surrounding the construction The soil pressures existing at Elevation - 47.0 feet , 4
, , , vary considerably during construction. After dewatering j the pressure increases to the weight of the soil above due to loss of buoyancy and then after excavation the pressure, j of course, reduces to zero. When the pressure is reduced, ,j the soil heaves or rises due to the* removal of the weight .
of the overlying soil. l 3 l As construction proceeds, the structural weight causes i !. the soil pressure to increase and the soil begins to re- ;
- settle. In order to provide additional compaction, the t s t
! ~J I 1 ! 4 , !
- w- . .
. . = . - - . . - -- ==w -
- ~~n"~~'"
O..w 1
' ' .; oil bearing pressure is allowed to increase. The pressure was allowed to in, crease to 4500 psf.
As construction con-tinued, the gradual release of dewatering offset the in-creasing structural weight. The construction was planned to maintain a maximum differential soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf. In the final condition, a maximum differential soil pressure of 1000 psf was established by the designers (Reference 6). During construction, settlement and water pressure readings were taken in order to ensure that control was being maintained over differential mat settlements. e o e o e
- D-e m. m,o -o - ~ . ? n-D &
0
$ e s 1
0 'i 5-s e Y "M &
~ ~ ~
___-__A _-- - - - - - -
i .q u- - 4.0 Significant Events During Construction 4.1 Stop Work Order No. 1 , LP&L issued SWO No. 1 on December 16, 1975 in order to correct deficiencies and nonconforming work in the in-spection and control of concrete mixing, transporting and plac'ing of concrete, and curing and finishing. This resulted from observation of Placement No. ~6. Q p @ 4.2 Concrete Placement of the Mat " During placement of Section-10B,-a rain storm broke
,out. The placement was completed; however, because the concrete quality was unknown due to dilution with rain water, NCR No. W3-39 was filed.
A repair program was established which included cor-ing, strength testing, pressure grouting of drilled holes, repair of surf aces, and waterproofing of the west face. Discrepancy' Notice C-13 dated 12-16-75 noted cracks in the went fac's of Placement No. 2. Cracks were chipped out and surf ace roughened prior to making adjacent Place-ment No. 4. . During placement of concrete in Placement No.19, concrete was placed over~ a previous-layer while -it'was 'no longer plastic. This surface was raked and fresh concrete was 'placed. Concretewaslaterhhippedoutincertainareas to a depth of 6 inches to 12 inches below the mat top rebar and replaced with fresh concrete. Still later, 11 cores were ,taken to a minimum depth of 5 feet. The cores were
, tested and the core holds grouted.
- The " cold joints" and dilution of concrete are undesir-able because of voids and weaknesses.. The extensive -and methodical repair program that took place as indicated in the documentation and subsequent observations of the foun-dation mat indicate that the repair was effective and that
) . . i, ,. -
- there is no concern about the strength or corrosion pro-tection of the concrete.
4.3 Change in Allowable Soil' Bearing Pressure During Construction on March 15, 1977, Ebasco requested that the maximum temporary bearing pressure during construction be increased from 4000 psf to 4500 psf. This recommendation was based on the fact that the maximum allowable bearing pressure of the soil is 15,000 psf, the-desire to accelerate recom-qp g. 'pression of the soil that heaved after dewatering and excavation, and the need to permit backfilling under the Turbine Building. Due to schedulin( difffEulties, th'e dewatering system
~
was not in place during the initial removal of 20 feet of soil. The remaining soil heaved between 1.5 and 3.5 in-ches. Af ter the dewatering was 'under way and about 1.0 inch of the heave was recovered, the job was shut down. The dewatering was not operating long enough to balance the total heave. In November 1974, the dewatering was reinstated. In, January 1975, the remainder of excavation was restarted
. and the heave increased _to_between_4.0.and 9.0 inches..
When concrete construction proceeded, the heave reduced - to between 1.0 and 6.0 inches. The above compares to a heave projected as 2.0 inches. Rebound is a function of 'both load removed and time of load removal. The differences in schedule and loading were cited as reasons for the difference. In order to ensure full recompression of the rebound, a greater soil pressure was recommended. . 4.4 Site Settlements . In September 1978, a report " Review of Site Settle-ments" by M. Pavone and J. L. Ehas=, was issued (Reference i) _ _..-~...-~-w.-....
... ~
O '
- 7) . It was noticed that there was a total settlement of about 11.0 inches . from the maximum heave position. -
Since the maximum heave was previously noted as being between 4.0 and 9.0 inches, the overal'1 settlem*ents were therefore beyo'nd the original zero position of the soil. The settlements have remained constant since early 1979. A curvature in the North-South direction was noted, l the center of the mat being 2.5 and 1.5 inches higher
~
L
. . i than the south and north edges respectively. fj 4.5 Cracks observed in the Top of Mat in the Containment Area Nonconformance Report NCR W3-535, dated August 3, 1977 reported that cracks were discovered in the' top of mat, which were weeping water. The rate of weeping water was enough to show the crack ,and to moisten the surrounding concrete. A crack map was prepared (Reference 8) and the
],, crack widths were noted as being between 2 to 5 mils. The pie:ometer levei was kept below Elevation - 50.0 feet since the start of 1975, until September 1977. The concrete in I this region'was placed in December of 1975 and January of q) . ' 1976. The lower concrete ring of the shield building was also in place. The cracks were chipped out to a 1.0 inch depth and to 12 inches on either side and repaired with epoxy grout. It was hypothesized in Ebasco Letter of July 27, 1977 (Reference 9) that the general curvature of the mat caused tension in the upper portion of the mat.
$ocally the lower ring wall of ,the shield building would have ' caused tension in the lower portion of the mat. This was termed as a stress reversal and the possibility of an
_ intertie between cracks could_ exist providing a direct ,, leak path. It was also stated that leakage of water through the mat was undesirable because: e
1
~)
-', a) a film of water could be presumed to develop be-tween the mat and the fill concrete beneath the containment vessel. This could require a reanalysis of containment stability (see Sec-tion 9.0).
b) if the leakage increased and water found its way out of the fill concrete it would be collected in the mat drainage system and run through the waste-
. treatment system (see Sedtion 5.1) . .
The r.epair apparently stopped further leakage.
, 4. 6 Cracks in Mat Outside of Containment Area Ebasco Nonconformance Report -W3NCR-16143 (Reference
,10) noted that:
"there are concrete cracks in the base mat of the Reactor Auxilliary Building. This is evidenced by the percolation of water in small amounts, up through these cracks. These cracks are located in the Gas surge Tank Room, Waste Gas Tank Room, and Waste Gas Compressor "B" Room, all at elevation - 35.0 feet.
These are examples of where cracks were found:
. G. Harstead of HEA observed the above-mentioned loca-tions where cracks had been observed, as well as other areas, during the period of July 11-14, 1983 (Refekence 1) .
All accessible areas of the basemat were subsequently inspecte'd and any cracks found were mapped during the period of August 30 - September 2, 1983 by A. du Bouchet of HEA with the assistance of LP&L and Ebasco personnel (Reference 5). - - - The crack maps generated during this inspection are contained in Appendix A. The reference points employed t to locate these cracks accord with the geometry detailed in Ebasco Drawings LOU-1564 G-499 Sol, -02 and -03. LD .
-g.
t *
) '
In addition to mapping the orientation and extent of . each crack, notations were made concerning any prior re-
, pairs to the crack, floor finish or lack thereof, evidence of dampness or seepage, and crack width.
As noted in Reference 5, " Crack width dimensions could not be quantified, but are designated throughout as
' hairline'. In several instances,' the existence of a
, crack could only be inferred by the darker coloration caused by the presence of moisture. No actual gaps were noted."
._ .Th.e amount of moisture. noted during this inspection ,
period was minimal. In some ins'tances dampness / moisture were present. There was, however, no evidence of seepage or migration that might have been deduced by the presence of standing water or draining along.the local slope of the basemat. e S 0 e -* O a e 6 8 *
, . O e
e 9 m_____'_._____________---- --__Y 1------ ------------I--- - - - - - - - ^
.s 5.0 Analysis of Waterford III Structural Foundations 5.1 Structural Concept The foundation concept is an ingenious solution of the site problem's in meeting the safety criteria estab-lished for the nuclear safety related structures. The most significant factor in assessing the adequacy of the design is that the final soil pressure af ter construction is actually less than the soil pressure which existed prior to the start of construction. The stability and safety that this* implies has been demonstrated, in that, the settle-ment has not changed for the past several years except for changes that would be expected by changes ih the water table. As part of this concept, the mat and exterior walls were to remain watertight. If water could readily flow in and no provision was made to pump water out, conceivably the water inside would increase the effective soil pressure and result in further soil settlements, although the effec-tive soil pressure would still be less than one half of the maximum allowable. For many reasons, flooding would be in-tolerable; however, there would probably be little detri-mental effect upon the structure. The differential hydro-static pressure on the exterior walls would be eliminated, thereby reducing the lateral load on the building. The loading on the mat would remain approximately the same because the increased effective soil pressure would be equal to the weight of the water which leaked into the structure. There would be long term settlements in this case and perhaps some differential settlements, which is not an unusual situation in many structures. Section 11.2 of the Waterford III FSAR (Reference 11) deteils the capacity of the Wasto Management System (WMS) . D
'O.:./
, , Table 11. 2-4 specifies a total expected waste flow of 1425 gpd based on the following flow sources:
- Containment Building sump (40 gpd) , Auxiliary Build-ing floor drains (200 gpd) , laboratory' drains and waste water (400 gpd) , sampling drains (35 gpd), miscellaneous (700 gpd) and blowdown (50 gpd).
Table 11.2-2 specifies a total useful internal vol-uma for the two WMS waste removal tanks'of 7200 gals.
,IIEA therefore concludes that the capacity of the Waste Management System as detail' e d above effictively eliminates the possibility of ground water accumulation within the NPIS. -
e 4 9 e e a O e o e e o e e '
. 0 O .
A._
6.0 Review of Engineering Design and Construction To determine if implementation of the unique floating foundation concept resulted in excessive differential move-ments during construction, documents pertaining to the design, engineering, and construction were reviewed. Data included related sections of the FSAR, instrumentatidn re-ports, calculations related to the design, formulation and
- application of the foundation design principle, and rele-vant correspondence. The following specific areas were addressed: .
a) Geologic studies b) DevelopEent 'of ' engineering properties, for founda-tion toils c) Foundation design concept d) Design of combined mat e) Earth pressure considerations f) Groundwater environment g) Excavation sequence h) Dewatering system . i) Construction of mat j) Summary of movements recorded during. construction. Pertinent data related to the above will be analyzed to establish that the design concept was developed and imple - mented successfully. 6.1 Geologic Studies The Waterford Nuclear Power plant is located on the west bank of the Mississippi River.about 20 miles from New orleans. The site consists of over 3,000 acres with sur-face elevations ranging from approximately sea level in the 8 4
- m. .. .. -
,. . -- 7 _
southwest to about elevati'on plus 14 feet MSL at the base of the flood control levee. The crest of' the levee is the highest point of the site and is about elevation plus 30 feet MSL. .The Mississippi River is 110 feet deep and about 2,200 feet in width adjacent to the plant. Geologic studies conducted at the site included review and interpretation of geologic literature, subsurface bor-ings, geophysical logs, cross-hole data ind laboratory tests. The stratigraphic sequence is described as follows (FSAR Section 2.5. 4.1) ; Sequence ~ ~ Depth (Feet) Recent alluvium deposits 0 - 50 Pleistocene sands and clays 50 - 1,100
'Plio-Pleistocene interbedded sands and clays -
1,100 - 1,900 Pliocene alternating sands and clays 1,900 - 4,900 Massive sandstone interbedded with shale 4,900 --7,500 Shale alternating with thin sandstone 1ayers 7,500' -10,500 Marine shales 10,500 -40,000 This review will be confined to the upper 500 feet of soil strata. 6.2 Development of Engineering Properties A total of 74 soil borings were drilled at the site to determine the detailed stratigraphy applicable to the upper 500 feet of subsurface materials. Static and dynamic engineering properties were established based on laboratory tests on selected samples and in situ geophysical measure-ments. A brief visual description of the principal soil strata is provid'ed below: he# I l l
~
~
. $ _N
- _ _. . . .__ _. a - - -[_ I-
- O Sequence Depth (MSL)
, 1 Soft clay and silty clay with silt and sand GS to -40 2 Stiff tan and grey fissured' clay -40 to -77.
3 Very dense tan silty sand -77 to -92 4 Medium stiff grey clay with silt lenses '
-92 to -108 5 Stiff dark grey clay - organic -108 to -116 6 Soft to medium stiff tan and grey clay' -116 to -127 7 Very stiff clays with silts and sands -127 to -317 8 Very dense sands and silty sands . -317 to -500 Design values applicable to ea'ch stratum'are defEned in
~ ~
Appendix B (FSAR Table 2.5-14). > 6.3' Foundation Design Concept . In reviewing the consolidation characteristics of the potential foundation bearing strata it is apparent that excessive settlument could be anticipated if the Nuclear Plant Island structures were founded directly in the stiff Pleistocene' deposits (layer 2) unless the total bearing , pressure from the structures were reduced during construc-tion by buoyancy effects. Of particular concern are the clays with relatively Low overconsolidation Ratios (OCR), such as layer 4, which has an OCR of 1.4.
,, By excavating a depth of soil approximately equal to the weight of the structure, the effective pressure at the .
base remains unchanged, thereby reducing. the potential for underlying clay layers to settle. The floating foundation principle _has not been used previously in nuclear power plant desg; however, historically, many. large strucDres ' have been constructed using this concept. See, for example, an extract from a paper entitled " State of The Art of Floating Foundations" by H. Golder, which is contained in Appendix C. . ,J
.s ,
_ =_- , .- -_ _ _ _ = , = _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The following is a brief summary of the significant control parameters developed for the Waterford Plant incor- ' porating*the floating foundation principle. a) All Category I structures were combined in a nuclear plant island on a common mat. b) Base of mat foundation is*in the stiff Pleistocene clays at Elevation - 47 MSL. c) Effective bearing pressure of the Nuclear Plant struc-ture is 3,100 psf. compared to the existing overburden pressure of 3,300 psf. d) Dewatering systems were required to minimize potential for heave at base of excavation, control pore pressure in layer 3 and stabilize excavation slopes. e) During construction the total pressure at base of mat may have increased to 4,000 psf resulting in an addition'al pressure of 700 psf. It was estimated
'daat the h, eave af ter excavation would be in the order of 2 inches and recompression from this additional pressure would be complete by the end of construction.
f) A filter" layer of compacted sand and shell (18 inches) was placed at base of excavation underlying mat to
~
permit distribution of pora pressure in the underlying clay on application of load. g) As soon as the total load from the Nuclear Plant Island and surrounding granular backfill reached 4,000 psf, segments of the dewatering system were celeased in stages,to achieve b,uoyancy of the struc-tures and backfill and permit construction to continue. l Details of the proposed Rocharge Program were devel-l opod during construction related to well efficiency and pio:ometric response. h) A maximum differential loading of 1 ksf was applied i
.) .
, -1s-l . .
.n. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to base of structures to minimize tilting, heaving, and settlement. . 1) A detailed instrumentation program was required to monitor movement of structures and groundwater levels. j) Long term settlement was anticipated to be less than 1 inch due primarily to local pore pressure adjust-ments in the clays. A generalized site cross-section showing the Nuclear Island structures and adjacent non-Category I Turbine Building is outlined in Appendix D (FSAR Fig. 2.5-80). 6.4 Design of Combined Mat DetaiI's of the parametric and sensitivity studies con-ducted to establish the appropriate mat thickness and re-quired reinforcement for static and dynamic loading condi-tions are outlined in Reference 12. The selection of the subgrade modulus applicable to the foundation soils and mat geometry ir judgemental. The values used to estimate impact on mat thicknesses of 10, 12, and 15 feet (k,=15 0' pei and 125 'pci) are considered reasonable. The twelve foot thickness finally selected was based on an economic compromise between the cost of additional concrete to elim-inate shear reinforcement and providing some shear rein-forcament in local areas. The influence of a constant or variable modulus on the shear and moment diagrams is shown in Appendices E and F (Figures 7 and 8 - Reference 12,). The design en-velope selected covers all possible support conditions. An inherently conservative approach was also adopted in analysing the mat for seismic loadings.rosulting from the SSE (0.lg) and ODE (0.05g) . As shown in Appendix G (Figure 9, Reference 12) the total shear and moment ina i creases rapidly with increasing foundation stiffness to
) .
t
, O me-
-kNA1AldE1AM1 h Ahh
O approximately G = 3,000 ksf where G = the Dynamic Shear Modulus. ' Although the indications of soil stiffness based upon geophysical site measurements indicated that the value of G should be 1000 ksf, the seismic responses in the plant structures would be greater for increased soil s tif fnes s . In order to be very conservative, the seismic
' analysis was based upon a dynamic model using a G = 3000 ksf which resulted in peak seismic response and therefore peak moments'in the mat.
The seismic analysis mathematical model contains elastic springs representing the stiffness 'of the soil. The results of the analysis include soil spring deforma-tions which represent soil movement with respect to some origin point of earthquake. The peak horizontal deforma-tions were used to calculate the passive earth pressure on the perimeter willa. 6.'5
' Earth Pressure Contiderations The procedurer: outlined in section 2.5.4.10.3 of the FSAR related to determination of static and dynamic earth pressures on the structural walls were reviewed. An ."At Rest" earth pressure coefficient of K,= 0.5 was selected for the compacted granular fill.
This highly conservative approach adopted in determin-ing the earth pressure for dynamic loading conditions (cor-relating movement of structure from dynamic analysis with strai'n obtained from a typical earth pressure diagrami
' combined with static loads results in a heavily reinforced perimeter wall.
6.6 Groundwater Environment Evaluation of piezometric response in the Recent allu-vium to fluctuations in the river lovel indicated that tho
)
- w . . ~ . . )-
o . q , clays, silts, and sands were discontinuous and unresponsive. Average permeability of these deposits is estimated to be in the order o'f l'.5 x 10-6 cms /sec (FSAR Fig. 2. 5-12) . Similar conclusions were reached regarding the trans-missibility of potential sand layers in the Pleistocene clays. Below the stiff clays at Elev. -77 MSL it has been stated that all strata are responsive to river level flue-tuations. The major source of recharge for the granular backfill surrounding the Power Plant is 6xpected to be from rain and run-off, possible interconnections with dis-continuous sand layers extending to the river and the tan silty sand layer at Elcv. -7i'MSL.
~ ~ '
Water quality has been analyzed and no corrosive ele-ments were detected which could impact the reinforcing steel embedded in the concrete mat (see Section 8.0). The pos-sibility of the water becoming saline at some future date was considered; however, lack of oxygen would prevent cor-rosion from this water source. The greatest potential for corrosive elements to be
~
present in the groundwater immediately adjacent to the con: rote mat would be from the Mississippi River; however, the seepage path required in the assumed continuous silty sand stratum at Elev. -77 MSL, relatively low permeability, estimated gradient of 0.000 and probable filter medium would result in a groundwater environment surrounding the plant with all corrosive elements removed or highly diluted. 6 .* 7 Excavation Sequence .' Unfortunately due to schedulo and legal problems it was noc possible to complate the required, excavation for the Plant Island structuren until October, 1975. The fol-lowing is a brief summary of the major excavation phases commencing with the initial excavation in April,1972 m, (rSAR Section 2.5.4.5.1). ~) ,
. A 4
r S s' '
- Excavated Stage From To Started Finished Phase I Grade -5 April 72 July 72
- II -22
-5 January 75 June 75 III -22 -40 April 75 August 75 IV -40 -48 October 75 March 76 Turbine Bldg. Grade -40 January 77 March 77
, Concurrent with the excavation phases, extensive dewatering systems were installed and operated.
6.8 Dewatering Systems The dewatering systems were installed by Moortrench-American Corporation based on performance specifications prepared by Ebasco. A total of 251 dewatering wells were located around the perimeter of the excavation with 217 pumping from the Recent alluvium and the remaining 34 from the Elev. -77 P,leistocene sands. A second series of 12 deep pump relief wells were located around the combined structure mat and pumped from the Elev. -77 sands. No de-
, tails were provided on the design of the well systems. It is assumed these studies were performed by Mooretrench. On
- evaluating the Instrumentation Reports covering the monitor-ing of the dewatering operation it appears that the sys-tems generally performed as intended. It was noted in a letter from Ebasco to Bob Bros. dated June 29, 1977 (Ap-l pendix H) that significant operational and maintenance problems had developed. Corrective action was taken by l the contractor and it in understood 'that the walls were j stabilized and instrumentation readings were obtained in t
conformance with specifications. An extensive Rocharge Program (required to achieve buoyancy of the structuros) was implemented successfully in October, 1977 and completed by July, 1979 when normal groundwater pressure levels wero achieved. {} - I. .L_. _B [ ' ~v *;-- M~- +4- mlf3. 8 _1 - )
' O':..s
, 6.9 Subsurf ace Instrumentation Program -
The scope of the Instrumentation Program consisted of monitoring.piezom'etric levels, foundation soil heave, settlement, excavation slope movements and potential site subsidence due to dewataring. A total of 24 piezometers were installed to measure groundwate'r response in select-ed soil strata. Five additional piezometers were located
, in the filter layer underlying the combined mat. A total of nine (9) heave points, two (2) extensemeters, 'six (6) .
inclin'ometers, and twenty-eigh't (28) settlement monuments were installed to measure movement of structures and ex-
~ ~
- cavation slopes.
- 6.10 Construction of Mat The excavation for the combined mat was performed with backhoes by making an eight (8) foot vertical cut in the stiff Pleistocene clay from Elev. -40 to Elev. -48. The excavation was performed in strips. The initial strip was located under the Reactor Building area approximately 120 feet wide running to the full width of the mat. Subse-quent. strips INos. 2 and 6) were cut north and south of strip No. 1 as shown in Appendix I *(Fig. 2.5-118). Con-crate placements were made simultaneously in alternate strips. All exposed vertical cut faces were gunited within 8 hours of exposure to prevent dessication prior to congrete mat placement.
6.11 summary of Movements Recorded During Construction on completion of excavation in,dctober, 1975 for the common mat it was noted that the clays had heaved a total of 5 to 10 inches with the maximum amount, occurring at , the north and closest to the river. This magnitude of 5 heave was considerably greater than anticipated in orig-inal design (approximately 2 inches) and was due primarily , s
=. .
E E ,~_ __ ___i _ _=((
*" Eat _h'
O.s to general relaxation of the clays due to the number of
- excavation phases and the stop/ start operation of the de -
watering systems. To compensate for the additional heave, the permissible overload of 700 psf was increased to 1,200 psf. in order to accomplish most of the recompression during construc-tion. This increase permitted the load from the structures and backfill to be increased to 4,500 psf prior to com-mencing the Recharge Program to achieve 6uoyancy. By July, 1977 recoinpression of the heave had occurred due to loading from structures and backfill, assisted by larger and more
' ~
efficient de. watering pumps. The dewaiiering system was con-
~
tinued until October, 1977 iihen the average net settlement was approximately . ~n 2 inches. ,.During the period October, 1977 to July,'1979 the" rate of movement was controlled. by re-leasing. th4 dawatiering . .. s systUm in stages, permitting con-struction'of th'e plant to continue. The averace net settle-
, u _. ~
ment ipereased to approximitely 5 inches dtiring this period. - , Readings'have i stabilized at that 1(vel for the hasE four years Iith o*nly minor fluctuations n5ted due .to change in d s - river levey ; The' composite foundatiori niat settlement is
' '~ ~
shown in_, Appendix J (FSAR Fig '2. 5-157).
'2kStai[ed re,vietof the ikstrimentation recorris cover-
~
1 ing cS5s$ri$ctioE of tihe Plant i$dicat d that! $Ne' applied' (:tructural load QEi %nfficiently 'contfolled'do that the permissible maximum differential ' load {ng of el ksf a ro[s theb'a%ofmatwa.fnetexceeded'Adherencetothiscri- - - terion rssulted in minimum deflhetions and minimum cur ~- vature '(for the mat geometrh) at the fuYface int base of mat. Maximum differential movement tias recordsd' at 2. 5 inches 7with; . s . the maximun? settlement occubring at the? north , y N, and, south. ends. ,
. s
; y . , .
m . u, 1=
\_ % %,
. . - . u -
\
%. "N '
& N K
~
s 3 s - : y ';'
+
s _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ - , - - - ~ ' - ^ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - * ^ ' " ^
- 9.;.
Although the maximum recorded heave and subsequent set-tiement was considerably in excess of original design estimates, carefu5. control had been exercised in applying load from structures and equipment in a uniform sequence. By conforming to the maximum differential loading criter-ion of 1 ksf recompression of the heave and consequently rate of strain was controlled. This procedure minimized unusual and severe distortions of the mat. . D
- ~ , = .-- . . _ _
0 O b e G G S f
- e .
O I b 4 I e
. -23
, * . , _ gg,y
% - ' * * "- -D - 9 -.6- _ p g
. 7.0 Evaluation of Cracking
~
While it is not possible to precisely predict stresses in reinforcing bars, an upper bound estimate is possible by estimating the strain as the crack width divided by crack spacing. Assuming cract widths of 5 mils spaced 10 ft. on center, it may be shown (Appendix K) that the approxi-mate stress in the top rebar is 1200 psi. .The actual crack width and spacing would indicate a much lower stress. Nevertheless, if the conservative value of 1200 psi ten-sion in the top reinforcing bars is conservatively assumed to be constant for the entire 330 feet of length of the mat', the-indicated' differential settlement'would~be some-what less than 1.0 inch. This provides added assurance that differential soil pressures were very well controlled during construction. This also' indicates that the mat is quite tolerant of such differential settlements. Furthermore, settlement stresses are considered
. secondary stresses in that they do not impair the struc-tural capacity to carry other imposed loads such as dead load and seismic loads.
This is possible provided that there is no failure of the supporting soil. In the case of Waterford III the soil is loaded at about one fourth of the design load and in fact, less than the previous in-situ condition. When this is compared to the reinforcing bar yield stress of 60,000 psi, it is clear that these cracks did not give any evidence at all of any structural distress. .' ." Cracks are expected in reinforced concrete structures, and are caused by many factors, such as: application of tensile forces, drying shrinkage of concrete thermal gradients,
,s and differential settlements. .
J
-- . . . ~ . . . . .. -.. .-
"3 ..J The last three effects are the result of geometric' constraints, which do not limit the ability of a properly designed reinforced concrete structure supported on com-petent soil to carry-imposed loads. By " properly designed" it is meant that sufficient reinforcing steel is placed in the concrete to prevent large tensile cracking of the concrete, crushing of concrete, or diagonal tension shear failure. . The cracks that were reported are of- little- concern with respect to. the structural adequacy of the mat; there-fore, the precise cause of the cracks is not important. The cracks could be the result of: shrinkage temperature gradient, settlement, or
~
a.combinati'on of the above. ' However, it is' concluded that the origin of the cracks detected during construction was not due to severe differ-ential movements occurring during or immediately after application of loads from structures and equipment. The water reported to have surfaced through the cracks. is probably ground water under a pressure head. Based on records of dewatering, there does appear to have been suf-ficient hydrostatic head available to force water through the cracks observed in the mat. Regardless of the hydraulic process, very little water was.obseryed. It was described as "not resulting in ge'nerally enough water to form a sheen but enough to definitely show the cracks and to moisten surrounding concrete". With the low rate of water weep-ing and the rather limited cracking, there is no reason for Concern. In 1983, additional cracks in the mat were reported in
- s .
- - as se.- e
....,._=me,,
D . areas outside of the Reactor Building (see Section 4.6 and Appendix A). These cracks probably developed several - years ago. During an interview with Mr. J. Sleger, he , stated that one crack was observed with evidence of seep-age during the late summer of 1979. It is very probable that all of the cracks discovered in 1983 were present for some years.- Indeed, several ,of these cracks gave in-dications of epoxy repairs.
- All of these cracks appear to be the same; namely, a crack which is either a hiairline crack 'or which is invis-
'ible to the naked eye. Many of the cracks are associated with "leachate", moisture _and/or_ evidence of an epoxy re-pair at the top surface of the mat. Both "leachate" and moisture a're observed in very small quantities. These cracks are not indicative of any high stress in the rein-forcing bars. In fact, based upon the observed cracking, one could conc 1,ude that the foundation mat is virtually unloaded. If the foundation mat was actually loaded as
. assumed in the design calculation, one would expect con-siderably more cracking. This tends to confirm the statement that the calculations for the mat are indeed con-
~ ~~
j servative.
. Crack widths of anywhere from 10 to 80 mils, depend-i ing upon crack spacing, which would not be beyond expecta-tion, are not cause for concern of the structural integrity of the mat.
While cracking of concrete is eypected, it is, of course, important to evaluate the cracking for several
- reasons
a) If the crack width becomes very large and there are corrosive chemicals and oxygen present,the rein-forcing steel may be subject to rusting. e 26-i e e
* * = we v .=T ****=.9 9 . e-
,.____,,..ew
- mAap
-I-F
--9 -- 9 . , ' - - & , _t ,. 3 , .,g,
, .. , __ _ . _. g
l O * (~5 l
'J l b) Large and extensive cracking may be indicative of forces ac. tin,g on the structure which can cause damage such that the ability of the structure to resist loads, due to service, is compromised.
c) For the case of the Waterford III mat in particular, seepage of water from cracks may invalidate the
" floating mat" concept and affect the containment.
- vessel stabil'ity. ,
The cracks in the mat have widths that are so small that there is no chance of intrusion of corrosive materials and that corrosive materials are not in the environment , within the plant or outside. In the Commentary to ACI 318-71 Section 10.6 it is stated that "To assure protec-tion of reinforcement against corrosion and for aesthetic reasons, many fine hair cracks are preferable to a few wide cracks." From the observation of the Waterford III mat, one would 'have to describe the situation as one of a few hair cracks much less than the many fine hair cracks envisaged as a preferable condition. The observations of the cracks indicate the seepage of water _up.through cracks carries with it "leachate" which contains primarily calcium carbonate and magnetic iron. The leachate apparently seals the cracks because .
. many of the cracks show leachate deposits which are now dry. .This self sealing process may eventually eliminate leakage; however, seepage is still in evidence even though the process has probab11 been underw'ay for several years.
Nevertheless, the present seepage is minor and poses no difficulties. Since the advent of Portland cement in construction, it has been known that steel reinforcing bars embedded in Portland cement concrete are protected from corrosion. rx i Q . i
. -27_
, - _ . . ......r.... .m...._.m.,....
.~.=.- .. .. ..
O
- t. e Quoting from the Commentary to ACI-318-71 Section 10.6 "Recent extensive laboratory work involving modern de-formed bars has confirmed that crack width at service loads is proportional to steel stress." As noted above, the observed. cracks indicated a very low stress in the re-inforcing steel.
i N ' w - y 3 l
-t
.._..m...._.
h'
'
- 8.0 Corrosion Potential 8.1 Passivation Mechanism in Reinforced Concrete In order to assess 'the poten'ial t for corrosion in the reinforcing steel of the NPIS basemat, several references concerning corrosion of steel in concrete were reviewed (References 14-18) .
As noted in Reference 14, "the corrosion resistance of steel in Portland cement concrete has been recognized for more than a century. The protective mechanism, not des-cribed until recent years, is due to a passivating film of gamma ferric oxide which is formed and maintained in the alkaline ' environment' produded liy cement hydration" . As noted in Reference 15, " Iron and steel are not thermodynamically stable in water. Either acid or neutral water corrodes iron and forms a ferrous solution; This solution, in contact with oxygen, oxidizes to form hydrated ferric oxide -- a major constituent of rust. If the water is sufficiently alkaline, at pH 8 to 14 for example, the Fe O2 3 and Fs 034 which form are relatively insoluble and
. deposit a protective film on the metal surface. The metal is then said to be passivated".
The passivating mechanism, th'erefore, requires an alkaline. environment (pH of about 12. 5) and an absence of oxygen in order to form a protective film on the surface of the reinforcing steel. The alkalinity of the water derives from the hydra-tion of the cement, which generates. calcium hydroxide. A relatively oxygen-free environment is generally insured by careful control of the concrete mix and its subsequent placement.' Depth of concrete cover is also a factor. As noted in Reference 16, "In addition , concrete of -}. enmune -
- Sammmp W M #P4WLp W M W Y"D 9Q 4 A a -- -
k - a low water-cement ratio and'well cured has a low perme-ability which minimizes penetration of corrosion inducing , factors -- oxygen', chloride ion, carbon dioxide, and water." 8.2 Job Specifications - Section I, Paragraph 7.'3 of the Ebasco Concrete Masonry specification (Reference 19) stipulates that: "The aggre-gate, sand and water combined in the same amounts as in the concrete mix shall not contain a total soluble chlor ~- ide ion content of more than 250 ppm wat6r when water is extracted'from the combination after being thoroughly mixed, unless the Engineer allows a deviation in writ-ing...". - -
- Section I, Paragraph 9.7 of that specification further requires tha't:
"No admixture containing chlorides to an extent that the requirements of' Paragraph 7.3, with the admixture mixed with the water, are exceeded shall.be ac-captable unlese the Engineer allows a deviation in writ-
. i ng...".-
Section II, Paragraph 8.4 of that specification also stipulates that: " Calcium Chloride shall not be used for accelerating the set of the cement in any concrete con-taining reinforceienE or embedded metal parts". ; The.. limitation on the maximum allowable soluble chloride contained in the concrete mix defined in the Reference.19 specification is s'bsequently u verified by the sampling ~and testing procedures mandated by that specification. . 8.3 Laboratory Testing In order to deduce any evidence of corrosion in the basemat reinforcing steel, several water samples and a solid (leachate) sample were subjected to laboratory analysis.
./
s . 9-4 *, , , , A _ * ' a*. m m, . 9
i The three water samples subjected to laboratory analysis were obtained at the following locations: a), Water rising in Co'n'duit No. 33074, which rises nea'r the West Temporary Electrical Pit, runs to the southeast for approximately 90 feet, and again rises above the basemat. At the south end, no. water was rising, indicating a blockage to the flow of water. The conduit is located approxi-mately 3 feet below the top of the basemat. b) Grouhd water flowing through~ conduits which extend from the side of the mat to the East Temporary
~~ Electrical Pit.
c) Water collecting at a crack in the Waste Gas Tank Compressor B room. The solid sample was collected along the top surface of a crack located along an east-west axis between column lines R and O y, and straddling column line I
- M The laboratory report summarizing the results of the analyses performed on these samples is contained as Ap-pendix M.
As_noted under. ' Testing Methods and Results' each of the three liquid samples were subjected to analysis for pH, chloride, alkalinity, iron, calcium and sodium. The
, results of these analyses are subsequently tabulated on ,
page 2 (note that samples designated 'l', '2' and '3' accord with the order in which the' sa,mple locations are defined herein). - - The value of the pH obtained for sample 1, 12.5, ac-cords with the pH of concrete, as previously noted. The PH of 7.5 obtained for samples 2 and 3 is due to the car-bonation process which normally occurs at the surface of concrete exposed to open air. ./ e . . . ...... =- . - ~ , _ , . . . . _..
.Q
- 's As noted in Reference 14, " Free carbon dioxide re-i duces pH by carbonation, but only to a depth of a few millimeters in sound concrete".
The report results indicate the virtual absence of iron in the three liquid samples, a clear indicator that the chemical consti.tuents of rust are not present. The , ppm of chloride are also well,within the maximum allow-able 250 ppm mandated in the Ebasco Concrete Masonry { 3 '
~'
specification (Reference 19), as previously noted. The solid (leachate) sample was subjected to spec-trographic and X-ray diffraction techniques. Iron and 3 Calcium are identified as the two major chemical consti- , tuents contained in the solid sample. - j As-noted in the appended laboratory report under
' Remarks', the' calcium hydroxide liberated during the
- hydration of Portland cement will form calcium carbonate in the presence of carbon dioxide; the iron content con-tained in the solid sample is identified as magnetite.
l . f e i
~.-,.
.:.a 2
. - . - - :,-. - .. . . . .- - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - --- --
O... The results of the testing of the water samples and leachate are consistent with the process of corrosion pro-tection of the steel reinforcing bars embedded in the concrete. As a matter of interest, it should be noted that the reinforcing ~ bars are large. ~ In general, the top .
~
reinforcing bar diameter is 1-3/8 inches while the bottom reinforcing bar diameter is 2-1/4' inches. - These properties accord with the properties of the iron compound which (under properly . controlled conditions) forms a passivating film on the surface of the reinfore-ing steel (see the initial extract from Reference 15) .
~~ ~ ~ ~
It is interesting to note that this ddposition mechan-ism also occurs in boilers, and is succinctly. stated in Section 6, page 129 of Mark's Standard Handbook for Mech-anical Engineers (Seventh Edition) :
"At saturation temperatures above moder-ately low' pressures, a second mechanism predominates, in which iron removes oxygen from water or steam, forming iron oxide and releasing hydrogen:
3 Fe + 4H2O -- Fe 03 4 + 8H It is noteworthy that this mechanism does not require'the intervention of dissolved gaseous oxygen in the water, which is often the rate-limiting factor in the electrochemical corrosion discu.ssed earlier in this sub-section. . . The stable oxide at boiler temperatures in a non-oxidizing environment is magnetite, Fe 340 (ferrous ferrite). A normal protective skin of magnetite is formed from the underly-ing steel". ) *
^
.. ~~
. . . . . _ ~;-~ T' :':." U. - - -
G.,. on the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is therefore concluded that there is no evidence to infer the existence of basemati rebar corrosion in the vicinity of a crack. 8.4 Steel Containment Corrosion , As noted in HEA Trip Report No. 6 (Reference 5), an inspection of the annular area between the Containment vessel and the Shield Building revealed some surface cor-rosion at the base of the Containment vessel, which might be due to'the presence of water generated by construction activity.
~ ~
Asiioon as th'is area'can be adequatelf controlled
~
with respect to the presence of such construction-related water, it is~ the recommendation of REA that a program be
' implemented to clean and field paint the' base of the C on-tainment vessel to insure that the corrosion process has been eliminated in this area.
0 9 6 e S 9 9 9 I 9
,,- an===- **--*-# e .e s= h #
s
.s
. - . 9.0 Steel Containment Stability -
9.1 Ebasco Calculation 1352.063 Ebasco Calcu'lation 1352.063 (Reference 13) was ex-ecuted as a consequence of Ebasco Nonconformance Report W3NCR-16143, dated May 11, 1983 (Reference 10). Attachment III to that NCR notes that "The effect of postulated widespread hairline cracking of the basemat has been investigated by Civil Engineering for stability of
,' ~
the Containment Vessel against flotation and overturning under buo'yant conditions caused by postulated groundwater intrusion...".
~
. - ~ ~ ~ ~ An attached me' mo^ randum from P'. -C. L[u*to B. Grant dated May 24, 1983 specifically indicates that the stabil-ity of the containment Vessel has been reviewed for a postulated hydrostatic infiltration to Elev. -1.50 feet.
An examination of Ebasco Drawing No. 1564 G-817, Rev. 13, - dated 02/03/83' designates El. -1.50 ft. as Top of Pier, 4.5 feet below the tangent line of the cylindrical shell and the ellipsoidal base of the Containment vessel. Ebasco Calculation 1352.063 (Reference 13) assumes that the base of the Containment vessel is flat, and com-putes the safety factors against uplift, sliding and over-turning due to the effects of E-W DBE, vertical DBE and buoyancy. . The factors of safety against uplift, sliding and overturning initially computed are 2.44, 2.51 and 6.77. At a meeting held at Ebasco's New York office (see Section 2.0) it was agreed that Ebasco would revise the stability calculation to reflect the SRSS.of the E-W and j N-S DBE's, and to reduce the dead load of the Containment vessel by the magnitude of the buoyant force. 3
, 7 .. .
. .- ..,; =-
m - -- -
~ ~ ~ ~
O The Revision 1 calculation, dated 07/28/83, computes revised factors of safety against sliding and overturning of 1.17 and 3.16. . In order to confirm the stability of the Containment vessel, a simple stability model wa.s formulated by REA (Appendix L) which takes the curvatIore of the base of the Containment Vessel into account. Thisstabilitymodelis_fbrrulatedonthebasisof two intrinsic properties of the ellipsoidal base of the Containment' Vessel: that sliding and translation of the _ base of the Containment Vessel with respect to the mass concrete support cannot be uncoupled, and that any dis-placed configuration of the base of the Containment Vessel will result in " two-point" contact (points designated 'j' and 'k' on page 3 of the Appendix L calculation) . The lat-ter assumption derives from the fact that the radius of
' curvature of th$e ellipsoidal base of the Containment Vessel
, is not a constant. As shown in the computation, the critical stability mode for the dontainment Vessel is overturning and not sliding. The factor of safety computed against overturn-ing is 2.34. HEA' therefore confirms the stability of the Contain-ment Vessel under the action of the postulated earthquake and buoyancy forces. The HEA computation.also confirms the structural , adequacy of the underlying mass conc ~ rete supporting the
~
Containment Vessel as shown in Detail "B" of Ebasco Draw-ing LOU-1564-G-502, Rev. No. 6, dated 12/17/78. Factors of safety against uplift, sliding and over-tur. ting were also compute'd for the Shield Building with respect to the top of the Mat. The respective factors of
, ,,- ,. * - ** , - W ~" * - - - - #* ** * # 6 0***.*M
. ,, e - -
safety calculated were.3.23, 1.35 and 1.32, which do not take into account the additional shear and axial restraint that would be generated by the reinforcing steel tieing the Shield Building and the Mat together. HEA therefore additionally confirms the stability of the shield Building with ' respect to the top of the mat. 6 . 9
. +.s-e me e-~ w e-e o D e
t 4 5 6
& e
- 9 e .
D e S "en G
. - - ~~c--~...-u,--
7% ' w l 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 10.1 pontainment Vessel The steel' Co'ntainment Vessel is seated on a concrete' " dish. If it is assumed that hydrostatic pressure develops on' the interface between the bottom head of the Contain-ment vessel and the supporting fill concrete,,there would be a reduction in stability.. Calculations were performed which indicate a more than adequate margin of safety. Therefore, it can be concluded'that the cracking and seep-age in thh foundation mat could extend into the ' supporting fil1 concrete without causing any concern about the Con-
~~ 'tainment Vessel stability. .
Quite independent of the cracking in the foundation mat, some surface corrosion was noted on the lower cylin-
'drical portion of the containment vessel. This surface corrosion has no.t affected the strength of the Containment Vessel. However, this surface corrosion should be cleaned and the steel protected to prevent future corrosion.
10.2 Foundation Mat
-(~ While certain difficulties were encountered during ' )
I construction.and procedural changes were made, they were
/
i
! resolved in a controlled manner so that there were no ad- ',
j verse effects upon the structural integrity of the founda-y tion mat. t_ Cracks in the mat were reported in 1977 and again in 1983. However, it is likely that the cracks reported in
~
1983 Vere in existence f'ro some time but were only noticed in 1983. In fact, if it weren't for the moisture associ-ated with the cracks, the cracks might not have been noticed at all. The ext'ent of cracking is minor and is certainly within expectations for a structure of this type. The specific causes of the cracks are probably a
\ s
~) combination of temperature effects, drying shrinkage and differential soil settlements under imposed loads. While the cracking can be considered minor, the seep-age of water through the foundation mat contrasted with statements that the foundation mat was a " watertight barrier". However, the limited amount of water seepage does not invalidate the fundamental assumption that the foundation mat can support and maintain the. imposed hydro-static pressure of the groundwater. , It was also determined that there is a self sealing of the cracks by the leachate. The leachate has.two major components; calcium carbonate and magnetic' iron. This magnetic iron is probably bagnetite, Fe 34 0 which is the passivating oxide which forms on and protects the steel embedded in the concrete from rusting. The water taken from a crack is not very dissimilar to water taken from the ground surrounding the foundation mat. In neither case is the water considered aggressive. Furthermore, visual inspections of cracks reveal no evidence of rusting. If corrosion of reinforcing bars in the concrete were a problem it would be expected that the cracking would be extensive. This is because corrosion products of. iron occupy a much larger volume than that of the iron. The resulting expansive forces would cause addi-tional cracking and open up existing cracks and a rust discoloration would appear. The inspection and testing revealed no indications.of such a corrosion process. As a matter of fact, the cracking in the foundation is minor and there are no corrosive agents within the NPIS nor are any expected in the future. Therefore, there is no need to perform a program of crack repair or peri-odic inspection. Indeed, the leachate appears to provide O .
, .. o A ')
for a self sealing process. While the laboratory test results indicated that . there was iron in the leachate, the sample of pit water in-dicates virtually no iron. This strongly suggests that the iron is 'not currently waterborn and therefore is not now coming from the reinforcing bars. While the source of the iron is not known, it probably occurred over the past seven years of construction. Possible sources include pipe threading and sweeping of the floor with steel bristled brooms. In conclusion,; ther,e is no evidence of any process which has been or could be detrimental to the structural integrity of the foundation mat. e e 4 "O
$ . O e #
e 4 9, .
. ., . . , .- . . .. 4[ *
, ,o .- . . _ . . _ . _ . .__ _
c) REFERENCES
- 1. HEA Trip Report No. 1, W3-RE-LP-001, July 15, 1983.
2 .. REA Trip Report No. 2, W3-HE-LP-002, August 1, 1983.
- 3. KEA Trip Report No. 3, W3-HE-LP-003, August 22, 1983.
- 4. REA Trip Reports Nos. 4& 5, W3-HE-LP-00 4, August 24, 1983.
- 5. HEA Trip Report No. 6, W3-HE-LP-006, September 6, 1983.
'6. Foundation Design of the Waterford Nuclear Plant, by J. L. Ehasz and E. Radin, December, 1973.
7.- -Review-of Site-Settlements,'by M. Pavone and J. L. Ehasz, September, 1978.
- 8. RCB Foundation Crack Map, Ebasco Drawing No. SK 1564-4.1-G-28, August 17,,1977.
- 9. Ebasco Letter D'oc: CH-039-77, File: 6Q-R-4, July 27, 1977.
- 10. Ebasco Nonconformance Report W3NCR-16143, May 27, 1983.
,11. WSES-FSAR-UNIT-3, Section 11.2, Liquid Waste Management '
System. '
- 12. Compatibility of Large Mat Design to Foundation Conditions, by J. L. Ehasz and P.-C. Liu l3. Ebasco Calculation OFS No. 1352.063, Steel Containment
- Stability, Rev. 1, July 28, 1983. .
- 14. Steel corrosion in Concrete, by D. . Hausmann, Materials Protection, November,'1967, pp. 19-23. .
- 15. The Mechanism of Steel Corrosion in Concrete Structures, -
by C. T. Ishikawa and B. Bresler, Materials Protection, March, 1968, pp. 45-47. , O
*W.
---a m ame g W Wg Q S9p , emb
.m .
E
*. 16. Mechanisms of Corrosion of Steel in Concrete, by G. J. Verbeck, ACI Publication SP-49, June, 1975, pp. 21-38, 17.
Criteria for Cathodic Protection of Steel in Concrete - Structures, by D. A. Hansmann, Materials Protection, October, 1969, pp. 23-25. '
- 18. Cathodic Protection of Steel in Concrete- by R.
C. Robinson, ACI Publication SP-49, June, 1975, pp. 83-93. ,
- 19. Ebasco Specification Concrete Masonry, Project Identifica-tion No. LOU-1564.472, Issue Date: December 31, 1971.
.') J
. . i t
- mm w's * ~ '+" *'~
r i P \ 't *4 [ s APPENDIX A
. Basemat Crack Maps
+
4 e
+
9
. . 4 ==
0 e ' O O 3 . e 9
, , , , . e enemmes as em ed'*** ** *
- N * * * *
- 6 ** ***Z"^^ -
~~~
f k w w e.s w. QWWW8T. Of1CCl
.d ET . y t. .
PREP. SYMATE I/J///J _' " SUBJECT LA'584A" C E A C T. V. A P CHCKO.8Y M b DATE ot/s t /t 3 40TE1: 1 00 . I
- 2. M O a
i
- 3. stiGH T AM00MT 0 LE.MGTH M EAR W E ST E M O . '
\ .
- 4. HA IR UMS c4Acu. .-
N . IdA IIA
'l ,
e, a f.4 - K
,g '
u .,- =
. e t ..J.
-4;t t .
O, . g.,
.u. e i
. ...\. l i '
6'O (
- ~~
s . l i . l I . . . e i ! -
, I i
p 7.. o 3.._; l
, .
- 8 i
..?! p.
I a ',I. a_*
. lb m
*) .
, .~
, ;. ~
-s L
.) b
- .._ , - - . . . . . _ - - - - - - . . - ~ ~ - - - - - -
, n oncci M[ihT ,
. ) t. .'
t !. i s u. A - c t. A c r. V. A P PR EP. By[ff.,y- OATE 85///5 SUBJECT CHCKD.BY Adi 0 ATE o t/s1/g 3 W07ES: 1. QO
?..Ye6 FridM C RAcM IbE684bli kl6 -
So0TH ( SNA orO) ,
- b. Q O
- 4. THIS AR.ts.A cLE A #E D Foi2,
\ '
Id S P E CTi o d . C R A Cd. .MAY
\ . E X T IE. ht o ite.400 0 90Te o AREA
,'?
uWoeA p t. oo R. pas.PArt.ATlOkl.
, 6, H A i r.t i u e, c.AAca< .
9A ICA J x r ,:. .. , _ i
*- =
ras ,s- , , j >..
.,,< g __ . ._. . .
s
- 1. . .
e-T ~L
,, - C.J. ] .
( (., ./ .> ., L ,
,1 .s 9
w- -.vc'e.o . ,, i r, . gore 4 o l' ,
,i a 10.- 0 .. . ,,,,
I . . . . . ..
. . .' u- *..- ' s .:. .> g
. 5.
i.. . .l H + -- y 5 - E
, . . . - ~ e.
s-__ -
..r-
, i -
SUBJ, SU BDIV. SHEET
~ ENT ' Y 'l '
PREP. BYM(' DATE f/$7[/3 l SUBJECT 1 A t 5 v. A - c p. A c r. V. A F CHCKO.BY Adh DATE 08/31/t3 14 0 T E S : 1. E X POSC- f> A R. 5 A - 3.1 0 ,
- 2. . Y E S - 5 HAb e o A R.5 A Al 3'.. M o A . O WMble. To o m.T E R Mi d fL IF CRAc4 15 ONneA c0RS
\ . *
- 5. H AI R.LINE c. pac 4 I e 4A -
dA L -._ 9 N a#
- - - - L. - --
i l
? ~
~.
e e s 2. 8:Vti'-4 i fcOgg * ' U" - -- - - : , , : . . . , ,, ,
.)*T_!;111III/'//j,,
Vlq'); t..
- n-- .. :.( .tp::;. y
-n oo
% I
- g. s: .- ,
t K .N 'f.
- 7s e'
l T /\ .- r. E l
e f
* * * * * * * " " ' - antc PROJECT - - - .., CLIENT. ' I 'l -
PR EP. BYMDAT E / SUBJECT IA.!5U.A ' C 1. A c r. V. A P CHCKO. BY Ad t, D ATE o t/3t/g 3 40TES: 1. M o ,
- f. Y E S - [H AD E O A R.ce. 4
- 3. oty - S H Abs o A n.gA DA M P - Op 5 HAD 5 p AR.g4 4, H AI R.LI N E. c A. A eg, -
\
\ '
I 3A - 4A
.~. .
. _ . _ . .. 1 Ll _L.
N
) ._ '
I_ f'-3v .
.g. ,-
1
,3. .. , s....
e... w : .- 10: .I '. ev. :-
.m - ,
.. _. i..; .. . --- --.-- -. . ..,
ll.
.I. .'__ .., .'.. 4 o
?s . a y ,..:
.. . \ . . ..
L:.'~.:'
,- 4 .. .
(. l .,
.- .s .' ?
c . ln 6As sureis Taut ( Pzern < _ f. 1 . v
- t . .
rw t _
. .- sum, susciv. SHEET PROJECT .
'< '. PLIEN,T 'Fl-P R E P. B Y
-f'DATE c71//d3 SUBJECT 1 A ! & '/. A - C 1. A C T. 1/. A P .
CHCKD.BY Adt DATE t t/3!,'r3
. HoTE5: 1.'40 2.. Ye i- C H AQs n
- b. 5. DA g p
- 4. Pp.svio ujt y G Rid 0t2 O A R.E A g ,
Fo st, t p 3 re.c.T o g
\ . 5 . U V A lb u s WHErgeA, to ca rs Amids.
cgAeg Rugs 09 0eg. .re oe5 tat ,
- 4. H A # ra t.l u e ca.A cx. :
2.A SA L __ ._. / .eg., . ; )
) .4 .
. . . ..s ,
~ .
, \
uaTe4
.t -
s ,
*/s. g tG I ~
r-. . . . . . . _ . . .. o rioGSTM s - (dois5) * '
- j. _?
-. . 3 % 5 ;
i
, I l
. i
~
WAcre m comPResso?. P. coa .m
. I , i e
J
% 'NROJECT
_.l CUENT, _ ' I 'l . -
butN. S U B DIV. SH EET SUBJECT J 1. ! 5 v. A. - c t. A c r. V. A P PR EP. BY g,f-OATE Ig{/fd CHCKD.8Y AdL DATE c I .
l H0TEs: 1, Llo n E PAlblT 3 DAMP PRE.viodSLV ti.! THE. Miootgg, (2.r3 MOVED POR q Le AJ6TH
- 4. H d i 12.LI 4 (:- C9 A CK
\ '.
. N -
S
~A
- - - - - ___.$(. ~~ ~ - 4A
. 3 ' '~~~ ; ,
r.-
$ - 1.-
-g; --
~~-
~~ -~
m.. . . - i *;.?'
- , \__ -
L,
- f. .-
m*.< e l l . I i 1 i i, J . 4- , L. -
. wuTE. nur c na u -
( i .
-. I l
I L - _.,m-- _. ..m_.__ , , . . . . .
'+ %g is
, ~, ,
y ~----
-- ,. L -
JUENT _ PR EP. iiY.I.'/4 $d DATE 9/t/d SUBJEC7 1Ai;UA- C T. A ' T- VAF '
-=%rm,,
_ - _ _ CHCKn.8Y Ad 5 01TE OVo2ft3 __6 e ' 3
~
s.!4 01s S : T. tJ O s s 2 . tJ O ,
~
S . 4( G. 'r. . f . 8 A IIL, L I nJ F c,gg y
~
L .
\>
\'c- .
. : N
\_
.a ;"-SC.a.. ,.
9,-o pz , c _9 o -
-_ 1 Iy . .
9o 9: '
.- . f; '.> * .'?-
i .
\_td.G1P 1
---n _--
f' O, . .
./~ ,' .. */g. .. . ,
.N - ,
.- ,W. 'y s
) 7/4 %,t..'~~'
~
G.. 4
, u ---
,;. .t ,-
-l ,- - -
.9 ' y '
; \
,, $ h ,
l 0 3
- M.,' &a g' _ ,
.4 -
l 1
., .'f s
.Y . ,- -
.; ;i.
i ' g. L - s (si *
/
J: , I rL. , 8. . F .,> ,
. ]" .s .
/ _
.Mi .
l ._- l , . 7- - . _ _ 3 , I 1
,3.
s t ( ,
~
a
"' ' ~ ~ ' . . . . . ~ . . . a n c. c. s %. 3LIENT - v t, -
PR E.. SY ff/0 ' OAT E 'f / 'N.3
SUBJECT 1 ; t 5 IA A - t I. A : T. V. A f CHCX D. BY Ad 5 DATE 09/o2/g 3 N0T5S: 1. REPAIR ATitsprto .
., 2.. No FLobR. FIN 1511 3.
sEteS t c%isrs 4 H A I R.t p t= c ra.4 cg g 8 IA .
~ lM -
v
's.,**
R :, b . ,. * ,
)
s. ( ,
)
y' y ~ s'-O
' g .
,, s ,,
Q uJCT c . J. M ,
, 7._ x ..
s
--L ..--
_ _~
\. ~ '
,' - ' j '. o 1 ., i .
E
,. m ..
Qi +-- s
-{-
O u - - - - - . . . . ... ~ -
~.. ..... .. _ ..... , . .
J
~~w t, -
.hLIENT P R EP. BYfR/G w/ DAT E '/// / f.3
-5UBJECT. 1 A ! ; 14 A - C 1. A O f. V. /. F CH CK D. BY AA L DATE 01/02.!23 M0TE3: 1. REPAIR ATTCMPTED 2, 40 Floori FINISH 3, NO EV1DENC.E of SCEDAGE A. HA I QL.IIJ E= C9A CK.
i N y - q
- lh IC 4c !
e ; e .. i .
-( ;
_R 'A ." ' r .;. .
' ) . :
i 6'- C i - - - - [!.07 gg - -
6'!Q .
i
=
f A I i ar 1
- Ei-- . ,s .--2 N l 7
s(--. w s. Kw . T 9s s e
,o -
i
- i. . .
~ .i
- - c'. . l- ~7.s_ o ,'
O' h* m ' O, %?
-d ; ~'
N O
. I e
Gz -
-l'
. =
I t n.
.w. .- . - , - . .
~
L9LiEhy .' Y -t. - PREP. BY 4C/6 w OATE 9/s/(.3
-QUBJECT I A ! E '/ A - C I A 0 T- I/ A F CHCKO.BY Ad6 OATE oi/oe/ s:
I HoTi5: 1. REPAlR ATTCMPTED
- 2. 90 flobq F utsy 3 '. SEEPME E'AISTS
- 4. H Al s2Ligg cgx s '
1
\ .
~
s 15 sc - s, .,' -
+ *a C
- Q2 .
s : w - a t A 4 _ _ ~ -- 3{ W . fb_
\
~
7'- o ,
?
N
'a ..:
ig 9 l . w
- I*
. : l Pg -I--
< -l-l .
L -
,- f. ___....... _ _, _ _ ..
g nmeu , ----. _.3LIENT FL-P R EP. BY 1. S /WDATE 4/5 /l.3 SUBJECT 1 A i ? '/. A - C 1. A : T. 1/.A F CHCKO.BY AcS D ATE oi/o:,/t. NOTE 5: 1 40 '
- 2. k! O
- 5.60
- 4. H M A.LI A C F-A c K
\ -
\ .
I
e A Id A .e .
...,_ _. . . s. _ .
q) -
-I
.\ .
n 8
/. .-- /s
' a..
. .i. .-
.. r DAMP 6~
_ \ t y.I m..-.o.. , . l l 4 ,- Q > . .. '
,p r-- ~
l l I
! l l 1 i
L - 8 - l
1 69LIENT 'f1-
' d uBJECT 1 A i ? '/.' A - C T. A : T. 1/. A F PR EP. BY 15/6 5/ DAT E 9///JG CHCK O. 8Y Adf- D ATE 01/02,'t 14 0 T E 3 ' t. W o
- 2. M o -
- s. u o 4 H M " ' t W 52 .C ucA
\ ..
i . lA : 2A
.. =__.__ .
..(
M .-
. ) . - e
,t- :
, - - . i
.'f ,
, 3o , -
I t D16 S E L
'. \
% olL' '
t 5TOPA(,IE #. y, g 8 s
' 9
-L :. ._
i r J I ~
..__.m _.__._.. . .
EI-
'hu~ENT PR EP. SY f-/ J W DATE 9/' /D -SUBJECT 1 A ! I '/ A ~ C 1. A T. V. A F CHCKD.BY Ad B O ATE 01/02/t!
40TES: 1. M O - Z . Jo * { h YQ 4 . H A I R L IN 're C R A C R. IdA i [lA L t .
. 4'-7
-w %
~
N. .
*.
- i.
,p - - '
., e
\
l . .s
.i -
\ D S-o ,
' s
/ ,.-
! 4'-0,
*I '1 / - .g!.o%
s.', p* I
- y' ..f ' -
. .s , . . . . l
_ol
.\.. .
TO : .s c ,s ..
~' '
.s .. .
~
~ W V' M l 4 i
i . _I C D
- t
! I *
{ lN Y \ \ ~ .
- - - ~ - - - - - --
~
' . . . . . -.- .e. ...--.
M*L[E 'T . y .t ; PR EP. SYRR/G UI DAT E 9///D
'NUBJECT 1 a ; '/. A - C 1. A : T. 3/. A F CH CK O. BY I d f. DATE0?!c2/ES ao n s - i. 90 roan
- 2. 90 rw& rima g; - s. scenen,m me 4, w u n u s e cc,c+c
'\ .
g i it 4':C' R t- ,' . h* F',. . ~J '
._. e
.3 o.
T -
-- --Q
. g- . .
.H
- i . .
Tig -4 l% F. % i 4 vet
~
, l f t-0 ,
l b :.'! A e
! . **4 G\ &* .
O.
'r, ,
~
e
.... . ** ~
- -a. - a w u c ..t - . m. *- ao--- - lL-.
. y t.
[ENT . PREP. SY48/E ** OATE 9////3 ud8 JECT 1A! IX A - c t. A : T. 1/. A F CHCKD SY Ad8 DATE09/o /f 3 H07E3: 1. tdo RcpAin, .
- 2. . tJ 0 F 0 ort Few KH ~
- 1. SEEP %C EY1575
- 4. HAi12.Li3.l(3. c RAcg
\ . .
N . I . I (NH , ZFH
, 5-o 53 '
,1 .
O! ' i;
- v. - -
i . l 8 g gi M , . . . .. . qIf DRAILJ 3
~~
6E -h- _-_
\
c s .) . 1 . L - m_..-.m.._.__ l
. - ~~~
LENT -* t t-C t. A PR EP. 8Y RN/6-4 DATE 9////3 [ W BJECT. 1 l. ! 5 t/. A. - T. 1/. A P CHCK D. SY t.dt. D ATE 01/01/23 I M07ES: 1. bld REPA 1 R 2.. bl O Floor. Fi.9 854
%. bl O Eut OcueC. or SECPMC
- 4. HA(Rt !ME c. RACK
\
g ,. N : 4-o
. 7 .
~
{f , vm = v l00 J- l _' s
{~ ~]
- 4 ,,
53 .
- I I
13 s .0..-.- . ,. . l f . . . . g .. . .-
\
O
._t N
.---\..
7..' o
/-
. . . . . . ,I 9
51 +-- --
., i l .
m Y
. . . .. .. c .
. ~ . . .
. . . =; _
_...mm,.:-.-..--
. e
, e nwev . w w ww. JWOWIV. DMCLl
^ CLIENT
; ', y .t '.
SUBJECT a A i s tx A - c t. A c r. v A F PR EP. BY M/f/ 4 DATE 4///d3 CHCKO.BY M 5 DATE09/02/23 407E5: .
- l. REPAIR ATicMl'TED -
Z. No FLOOR FINISH
- 3. No CVIPCitC of SEC%CC
\ -
- 4. H A i RLtijs. cgAc4 .
N . lA lrt a
~.
S -- .
\ . . J. 4 '; , . . . y :2. . : . a.;,: ,, '
t s . o 4: 9 - .
-d , Bl 5t ,llg
+.
-A CRACK ', I
. 3l-101
. . . . - 1 R -i- -
.j PLAN EL ' 34.7 5' - y . I J
-w -.e * .s a m .
.(
...w. . . . . . o w o v. . . o n e, e. i O CLIENT ' F I. .
4 SUBJECT 1 l ! 5 '/ A - C 1 A C T. 3/ A P PR EP. 8Y 44/C--l* DATE /1//. CHCKO.BY Ad E DATE04/02/f 5 I 40TCS:
- 1. ilo RCPAIR.
, 2. tJo Floolt. finis.H
- 3. No EVIDENCE CT SEER 6C
- \ . 4. HAIR.t1#5 cA.Ac4 .
\ -
3c 6c _t_ R i - 6 1 -
- o. e i
sn
+ .
~9 & -
- O i -
s e_ i CJ1 , _] i N___- - i
. _ +-8* , CRACK 10:
1 CONT BLDG, , Qi 4- -- s PLAN AT EL -3+.75' E . .* t O J 7
.y .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
^*~"~"'*~~~~~"~~'
1 1 6, CLlENT I 'l - PREP. BY #f/6M OATE#/'/i?3 s SUBJECT I 1. ! 5 v. A - c 1. A c r. v. A y CHCKD.BY Ad 5 DATE01/0'2/22 H07E3: i l l NO REPAIR l 2 NO FLOOR FINISli - 3 SOME SEEPAGE
\
- 4. HAIRt-lus c eAcg .
12M . L- , , a/ CONT WALL. go
. a.
.v N
~ _
~ n m . +. s .
. u , 4' ot %
'01 3
, .. - 3 . ,
.?
*e
. ~k .
, i -a y -
1
- D i
=
- e. t
+
P . _ . _ -- l.
.2 ..
PLAN AT EL -34.75 uuS
$ . e
~ ~
^-
^ Mem someddd % .spm.ge.. w eem>4. M . #ery .se
~
su ma. su euiv. SHEET l ! PROJECT
'IL-
- P R EP. SYU/ G W DATE 9///f3 NLIENT C I. A : T. 1/. A Y CHCXD.BY Ad & DATE 09/01/23 p dUBJECT 1 A ! I '/ A -
407E3* I I NO REPAlft. Wo' Floor Fl9tSH b . 2 3 No Oli DE9CE OF SEEIMGE 4 . .H A I R.' E E c.R.AC44.
\
\
i . 12M O A s , R i , . . .
,,, , s .
~
.Y.
v s 4. _? . ito
. . . . _ o g .. ,
4
.?
~
v
' I l
l'
- CONT WAl.L
- 1 l
../ ,
l I l I I r- = 7- ,A .
\
Y, ..
b U CJ. b u t$ Ul V. 3 ri t I PROJECT gg.ENT F I '- PR EP. SY cc/G W D AT E 9///d dUBJECT 1 A ! ? '/. A ~ C 1. A " T- 8/ A F CHCK O. BY Ad t, D ATE 09/02./2 3 ' M 0 7 li S :
- 1. No REPAIR'-
- 7. TLooR 15 FINIS}lCD
\
- 3. SCEPAGC C%ISTS N- 4. HAIP.WNs CMX t . .
ShH 4N U + - e i .
'c-"
so l . D I l'-6 t l'.g,) 4 .
'+O ,
- .i. . . , - 6' ,- ,, ,
. c . ., .
( T +- -j-u.)
. 9
* %-., L n . , ,
PROJECT -- _ CLIENT
. ;. t. .
PREP. BY Rf/5 W DATE8 /</P3
..'U BJECT 1 A ! ; '4 A - c 1. A : T. 1/. A F CHCKO.BY/Af- DATE oi/02/ 2 3
. No753; d
, I. No RCPAIR i 2. rea is r,uisato l g 3. SCCPAGC' EXISTS 4.
\ -
H A iii i.1 9 e c a. A u i.
-p .4
- I .
ShH 4FH' v . j . 0 'h . Y , .
\ \
l
. it'-o' 0 r- 1
.o i. .
4 l ( < o -
'i l 3
\ . g .
U +-- e s'.__. O sj v.. -. . . --
l SUBJ- SUBDIV. SHEET l PROJECT
.LIENT
- I k - P R E P. SY U,,'I '* D AT E 9/'/O l"dUBJECT l
1 l ! ; '/ A - C I. A : T. l/. A Y CHCKO.SY / dl D ATE 01/02!!5 40Tts: l L - I NO Rf. PAIR 2 No FINISH
\
3 40 SEEPAGE
\ 4. H A I R.Lt W E c qw .
12 n -
+ --
.- 4-y v
./
- CCNT WALL l
CRAC.K , I
- . ./' ; ..
.y o
.~
\, ,
, a s .
*. '6 HEAT EXCHANGER -
t .
, ~ . .
R r-. . 1 'n " PLAW AT EL -M.75, s I
* ** '" ' * " " * * ' **N '"****
Y a. e. e, , _ _ ,
- g. ......................o....... -
SUBJ. SU SDIV. SHEET ET .) t. '. PR EP. BY 444 8" DATE f/'//3
' SUBJECT 1 a ! ; t/. A - C1A f. 1/. A F CHCK O. BY Adl. DATE CT/02./t!
kl 0 7 i S * . l No REPAtrd { t M0 FINISH s SOME EVIDENCC or SECPMC
\ 4 . # A t li t- t H s IRA c#. :-
N Trn Rn - CRACK lu MAT NCAR, . j, HCAT EXCWANGETR/- g/ - - 71 + .- .
> . + 6
.. ( /
Ik o p
' -- o THE WALL-)
; 9'11d st (' "'s, . 'c'
../. .
a +.u. ;. g
-Q :.
j[
, CJ- j '
,, I S' o t \ '
-l s ./'
~
.fdcgAcg f u 12 ! (!\, ', .
CONT WALL e 4 J g,..
.: .- r 3
/ '
.- 'CRALK '
s' ; ((' 4e.08-
/
e e' p k- ! 7 .n: s . 4 -
.j.
/ /\ U .dN _
( x% 3'/ # '7wtAT txcHAwccaib . c)
;, om . ,/ .
'PLAhl AT EL - 34 75,
, , , 7 . - --
. - . ~ . . ~ . . . - . - ._ -.
SusJ. su 8010'. SHEET PROJECT .
LicNT IL- j 4 /s//3 PREP. BYRC/G 6J DATE ' $UBJECT ! * ! ; '/. A - C 1. A f. 1/. A F CHCXO.SY AdB OATE CT/0&lr3 ; Ho7!!:
i i f I No REPAIR l l 2 Wo l'LooR. FIMHiH. 3 SONE. EVIDERE of scCAME
\ 4. H A I RLI N in. c4.A ccr,.
\ -
jf4
', .- e c .
4 1
! 7ni .
j ; itM m i l
.L,,.
4 1
..s
+ '
o ' u 10 9..:-..-
~4
, . .___.. / .
/ l -
/-
I
. i.
t . . .
, .o !
, .it-' o: -
2' o-- , o u 6,9t 2 e.' >. i 3 ,
$. g s s, '
. .d. ,
k.* s .. .
.-., 'J 7.
. . . ..a..._,
K ,
/ t' T
<:r j r
f-(.. 3 : l _ s'-1 : . PLAN AT CL -34,75' sb n ' -- C . . ... ... - m u --e mm u__._ _
'AOJECT --
su eJ. S U B olv. SHEET 75NT. PR EP. SY t A[Qw DATE 9/;//3 v8 JECT 1 a : E # ~ "- I A : f. '/A" CHCK O. 8Y Ad E DATE01'c:,,'t! 40TES; ' a
- l. NO REPAIR
- 2. NO FLOOR FINISH .
q '
- 3. CRACK IS DAMP
- 4. HAIRLINE CRACK NA ,. 10A 9
9 __. ). *
>y,
. . s .
.O (.t/ -
.e .
. . . . . _9 m 3' 6 3'Gt'
.Y '
? CONT WALL i ,
CRACK l o _c-- , tic g "'
. l 3
H i ", y r-- . _7 i .) PLAN AT CL -34.75'
7 _, - - _ _ . R. 'HARSTEAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES oINC. C- - ~
$ ss9 xinotaxAuscx Roso. PARK RioGE. N. J 07656 SUBJ. SUSDIV. SHEET ,
PROJECT 1 CLIENT '. ) 1. '. PR E P. BY M/6# DATE 'I/5/<f3 SUBJECT & A ! 5 8A A - C t. A c r. V.'A P CHCK D.8Y. HI DATEH.talt) 40T13:
- 1. No REPAIR j . 2. .No FLOOR, flNISH
- 3. C.KAtK IS DANP
/y 4. l-laiRLINE cnatK
\ .
.,- LONT Wall.
~
10A ! 9lA V_ _- 6 9 . o , x
=
, 8 .?
y to CRACK . s 3,0
- 37 e gwAtt
, 3' (, t 3'&'. j
)>..
, u .
y .... . . .. a...... . ,. . y . L I s . . . . I_g i ~ Pt.A M AT EL 34. 75'
. 1 I
l .. . . ___
.L :._.,__ ____ _
.____________.v,._-
'H' HARSTEAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES o INC.
.$ t69 xlNCERMAMACK ROAO. PARK RIDGE. N J. 076$0 C" ~ ~
) -
' SUBJ. SUB0lV. SHEET PROJECT
;y t; CUENT REP. BY %@ DATE Y SUBJECT n A ! $ U. A - C1.ACL V. A P CHCKO.BY Adl DATE 01/oals 5
,T '
40TC1: I. 9 0
- z. 0 0 L 3. Y E S - DA M P -
- 4. If AIRLlME. cAAc*L
\ . .
N . i e . (6 . ldA . y __ s , s -+- O 3'- O
-g.)...
. 9 . -
.~
4 . - - -
\
\
{D
~i o <- s \
N $. e....-. .f ' [ ~s s
..L - i
, f~ O r .
=>I ,
g
. _,. . L
g nnna o Gnu GoourrvuCnorvu nOOwen t CO
- to%. C" ~ ~
A, 169 MINOERKAMACM ROAQ. PARK RIOGE. N .I Q1656 3 - SUBJ. S U B0lV. SHEET PROJECT CUENT '. ) L '. PREP. BY ll/G # DATE9/*/S SUBJECT &Ai5VA~ C 1. A C T. VAf CHCKO.8Y AO D ATE 01.'s:/H NOTil: 1. 4 0
- 2. u c j
h . A s 9 0 T ciE.r>
/.,a 4, t/A I RL.I M E cA.4 M -
Q s <' ...-.. rr-l* .O ,
.i .
- s .U .
e, . i %. . DA_M P i _ _ 3 .
, G*- 0 U .
r .g ; LY -- -
=
..o .
, . MS .. 4 ,
. .mse . - = = m + s'.n.m- +'.-*
- e EldB, f 1-0 r
\
Q e (- .
~
\
.l .
3 _ . . . . - .s.. . . (!; d.:'. . l .% ...,,33, , L. . L :
'd-
. )@ .
- - , = ._
40 JECT' sura. :iU S olV. SHEET l 4N T _ _ . '. . jJECT 1 ; ; ; '/. 3 - C f. A : f. '/ A
- PR EP. SY ff/G* OATE V5/d CHCK O.SY Ad & D ATE 0Vo2/33 40T11:
I NO REPAIR f ' L' 2 NO FLOOR FINISH
.3 CRACK IS PARTIALLY DAMP 4 HAIRLINE CRAC)( ,,
N . i
- SA '
4A - A ' ) . J-s e 4 * '
+ .
~ ~ ' ^
~l
~
~ d'.b:~ , .
glo:
- VALL 6 EMBED R.
a .-
., CRACK' l -,o t 4'02 o
, \ .. ..
J d J
-4
-( E CRACK , A ,
f, . i,
..- ,.', . . . *. ,. .*.. , . > J, ,
3 , I y .. r-- .. i J .
.Pl. AN A T EL .*b4. 75 '
l
hA HARSTEAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES oINC.
'**"** ?
I69 KIN 0lRMAMACK POAQ. PARK RIDGE, N .$. 076$$ C* ~ ~
'- , SUBJ. SU 50tv. SHEET PROJECT CUENT ')4-PREP. 8Y #4/W DATE7/'/O SUBJECT n t t 5 v. A - C f. A C f. V. A P CHCKO.8Y Ad 6 DATE 41/ca.'t 5 Noii1:
". . I NO REPALR j ? N0 Ft,00R FINi&W 3 DAMP AS INDICATED
. 4 HAIRLINC CRACK N .
3A
- 4A
,i
"... g, s ., >
> 9- '
pg . - .
+
=' " WALL
. > e- <
v.?
.l DAMP
..cRAtx -
G,,0 ,-
~ ~ ~ ~ '
[ d', '
. . s
. v. , ,
g .
*
- DR't CRAtx g% -
f4'.o* ,, C
~
CONT WALL
. ~h
_f . . .
- g. s .
)a .
i . '. .PLA)J AT EL -34.75' '" [.51 - w__ -~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___m _
. .. s
- 5. .HARTEAD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES o INC. C* * ~
%, i 169 KINQlMMAMACK MOAO. PAMM AIOGE. N ,1. Q76$6 SU6J. SUSDIV. SHEET PROJECT CUENT ')ti PR EP. SY 4/9W DATE9/YO SUBJECT &1!3VA~ C f A C f. V'A P CHCKO.BY AdL DATE0f/0&l8 5 Nort1: ,
I No REPAIR ; i
. 2 No rt.oOR FINISM 3 DAMP AS INDICATED .
4 NAIRLINE CRACK N . 4
# AA .,
. I I
N -- 6
.. 6 -+
DRY CRACK- T i '
~
e .
. Ce t
, 5' 0: ,
4r' DRY , 4' 0 t ,, CRACKm
- A .'.
- s 6
g, A CONT Wall, , ST ..
, .o
' .9 OAMP ,
e CRACK ,. .
. -ti- ,'
- stu ,
i Jg . 9 * ' PL AN AT E L - 34.75' l
. ( ,_
l l o
- m. .
i '
)
i e
. 1 i
i t t-I g. l ! I 4 i APPENDIX 3 , i
.- t i
Properties of Subsurface Materials i Design values b o i
= ;
0 0 6
- e l
} E 4
I
- t
, i I
I i L J, . D f i I l \ , e esa ese menee og a
*e a e u ve4 ae* _
sous e < ase e em w g oe , masse e se om os . see
- O' o , 8 -
- t,e #1, a p , , ,,
{' A +' , " , 9' ,', , g , , i l b
e .
.) ,
W5ES-FSA4.WBBIT-3 , ,j TAeLE 2.5-14 -
. Fe0FreTIts or SeesseFact st&TsatALS I DESICs WALUES i
Tieset Selfied Ceeffleteet Weceefined Overcee- Average Stresse Seit Specific Wateret of Fermee- Compresolve pedraleed Drained eelidetten Sheet Yeong's Feie-Deecrip- SeecrIF - Cravity Semetty bility Stremeth $ beer Sheer Rette seedelse seedelse een's ties Elev. (sesL) ties fCe) (FCF) (h) - ce/see es(ker) Streenth Stremath (OCR) Ceem(hef) E (bef) setie Cley and sitty crede to a 2.79 til I.5 18' I.S e
- 8.5 ESF c'
- O ESF I.5 1298 3600 9.48 clay with sitt -48 e9
. }} and esed (secent .
f
- 0* l'*25' - 2.0 meteriet**) -
Stiff tem and -44 to Cu 2.72 819 lel0'I 3.9 e - 1.5 KSF c' = 8.8 ESF 3.4 3900 II,640 0.49 Bref ficeered -77 *
$
- O' $
- 12.5*
- 2) clay .
3 10 -5
-77 to - 2.79 125 _ _ ,, , ,gg, _ 39,, gg,3,, ,,,,
- 3) Tory eitty desse eemd tee I -92 f = 41' seedles stiff ~ -92 to a 2.74 119 2.4 e - 3.2 ESF c'
- 8.5 ESF t.4 3900 II,600 9.49
.g 8 Stef cI8F f,) with eilt
*188 /
- 0* J'
- 12.5*
lesees
- es
-los to set a Cu 2.6a les - 3.6 e - 1.s ast c' - e.s SF .7 39eo ,60e e.4, l .e 5) Sci f f 4.ch j' = 12.5*
J. grey etey - -116 f = 0*
~
$ orseele Sett to me- -116 to DE. & CL 2.69 119 -
1.4 e - 0.7 ESF c' - 9.5 ESF 2.0 3900 II,600 0.49
- 6) di- staf f tes -127 # - e* p' - 12.5*
med grey clay with esed Icaste VerF etiff -127 to G & CL 2.71 I19 - 4.9 e - 2.8 ESF c' ~ 0.8 RSF 1.5 Jf00 18,500 0.48
.i -317 to f I)etereeith sitte and .
f - 0* p'-12.5 2.4 esade li very desee -317 to - 2.79 119 - -
- - - 10,000 29,000 0.45 sende and -See to - N oitty seede 125 ecompeted free field Tp and We eseeeremente
- Escoested and replaced with compacted beckfitt Bete: The seerage sheer modell velmee are seeraged free easiese eheer modell obtelmed free field geophyelcel teet seemite. They are reFre
~
e ecative sely for new sheer otraine of opproelmetely It'g to.fle.
, T .
, i e, i
. , y
?
s s .'l C, - A[ 5 n , ,
., s 1, s-s'i s.w '
s % s s , s. I
?
-v
\,
t APPENDIX C . l Synopsis / Introduction 1 of State-Of-The-Art of Floating Foundations
, by H. Q. Golder i
o g .'% e % \ e k e a
",* .4' i
~*- ,,.
g ,
\ i c
i A.- 3 N g , %, e
, ss -
4
+
1 g Is t h o s , - k ' a e i . m s g b I. k s A
* \
4 i 5; e 2,n. M _
* * = =--
- 9 ,* = = . *
, , y p.' ,s e- sg i, P; .- *
*meir de . y e.g .c .a d he e.--
,, ** - ==*
-v-, _w.m a. s -
' ~~
% .I j t
l . _ _ . ___ _. _ 544 SETTLEktENT CON'lltOI.
.Itttil'Ilit! Of !!10 dathat is supportral partly toy the slicar strength aimi pastly by *leuny:nn y.'
- l. e.. the loumtation is pastly fluating. The Ilmat to a lluathig Isannlation 63 a SOII. blITIl.\NICS .\ND l'Ol'NDNI'lONS DIVISION sido in waier.
. This analogy of a ship healicates certalso unclut las18. saamely:
l'nien al,ngs i sel lht .\mcrinm .N, n,,ely tJ (,,m,i l..nginn rs I. The ship silmplarrs a vuluene sif water cequal to lin wright;
- 2. after tlw hittial a.ctilemenet there is eso furtlier nettlems ed;
- 3. the pressure est the lusrizontal have Is initforses;
- 4. If the water level ceamcs to he uniforni. II. c., wave arttun) tlw pers-KrATI:-OF-TIIE-AllT OF FLOATING l'OUNI)ATIONN" j sures change amt alw hasti in nuhjerta d In besuhng amt alwar fore em; s 5. Ilwre are lateral pressuse s. sin the skle of alw hull; ily llugle y. Golele r.I AI. ASCE
- 6. Ilw water has no shear strengtle. i. e., siwar narrogth in not necessary
- for t.upinse t; asal ,
. 7. Ilscimilim comple tc wise eilan.orlical intothe mater ami launrinug Macamen
. niay tw higli.
SYNul' SIS The precedhig facts hultrate alias, for . linating h.us.dathus, alw moil niunt For a thallag h umtall. withe sullmust have melght IsulllowedmA have slocar have ws egld 1st 6e sweil mit have whear strength. TIw s.nnotaths. esiust 1.c al.le strength. The founslatiten ennust he aleteto rentst pressure on its lease amtsides to resist pressure un lin lose and uktes asut, if she wricht or level of slw muel ased.lf lhe wr6gid eer leveli f Ilw koll varics.the prensures millenot Ir uniforni. varies. the pressures will not Ise ussifierm, amt shear analin sulmg forres well need ahear asul In nsthog forrra will art est the foumlathee. In practice, most act un the foueulathei. Once In poultkwi. tie fuusistattoes will not settle lusilwr hmentattoies are partly fleolJng, aswl alniemt all ses-calh d lluating fuumlathms (if fully floathig) unless furtlier load 1.s askird. he sont of low olwar strrngth construralenios lloathig fousulathwis mayIn elelliriant Inst thedepth is eius llisinteil 4 are ently partly floalhag Iscraune a pnsall renkheal pressure is usually left uit ~ tie 8eelt. Alts r a history of their eierchipmcast amilhe reasons for their use by slwar strength if multahic ruesstrucIloon prescritures are unnI; however. I are giren. the preshlems in he cosiskiered in using thetinu hemlations are "launclaing" stresses in the Imisulathee may lie high. he practice, nevnt f(uni-czamlowd. Among the most amtmortant preddenis are caravathat.ludinne heave, dutients are lurely lloathg.and ainsomt all s.1 tlw so-ralled floathig suunit.ittenia rettirment anel tilthig. and structural prednicms. are imly pasfly floating lwcause a sniall resmheat persaute es usually lett tai , tlic mull. A Iholley lennistatises will he reviskh* red twrchi an .=w in ulistle the gecater part on the Inalkling load is balanced against tlw meeght of esravatn1 maternal INTitol)l.'CTION
~
la camishlcring an engineering preihirm it is often helpful to beght with time IllSTOltY limits between which the problent lies. les a I daystral sesisc. although these l, limits are not necessarily practical in an englencering sense. The eeuwept of itsmg floathig hundathwim as sion sww. Tlwie su some evi-When a foundation rests on the groused surface it is supported by the shear dencethat they were used in the ggth century.amlit is protable that they were strength of the soll or rock of which the groueul is compnsed. Wisen the foun- used intuitively twfore that date. dalloei is placed below the ground surface. for frost or drying protection, amt in the discusukutZ of a paper by Casagramle asal F;idusi K.Trrzaght refers the weight of the overlmrden is deducted frons the applied pressure. the foun- to a German wusk by G. IIagen3 dateil 18'f 0. in u hkh there la rcle rence to ilic I use of floating founslatlosis leyJohesilensile tai 1.oemline at Ilic AltdoulLleils. Tawa e
.i;- la no ihmte Ihat Hagen really kenew winat a floatlong Inuantalkna was. He says
~~w..tu.-hiG.U.:ll...e,.n~nntil hiTc;UiTW.~f.. uuu : thn el. 6en .s.t. . ". . .a heavylmikileig casi still lw safelyInstit by shikhig illmartly intothe grounit
. n wretten ruersont anestler filuit wich the 6:wrustru m rrotary. A8ct:. Thin teger in port
.4ther.y.s rechtelJuurnal.4 the mal Wrh.iners newI r.numenthana INeinkm preocuu.86meca so that le actually flusets. The comedetc weAght of the lasileling snuma not he j
.4 the Asnerk:ma m. river .4 t1 68 I:aup= cr . Vol. st. N... sat 2 Search, eser.. greater thase that of the excavateil neaterial.'
- se Then in . ..I tho *nt.ase-.4. Ism . art *osenrn 3.rna. nee.1 at teme Ascn S.H ascelanics The reference to tiennie is taken from " A Treatise on the Sicam Digine" and rasseness. a swee,b.se c..af. ..n *swei
- n .4 r.=m.nist.ma for l'. itrutnf nnttenmunen.* by J. Farey (1871). According to llagen. Farey says liebt set St.ortii optene teniv.. t.enache. Ill.. .Ineser. IfniI. 40ms rosespelv.I guiteurn was=s pr.e- ** -- --
sesitud in Ilie septemilmer. Ibst8. .Helplee'.I. nne.al. 2 Tersaghi. Ka rl. eleucunni.=e .4 *Agaplicatives .4 mn1 s"tovlwin!sm de swa s:siang shot.hng 8 Casms. Civ. Engr.. II. Q. Oohler ase.1 Apsmen.1.84.. Torosito. cann.Is. Finnulations.* by A. casuistrasato asul H. E. Fa.Inni.Tranwete.mm. Asci . Vol. Ivs. ty a 1
- es. 427.
l ;8 It.g.a. u.. *st.num.uce.ser w ..ustanAnn.,a. t: =t te E..tn. perhn. in to. e- -
e 4 D APPENDIX E
-Effects of Soil Modulus on Shear and Moment e
e t 9 e cumn
.;) .
e
.;>.~~,:...
~ '
e
^
-.1-_ 4 m A- - -- - s---_ a - ~-
/ a3
\ \ Nd h i :
/
- a
< 3
?i \
/
~
S 2 2 j so
,( o 25
( ;. N4
' \
\
i s jg
/ \ us
\ f or
\ - - \
/ >4
. I
\ '
Q, \
\
\ - , N 1
\ i l
f u
\
i Q \ O d 3
\
A e. O
\
5 0 a \ o , i
; e 3 c x0 .
2 a - 3 \ s 6 O o es ;
\
f 4 w 0 I O O
+
\
Y
\
1 O i f ' d 3 N O W l 4 - V J P l
- O d A d */
i u 5
/
n
\ 2 /
>4 o !
N 0 / NJl) y 9 l /
/ <
/ .
e g-
\
i x g ah \
\ -
iiit ' iiin
', o ' ' ' ' g, , , , a oS -O ~?m +'
S -
-; .- - g yy ).e. 3M.5 i"3 'd ' - ~ qquadSEE '
9
. <- i
. l APPENDIX F , Design Envelopes of Mat Shear and Moment a
. t ... ..; . .;.1.; - . . .> ..
a 4 .- - - - . _ _ _m .- . 2 - _ _ - ,...-,,J1 a _ _ . - _ . _ - - ~ , _ .,a. _ _
' d 1 Q b f d f 3 o
-# S - 3 4 [- $a4 @h 7 gd g -- -
, 7, og ed ss Y '
A 3 g GO &
.s S 1 DO $E u =
\._ . 0- cj3 >o I o a u 55 wnvaa 2+3 q- , . . . .
.y 09
/ /
p
~~
! \ .
s
\ x x
\ ~
\ \
r X i
^
\.3
< y 2 gi y o . . ;
a g..._ . , s m - o 2 .
> 0 e<
l '1 } N
} &
2 I-0 -( E [ O G e - -
.tA s / e
& * \ I O V
os D \ d I & 4 4 \ o 4. o 7 7 s > J O s \ %' 9 m} 2 O 1 g o \i e & O 1
/
/ 0 a
1 ) .
' M W O /y I N
' 5
<2 h .:5 < . , n 3
y o .
\ .
b '
\
y { /' I. 7 s . . . . r-3 o o .. .
,I, -- o - N * .a 4
~(ah) ave ** itiv1d * . Loo ( 14 / u a s ei ) ..nE m '
.... . L _.
\ ----- h
, 1 ./
APPENDIX G Effects of Foundation Stiffness on Dynamic Shears and Moments e a 9
~
s~
' . s e
9 4 o 8 e J
,s', -- -. .
~
"* , , b .,a
- s . e _ _
. "9 ,
e y l' g me
< =M
- P ., .i- 4 RRa j at 4 $ q o Ig
-g 9,
- a 5l i I 7!.
o = l l . I' R 3 I al
' *v E
! I e
- l x g 4 U 4 o l I 8 9 EO nok.. +
. e r e M =
; I l c -
=
a i I @l 8 / E -
+ I o a
l k m. . . , l *! e o* or a W MU O
- 4 5 i a.
\ .
y:t n 3 3 1 o
\ o i f -
\. 0 o
4 os \ ' e _g$ gs
.g w o '
N 4 u ! m
. I \ . z O
SC 3 e
- \' % O% ,
Y z O 1 ge* m oc d - -
} + m. o oe 8
e -8e g - m N
\N l
(s 5 E l
\s <=E .
e
- 4 +
N
\
d .- 4 N o O (Ng o (w wX ,; ol) 1.wiwow o e e r- 0
- l . i l l !Y S $ 2 E S (Sex pol) Ev3MS -
~
*'A+..4 '
- N._'y . _ .,,..___
- ..s.
7 .___ _ _
s.
- i. ,
J' l s6 -
.I . .
I i
. I l
1 f APPENDIX J ._ 4 Composite Foundation Mat Settlement . e 6
- --=e, . . ...,
9 e e G e s 9
\
D 9 o N h.** b g7 F 'p,
- 4 ,X J. g ag- ,
ig. . ., f _
' z .:; =
E-- #W- .. o o - i 5 9 . J %.
- 12 y., y ,. y 32 g '
~
\ /
<e
. 5 * "' t w 5* qq l
-2* C5J=. m. ow l
-.(' * ! [ E...m.Y'-#.M v~ *3
= m* .
Ig G. ,;a o L ,
=
(13 O NI N!) E :; w[ . j IN3W311131 WW11-!NQ1 t ; 3 '....= h. 5
,, f O g 3 g.
L.. nr5 g I
$.,E g lg -Euh 8 \
m 2 'o f 8 3 ~ 5 c3 4 c ., s' M g
- O ;;..=. I e a. .a == m
-Ex-of e .; g- ~
x a 0 . .'. M 5 h 2 5 0
~ %s =
C. "- a A 5 h -8
- 2: .,;
~
3 j 0 E5 UE l: ' E
- i l
i *
- 5W yy .
I 5 r
- g i E M ll.- lE 4 [
n
- 24. 22 . 'A - .
O I 2 i: 3 /
.1 j
, g '
- P t
0 "
,/
g g , 4! t a w E < _N.--A : ~
- s,s. j e n n < . .
g ' g .- .
'l O fi *
- w I II f: # * $ ., = .= /*
E
- /
5 E ". . R S u h , - . . 5 i n .-
- ~ c c x.-
i: Z --2 5
~ y' 'r, ? b$2 i
; fe i
{
~ p9. **
l i
- . n I
- a. . g
- n O
h !. l
= M,/ ; .
d/ :i
- e
~ ~
.E sw j[js ',/ r v
g . e = 1 s
/ :; s o n .- .a . . .
/ . l >I / ~
- E 2 C ~
Sw y _ r s .,, 0 e.w l 8 f " E' . e .
" / .
*
- T. # = ~ ~
sa /
- gdN ~
5 r- U ls* 1,f'f s t' . ', ' "I
- N w
~ . /a ,/ )
a
/
n , , d-- j e. ' - e . ~ o
/
., a ,,,, .a*
C*
- I = 2 -
2
.c u u .
s . u J%
- .~ s ,
- - s
- kE3@N WI) 1 6 3 D I 7Y101
. (
i (
- 3 APPENDIX K Crack Width calculation k
e 9 G e 4 6 O a- -/. 3
~
E=. *
' ]v - 71 , T* ' "
g . .
'~ ~
ib'9EIN ERY ~Mk RbA . PARK RibGE. Id. J.'05656 C" i ~ Z~ f seq SU BJ. SUBDIV. SHEET 3 PROJECT W A'TER Fo 8LD R CLIENT L. P 4 L PREP. BY $ h DATE 417.-t3 SUBJECT /_. 9-A C '<. WtDT14 CHCK D.BY 55 l D ATEM.':'4.'2 3 GF A GK- SPAG.t M G >f IO FT f2 C S ( oN S E A.V A-Tis u USE la Fr g p.Acv 5 Fo R. '2. To 5 M ILS ld WIDTN d' O TIS E AWrT 'SM VEE 5N L$
, oo 5 o, oo, o 9 i 7 ds: =
1'2.0 - . 214I0'(40tto
- .. I208 psi
. oooo4b"/w *ll e c h '
b { 9 ' E t'2. a / p 7 _., 4 , 7oo 9 D i O 6 t M 186 (, ~2. L AyFRS L-- f _ f t_ Ae / 4. p a pg.7 bJ E A L.Ec.T t o McRETE iM TEWStoV d do4FfS& q R EASON ASL E S NcE. ,
.B o M S n. n Tor 57L 7
- ..s . c.. , s. .,. . ..
3 .
~4 *~ 1 ~L
~
u 1c9 ainoERXAMACM ROAD, PARK RIDGE. R1. J. 07656 [A} SUBJ. SUBDIV. SHEET 5E< i
~
PROJECT CLIENT W A ~T E R- F~o G- O 'A L P i L--. PR E P. BY di lf DATE 4 l%=T $ SUBJECT CRACK W \ D ~T ll CH CK D. BY ' i l D ATE 09/19.'E B p933 g_ o00004 % t *1. sococoo- % I i.. o j AMGLE G. 5-f A M (n s PE r-- 14 ctA
,c oooA+ . coco o tti .,. __
lld/,4 ' i;o ,.
-4
'/ q
- 0,fl3 yJD-T o TA L A h)GL E. lF 4o 4 s, rM17 C % Ak)CrE 0 V E P-- E kJ TI F-E LE N cnTI4 41: M A- T -
P . ,
-6 = 3 3 o ( 12.) 0 -
O.Oo1634 g.Ap
.eg 0,09075f.5
=
[ 4-p?= D y /d' IloMi b l [#* / 7_,, >
- . 1,4242'42I,'
i L B,' p @ ( . o 4 5 3 7 f 3.)
'i i
fl c o 5(,04 537 d; s c .+2.4 2.416 'h le ' b - b - (2 Co 5. (.0453 7 d = 0 91
'3 '3 Z -
L - - - - t . 3 .. ; . .s .p _ . _ _,...., ._ ,. , . . . . __ _ _
o .
~f 8
t _. . . APPENDIX L ._... _ Steel Containment Stability Calculation I 1.; .
. i
- d
)
i . s _. ..-. .- - - _ _ ~- _. _.-. ,__:.,. .-:
\
- en,,o.._~._,,v...._._,....,...m.,.. . . . _ . C-\ -1 - 1
$ ,f 69 KINDERKAMACF. ROAD. PARK RIDGE. N. J. 07656
-- SUBJ. SUBDIV. SHEET PREP. BY Ad fi DATE03/os,' 5 IE T
*1y::
- ; s. A t vi .$is6 : ~
SUBJECT ':r:t c o is r A :.1 v : :: :
. tr A t :: CHCKD.BYi d N DATE fforff3
. ; ;I " ~.
' - ~
I ll i t o D U C 7 t o H __
.! i . ..
F A C T o ?. A G A l ij J T. ,T TH11 C A L C u t i.T f o st C o v. ! u i t .s igp :AFITT , Ti f f i ll C I'i t o u - i s c q - o - t r 7.J r.t f % c o u t i. i n v. s n t : r s v, n o u st.A:..3 o f. A w : n G i.i
;jg.y.
utv.rs,oArse ozlos/es ( r. c t r r. s u c t :) . . ru s r >. t : .:- ei : .= 5 ::: st .o u r s i n v. r u r ,/ : a i r t r , * ! #. l- ' t, U l l (,
- li G *11(T.E. 1. E S i i C 7 To TEE :o ? O T- tie f4 A a . .. , t 'I 3 -
is A ::o r, A t . 9 : A ' I c ,
. 1.'!~j7._
4 koD: ;to u kt ; i2 F o i l/. A T l o ll is A C C G 13 t D 7 f. 0 L/: TLASCO . ' !.'. 'l l , CALCULAflOlj EaTifL[D ' '; T f I t C 0 4 T k 191/.14 7 17AIILITl/ j oF3 no. issz.acs' o t r . n o. sso, oArto o s/ r of e s, 7 r r.;i :;' . c.ufstincsz). . .
- it4 : ;.
A! A IA ! E f l Il C !!.C,AT 1 L A !GO ! 17F!C1 o sJ 07/L7/33 , WA! A'; T.C i P 7XAT TIL v. / G il ; 7 ti k E S OF TfI 1- W DIF t;i
- T A c t i L i t. A f : o 1 3
- A.t 9 1 A 7 : D o il f A GE 5 SF fEl F. F F E 7. i ll C F '
l 3, C A t t u t A f l a fl 'fl o U.t D tt 14 0 t i l f L 1 1 C f. T .[7. A5 A , Cods e t v( t iv: r ove r to :st - i. : : ,; : :: 1-w A u t. 4-s E 0 f. l T S I; f A *. T. [ t f 0 fl .* $
- I I C I* I. A .
,,I{
i* '
. 'g 4
- I l
. i i
. g 4
& h
*I P -
% Z e-L - , , . .,;.-_._
.s . .....
169 KI5DE 1K ACK kOAD PARK RIDGE. N. J. 07656 C"I ~' ~ 4-SUBJ. SUSDIV. SHEET PROJECT j- CLIENT t o u r s ! e. 4 7. tow EJ 4 :.ICf; PR EP. BY Ad & DATE08/08/8.) SUBJECT 78I* C C 4 7 I : 'l I/ : 4 i :7
- 1i : I! CHCK D.BY4/l DATE8/t/f3 i I."_ht:
L , F L 'J 14 P4 7F !.M 7. E F . 2. ELASCO *, h L P. 0 L A T ! O LI , TRE b'l.*
. '.g
%K6AA A LJ D t t :1018; G 1/. o M I t! T D UF 7 0 E-W DEE AT .
i! ,1) , EL -t.S is. F=: 3- fi S I A
'!gp-t l.. ,
i Ms G 5 i o 3 2 h. . 1 i l--
. l. 4 lA U L T' l ? !. T l li G L1 'h A3 A r. o ll : E J.1/ fe T I V 1 0 f f F T. f.-
L O U ll D t0 ilE S f f. " O f- E - YJ AUD 11 - 5 DIf: ,
,:t
*'l.1]-l_
F='[I.x: 2. 5 E : = 17 7 5 0 h ,
. j [ [_f M = 6 X 4 G 9 0 0 9 = G s 9 0 3 2. h { . .l.-l- . ,: .: t'
~ i : l -l t a ! 's" I I I I 7 A & l l S R I LI C TNL E l l V A T [ 0 61 0F f 01117 /, t '34 ftI l
; i },[]
s 2. r i c a : : ;-l u . 'A ' = i o s' x e o s 90- --
- 7. s o' i[
i .
- l '. , 7 2. 3' . ..
...f
, [.
C O M P u r .1 4 G 7gi :: A;;CkLLT E G. U I 'I A L E LI T 4 0 IA f LJ T --i.'.! . e rt . '/, ' : .,ii It i o .:1 MA = s s 9 0 s :. - m s o x ( 7 2. .a + r . s) ,
. ,i; I
i s - G 4 l 5 ". 8 ("tC '. ! E 1151) . :
. I. .
l ll
,8
.. A , J ., . Z t
- ": n
. - -- w .- ,, . --.
~
$ de xin~ DER fAC RbAb. P RK RlbGE. .~J. 05656 C~ \
~
\ ~
- SUBJ. SUBDIV. SHEET y PROJECT W1, MAT
/ CUENT L Pd L PREP.BY M DATES /S/D SUBJECT '> T A BI L i ~f V CHCK D.BY /d E DATESth8,#25 M
- G6f 548 Cs F = 17750" EL.A72 A ,j IF STEEL.
VfilssEL WAS h 400 MovEo Sog.ir, l'Zo %d ,. r
/ p N-2454'4 wcrSou v i t PPINdrj'T W O j PotNT4 of' I iY -
4ONTACT(Ad [Q E'Y O q . t> E 2Eog /N @ .:
.,j.g.insAL g.
PT K is b ? so= 6U ** . 4oMSEft.VATIVB7 0li A%0Meo A5 --- --- -
- ~
Fit.tcTm4 LE45 l _ . _ . EL. . + 7. S e
*- v-t N R A=o" .
3 _ L.
? .
- ~-. .8/'
i
~
Cp Z R = - M + 4 l L-r F cos #6os)- Wsin4#Cos)= o'
- 6 fo I 54 8 t 8 i L + 1,42 7,715,- 1,79 '2,74 /
- O L = l14,74
@ s N/ =
W'- L tos 1.2 *- E c-5 5=* + T A S
-> s ss2. - \ur.5(, n e s) R(. 6428) +T67&&)=0
. . - , , 'I4 f t,4 . 64 28 P. r .744 T e o g'
@1il: F + L @ t2 - R. s ' So "- Teo s,5c"
- o
. 744.R r 4423 T o l
\
':% 17750 f(l'2 /o75)(.7 07f) 1.e,,ss . . 7 4 4 rs 6 4 2 2: Teo 3
. 1 p -
,. . --- r- ---m n . . 'l
!* E (7AI10 i CMU CIVullVCCnflvo noovvin # t v *
## vv.
C~ ~4 A 169 KINDERKAMACK ROAQ, PARK RIDGE. N. J. 07656 \,- 1 SUBJ. SUBDIV. SHEET Oh PROJECT W "h - M A T L P4 L., PREP. BY 4;N DATE8[Sk
CUENT
, SUBJECT 6 t' A B I L 1W CH CK D. BY Adl DATE18/08/23 4 M i /,4 , c 4. 2.8 P- t 744 T
- O dD' 2.o 38 5 ,7 5 6 g. - .se28T=o (3-) ' ,
p'.;
+,64 2 t T# 6
@'/.g l ies t. .s394r
\ .96 J gitg ' 3 2-2 7 ( - \ ~5 0 51 4 + 0 i S* '2.A72)
P s o,o (3p ' ' l 4 I 64- 15890t-744 T'O
~
T := r 42.59 ^ M =""#7 l weset is wmzoamuy me us, , igg,o ouu,.s w, o soe- '=o '" O
- $* FI N D l<- ( M + 80 43 F) 1' 79 z.,7 4 I V=
- =. L p A .
(\4i7716- 64l568) IUCKEASE F i bJ B A (A-)
- g. C,7 c c-) r (. G42s) = o 1.'34 (n 7 so)
- 41534 -.x5R -
, 64 2 7 T = c t'& 561 - ,6428 R. -t ,%4T=o l @ .
"l 4pp , 9 2.fr .F. - 766 7
- o gg"/ 7&os 6 - I.s556f2 ' S g=4ee9s
,v 3 ,
- 6) 2Gs4 2 - 3 / 42 2.+. , 76 c -r . o t
T = -t 6&t6 i lF I4 5'Z .3 f T t P P'el ca t' tar 4T-#2 , y pg o'7 5 i 6/ c E. 75. j f. .ST 2.
;,. _ q p i_(L_L N o si i O 'v e ,. , . .
_____..-______.__....,_____ ,. _. _n,____, _. ., , , _ _ , , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..o,.
E 8 ' A' '" ' ' ^u '
- o v ' ' o ' * * * * ' o w * ' v w w v. . . . . . C~I ~I ~
6 A 169 KINOERKAhfACK ROAD.* PARK RIDGE. N. J. 076S6 SUBJ. SUSDIV. SHEET PROJECT W 5' - M A r 1 *> *
- 8 11 /. tStiit5':;a- PREP. BY Ad E- DAT E08/0:I/85 1 CLIENT 1' I L 1 ~ ' ! ; ~ : ' ~.'
J SUBJECT "2***M;!:I CHCKD BY 6 N DATE 8[s/33
. ,1. ~ ,-:
Ntxi 4 4 ' ': 'J '. ). *
- i F. E F 4 *, T o T. : o i- ! A F F T7 A G A f11 I T C ] l
'J TI.l F T' ! !. ! C I Il c A ll t o '/ E 1. 7 9 T. !! ; 11 'r AT Tof Of MAT /
'bb ;i
- c. /e t o V !. A T 1 f f. 2 A D D I i 10 II A l. S E E A ). AMD- jj I h7 11 - ! 5 . ') F T. .
14 o 14 E 13 i DOE O D f. E AGTI40 o il tAfriD EultDIUG. , . ,'.t, ' f 'f
, i i,
(, 5 f & Tf. L, 5 -{ C oF T.E F. 2. ; A t c). , ,
'.i'.
l .
t t - FCLCE } L D 'I 2 LEV +35o~ fo r M At f T. WEIGl.T' F-W S L ft 'll R 7 0 f.C E 0 ?) Id e(t rt) i4 (g) M
~
T, (t) (r t } 135 1
~.-- ..
-l loto 0 4140L: 3 9 C ? .oi 48*2 L30.15 1,151,510, . .
4559 c. *i 5 3 :,31 LL4 7. ? S 11';i 17 %.4 107 4 , 4 5 9,5 Z 5
. 1 I t A 4 . '.i c L58o 150 7 I 5.l 't 71,10,G.
5 43i2 0. :i 2. 2. 5 L 5 0.534001 IG'G.18 1 2. 8 7 111.0 I t c.o 311,Gid 4 ':04 i , o.3C4152 ::12. 5? L2 9 5 I l 1. 0 ! !! G. 0 . '355,070 5 9 4 ti G
- 0. 3 L13 G7 2.oSt.i: 2.1 0 EG.o ! % I.0 351,747 C C191 o.2.??Sto '5 : 7. 95 1857 G !.0 95.0 1 1 4 ,1 7 2
*/ ~44.
4 8 y ! o 1; ') 2 7 0 : 4! -:: o t s c 15".t 4 '. o 7G.0 ! ! t,15 8 5%01 c. 2. ti s 2.o S 1719 21 !2 5 B ! 1.0 54.o 11,2.52 1 '
. Io 2. t : 2. o.12.411 2
~
G 5 2. ! * *O! o.o 3 S.O 3. _!, G o 5 Io:73 o . 2. l o . :.14 5 . c :; 1oSl - l 8 .0 17. 0 ',5" I, 5 2. 7, I:
,_.__.____"o I 17345. ; 1: 3, 8 3 C,1 1 4
( 5 tss (co u s s t: A rivt) of r - w $ n - s t. t t F h i I/ f . *f oF !EE 1. E F . T- C h !. C , \ t 1 ex m si.: m ox . ... l M @ Fl-l.5 = ifi. )( 444 ,00 t 4
- G59054 K77 *ji 1
- l. A 81 F E 7. T- i U G Tel3 LA o l/ C if 7 To Tot 0F t/ A 7 : .
1 ; M e ;or IAAr = Csio3G t '7 7 S o x { 15 - l 5) . . . , m . i,tse,cci .. , : ,
), .
i C :J , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _7 _ _ _ _- ..7.y.-~.-~.,-,.,.,-7,,_.-,.;...
A 169 KINDERKAMACK RUA.U.,.YAMA MILAsc. ft. + utcoo SU BJ. SUSDIV. SHEET PROJECT W3 - M A T DATEo a/o4/t,5,
. : s ; ; ; ; la > rir:r 4 .:::; PR EP. BY Ad6 CUENT
. *i* ""::- L 1 I "' - ~^L;"*II CHCKD.BY di y DATE 8[g/33 SUBJECT e
.. .i ! 4_ _. _ .
Actiuo At tes t o r ' o r ;- L;j, Tas porAt s .t r A t A ss o i4 o :A r u t . TIE uh; :
.. i. ' t .7 i l . _.
F= 17150 + 2,7143 .i...__
= u. sot 5Y. .. !.': 1". !' Y.
, , 4. j t. ..-4_.
14 = I, L 5 5, C S I ..;i.!.!1".T" 1, 8 $ G, L t If .
!.:.1 jr -
~
- = s o n t eis n;T ,
.a s..
T,9 0 1 h u r r A i s ! U r. r-- _ A r inE i o f' OF _t il M4J I S j i '! , _q
-7 I 6
.....t.[.--
1 , , p=yh= o . o c a. 4 ( 3 s . c o - : . s o) * . ! 'i ! ; ! i-
. z . o t t. :: F .
. . T.,.- ..._.
. i .: . i. .
1 i . ! -l } l _, Tit fora' tuolkHT F o F. C F 13
!giQ
- i. l. T
. L = 1. 01 x TT X '77 !: t
= 181 /
13 7. {l - i.i
.t F J. 4 14 P. ! 0F ! ! E
- R. E F . 2. CALC, .t ! E idtAl '/ d ! 0 L41 : '
L i F ', 3, ' . '
I f o 'F t o ti c l- f f 1 l3 15 A 18 <-T. F Ti o ir P. 4 0F 7Ni -
n s s
* '~
! C A t. C # T I C T o T A !. WI (G i t 0F trFFL is 10 0 7 K . : *l i t'* t-
- i
t;J*
til TorAL bfA W itC t r is -*. - ti ; i. l W '= 35 Lt8 X L7 X o.!5 0 +1ooT . i l . . a. I s I S I G 4 0 p: **: , i;
- . i. .;
. .t .
k .- , . F /. t r 0 K QF 1 A F E TT A G A ; 11 : 7 U P !.17 ! j 'i,j
.!J .
m I .0 I - 0 , ! 7 ) x. ! S I C ' 0_ 4 ,i,,
- 5 8 t 2,i .
- . l .; .
'- '"4
= 3 . 2, 5 i
- . 1i ..
1
?
I Jg . r: tuot A n t F o r.r.c n o t r. r c u c t t- n ver. icAt osi. ;i I t 1 i
- _. ~ . . , t 1_
. . . . s ,. .
z,.. . . . .
4
.e . . . .. . . '
v~ n -, , A 169 KINDERKAMACK ROAQ. PARK RIDGE. N. J. 076S6 SHEET SUBJ. SUBDIV. W'J MAT g PROJECT ;3y - A.ns > : u E r. 4 : : Gi; PRE P. BY Ad 6 DATE08/04/f 5 y CLIENT CHCKD.BY diiN DATE 8 /g f?3 M i I ""' / "; 3 ' 0 Ll'G #IAL3';II SUBJECT e -
. *i'+f ,{
r L 1 b I IJ G i. 4 . , F A c t o r. O F 1AFETT AGAIN3r ,t.L.
; 1-r
= 10.2 3 x 15 i G 4 0 - S R '! 2, [ x 0 . 7 ,
. . . j ..L..L'-
- c. s o i 5 - ,
i .
- v. I. t 5 .
[ , , t f f ..! .t,[
- 1 -l 1 ! . ;,1 2-<-
. f,
- i. i. ;
.....i-_. 4.
t,0 IA F U r i -tG F A C T o T. Op t A F f iT hGAINST OV F T/' ' l i h}" r-- p ,
; o A 11 I t10 : *
'r
. ; :--4 i--t J. I G E T I y G M o IA : t1 h = (0 8 6 K I S [ G 4 0 - 5 a 9 2,3 )' x 7 7 , . ; ; *-{1l,
' . u !. . .j
= G.Gi4XEG T. F T . ~l : t-
. .7
..9....
7... ,
. , i , ,
* * 'j . . r--! T OF 'AFETT
. .AG Atu st o v r 7. r u t. r l'u G !. ;3;; : ,rp - " - -
F A C T o F. . .
. . . i j ;[..
,. G.Gi4 ftG ,
S.o i 0 &G .
- l
. j.
', = r . 3 2, .
. .. . . :-.L.
. e.
't
- q
. . .i.
I a.
. . l.g 1
2 .}
. .,s.
.. j',t. .
i
- n. -
; J.s 1 .
E
. . .i ' ;..'.. :
,J. t1 ;. .
t.,.. i ' :.1
. 't .g -
J y .
- A 5 0 0 T A ll t 7 3 T. G E r; q i 1, r D U C f D LT V r t ric A L D l, 5 ,,
. 'i
-~~~...---. .....
' ~ .. . . , ' ' ' .* * - ' ',"_ '_ _ 8 :~, _ _ _ _ _ __
1.
t j $
\
EVALUATION OF CONCRETE IN THE BASEMAT WATERFORD UNIT NO. 3 Lb p V M
"A Robert E. Philleo, Consulting Engineer
*' {eo / v5 gn y.
N It is apparent that there were several violations of specification p i i l i f the basemat. The purpose of this q
, f requ rements dur ng the p ac ng oreport is not to document specification violations buta.W to evalua effect on the structural integrity and safety of the mat. It is based primarily on observations of the first three blocks placed (Blocks 6, 1, f
it/ Wp ,'. anu v . Anere were sufficient violations on these three blocks to cause d
- a stop-work order to be issued. By the time work was resumed, control b #
and supervision had been tightened. M# ., yduA A Non-conformance with specifications were noted in the following docu M areas AJtVtu d i. .
, Qldre- M_
- a. Air content outside permitted range
- b. Slump outside permitted range
- c. Concrete accepted when too long a period had elapsed after adding cement to water
- d. Inadequate mixing after adding retempering water
- e. Too many mixer revolutions permitted
- f. Number of mixer revolutions not recorded
- g. Discrepancy in records of added water
- h. Discrepancy in air content readings
- 1. Error in recording time of batching or discharging
- j. Use of an unapproved concrete mix design
- k. Deficiencies in curing in maintenance of both moisture and temperature
- 1. Concrete dropped vertically more than 5 feet
- m. A variety of irregularities in Cadweld inspection including inspections before inspectors were certified, missing records, discrepancies in inspector initials, and activity by inspectors before eye examinations were on file
- n. Waterstop inspectors not certified
- o. Vertical cracks and rock pockets in vertical surfaces of hardened blocks
- p. Incorrect testing frequency
- q. Incorrect placement practices
- r. Irregularities in placing and handling reinforcing steel The inpact of each is discussed below.
FREEDOW OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
$4-%<$~~
C[77f
- a. AIR CONTENT OUTSIDE PEPJi1TTED RANGE Probably the largest number of specification violations were concerned with air content measurements. For the 1-inch maximum aggregate size concrete used in the mat the specifications mandated that the air content should be between 3.5 and 6.5%. While entrained air improves workability in all concrete, it is actually needed only in those concretes exposed to freezing in a saturated condition. In the basemat,
# which wiu not3be exposed to freezing, quality of concrete does not th depend on the air content unless the air content becomes excessively S
g by high, in which case strength, density, and permeability are adversely affected. Most of the non-conforming air contents were on the low side. vJN The highest value for which concrete was accepted was 7.0%. This half c( 5 g$r} percent extra air has a negligible effect on structural integrity; the low air contents have no effect. i v3 i b. SLUMP OUTSIDE PERMITTED RANGE Single-batch limits for slump were a minimum of 1 inch and a maximum of 5 inches. Portions of batches with slumps as high as 6.5 inches were placed. After the slump had been determined, the remainder of each non-conforming batch was rejected. It is likely that some untested batches with a slump this high were placed completely. The concrete was proportioned somewhat below the required water-ce=ent ratio so that there was some leeway in adding retempering water. Thus, even in the g high-siump batches it is unlikely that the maximum water-cement ratio was Mb exceeded. Since tne actual average strength exceeded t.he des 16n strength of 4000 psi by a large margin (6128 psi i the case of Block 6 where the highest slumps were recorded), violations of the A0Q# 1)o [ANF
--- limiting value could be tolerated without adverse effect. The mat has no o* tJA p
/ Hverse environmental exposure. High slump has a greater effect on 'g \tM placeability of the concrete than on its ultimate quality. Thus, the 44J-
,k structural integrity of the mat was not impaired. by inclusion of small
- amounts of moderately high-slump concrete. The inspection personnel are to be commended for diligently rejecting parts of batches of concrete after it was discovered that the slump was out of specification limits.
ogq 9 g oA
- c. CONCRETE ACCEPTED WHEN TOO LONG A PERIOD HAD ELAPSED AFTER ADDING CEMENT TO WATER p M - [g d j The specifications required discharge of the concrete within 60 minutes after the cement and water were combined although, with the O
- approval of the engineer, the time could be extended to as long as 90 minutes. Later the requirement was changed to permit discharge up to 70 minutes if emptying a truck was started within 60 minutes. The concrete is usable as long as it remains workable. The rigid time limit is established at a conservative level in order to provide design information to the concrete supplier in designing the concrete plant and scheduling operations and to provide an easily enforced specification requirement to simplify inspection and acceptance. The two biggest
! violations noted on the first three blocks were 95 minutes and 71 l minutes. It was reported that the concrete was still workable. Thus, FREEUUM OF lt4%%, % i ACT REQUEST j NSW C-h7E
p . t . # (Lpur ,d5 . b'I .'pn p$9 *gh@ g j there was no adverse effect on structural integrity. , f ** l
- d. INADEQUATE MIXING AFTER ADDING RETEMPERING TER AT SIT g@Wpj kv
.l < ,
The specifications required 30 rev utions of the drum a ter water /'{, p % l)8f ) is added at the site. On Block 6 e were 8 batches on whi d
- 28. The value of 1 ay be number of revolutions varied from ely that a mixer would oe u.arted and g d-error in recording since it is un Some of these 8 batches, however, probably g gt y j N stopped afte'r one revolution.had greater within-batch variability than desired b 1
- since I that the added water became uniformly distributed. The vibration of l'
concrete during placing tends to remove some of this variability. The surplus strength tolerates some variability. It is(1Iiilike173that there was any significant deleterious effect on the int.egrity or une mat.
*[, (gwV W.L h N A A Ig M (M JrA b
(
- e. TOO MANY MIXER REVOLUTIONS PERMITTED Ak p^*tSf L-l .
The specifications limited each batch to 300 revolutions. Again, the workability of the concrete is the important factor. The arbitrary I , limit on revolutions is for the purpose of guidance to the concrete Two cubic i
}producerandsimplificationofspecificationenforcement. yards were placed f l k- The rest was rejected. The concrete accepted had been in the mixer only 35 minutes and wa 6 robab3 satisfactory. There should be no impact on .
1 cd8 l structural integri or saf . gp1 , i A f. NUMBER OF MIXER REVOLITIIONS NOT RECORDED
~
w wn Qw. % . jd ,) j During the first day's placement in the mat there were 9 batches for
! which the numbers of revolutions of the mixer drums were not documented.
In addition one batch was shown as being tejected on the batch record but accepted on the pump discharge record. Apparently there was some problem i setting the records system in place. While this breakdown in record gheeping is serious and formed part of the justification for theeno-work order, Y 7g time and had a r==aonable T1 ump.T Fortunately, the winter weather is not' C, con h 4ve to Dramature stiffenin's. It is un1Lxely that there was any g4 i p a'dverse effect on structural integrity. Nb
\ h h p u AA. u A1 k et4
- g. DISCREPANCY IN RECORDS OF ADDED WATER
, p\ For one batch on the first day of placement the truck discharge record and pump discharge record show different quantities of added
[M j
. water. This again demonstrates inadequate record keeping, but since both figures were within the allowable limit, there was no adverse effect on structural integrity.
I. + FREEDOM OF INFOftMALON l
)
PM p ACT REQUEST 24-y M 1 I
. f/77g l l
l
- h. DISCEEPANCY IN AIR CONTENT READINGS Tor one batch on the first day of placement, air content was l measured as 2.5% at the truck discharge and 4.8% at the pump discharge.
For another the results were 3.3 and 3.9% respectively. This apparent increase is an unlikely occurence. Since either result produces satisfactory concrete for the application, although.the first is outside
- the specification limit, the integrity of the concrete is unimpaired.
- i. ERROR IN RECORDING TIME OF BATCHING OR DISCHARGING One truck on the first day of placement was recorded as discharging 21 minutes before leaving the plant. One time was obviously in error.
Since the concrete was satisfactory and the truck was in a sequence of trucks for which the batching and discharge times were reasonable, the concrete was accepted with no detrimental effect on the integrity of the structure.
- j. USE OF AN UNAPPROVED CONCRETE MIX DESIGN There are documented cases of mixes being adjusted and used before formal approval was received. Adjustments were made to improve workability. The only alleged such' violation during placing of the first three blocks was one in which incorrect batch weights were cited; they were not adjusted for moisture in the aggregates. The adjusted weights conformed to an approved mix within permitted tolerances. There was, thus, no impact on structural integrity.
- k. DEFICIENCIES IN CURING ,
- Curing is particularly important in thin structures of concrete since they can dry out quickly and lose so much water that hydration of cement stops before the required strength is achieved. In a 12-foot thick mat losing moisture only from the top surface, all but the top 3 or 4 inches vill maintain sufficient moisture to gain adequate strength even if there is no moist curing. Such structures should be cured so that the'
- top surface, which receives all the wear, will be durable and resistant to abrasion. Otherwise, there may be maintenance and operations problems if not safety problems. The maintenace of a temperature of SOF for 7 days is important for thin structural members whose support is to be removed early. In a 12-foot mass hydration of cement generates large amounts of heat, which raise the temperature far above levels needed for adequate strength gain. Cooling the top surface would actually be a good procedure for removing heat from the mass rapidly in order to minimize thermal cracking. Thus, the one documented example of a curing temperature of 37F had, if anything, a favorable effect on safety. The few cases in which moist curing could not be verified throughout the i required time period had no effect on safety and probably a minimum effect on operation and maintenance problems since ambient weather conditions were not conducive to rapid drying.
FREEDOM OF INFORMADON ACI REQUEST . S4-$5T _. . = = -. . - Cl'!7B
l 4 i 1. CONCRETE DROPPED VERTICALLY MORE THAN 5 FEET L This requirement is intended primarily for dry large-aggregate
. concrete to prevent segregation which might occur when the large particles roll away from the rest of the concrete. It is much less , important for 1-inch maximum size aggregate concrete of a consistency j capable of being pumped. The few violations should have no effect on j structural integrity.
m.IRREGNLARITIESINCADWELDINSPECTION ! It is apparent that there was an administrative breakdown in the operation of the Cadweld inspection process. Such items as permitting
- inspectors to function before they were certified, discrepancies in
- initials, failure to have eye examinations on file, and incomplete
, records were noted. However, no significant number of deficient welds were noted in the basemat. Since all inspectors were ultimately found to be qualifiedc there a;ipears w nave Deen no technical breakdown ~ paralleling t: is administrative breakdown. Safety does not appear to be j an issue. L 1 Ws N.
- M -
- n. WATERSTOP INSPECTORS NOT CERTIFIED Waterstops do not contribute tio the safety of the basemat. For operational conveniance they should be intact. In addition to administrative certificate problems there were technical problems in l l placing concrete around the waterstops. Since waterstops are in formed "
4 surfaces, the first half of each installation is subject to 100% inspection. All observed deficiencies were repaired. It cannot be said with complete assurance that the second half of each installation was carried out successfully since it is buried in concrete and cannot be
- inspected. It may be assumed that after first half troubles placing
- crews are more sensitive to the necessity of careful placing techniques during the second half. After several years under hydrostatic head there j i
are no known waterstop failures. There is no safety issue and probably no operational issue. 1
- o. VERTICAL CRACKS AND ROCK POCKETS IN YERTICAL SURFACES OF HARDENED BLOCKS I
i The vertical cracks which formed early cannot be said to have ! l resulted from a violation of specification requirements. They resulted j froar thermal contraction when the surface was put into tension as a result of a much higher temperature in the interior, which is produced by cement hydration. They were shallow and were successfully eliminated by jackhammers. Rock pockets are the result of inadequate consolidation adjacent to forms. They were properly patched. Neither phenemenom impacts safety. FREEDOM OF INFORM $ilON ACI REQUEST
-> s y -4 rf
(/778 ! i
- p. INCORRECT TESTING FREQUENCY Certain tests had a required frequency of once every 50 cubic yards,
, and some had a frequency of once every 150 cubic yards. The interpretation of records auditors was that no more than 50 (or 150) cubic yards should be placed between consecutive tests. When such was the case, a deficiency was noted. The most enlightened specification enforcement requires sampling on a random basis with the average rate equal to the specified rate but with considerable variation in the intervals between tests. Such a procedure eliminates judgment on the part of the inspector in selecting batches for sampling, eliminates any, t effect which may be occuring with a fixed frequency, and makes it
$[3 impossible for the nroducer to anticioate when samples will be taken. hpd- Q
'The correct numbers of samples were taken on an overall basis. The that some intervals between samples exceeded the average specified actA h p M
interval should not be interpreted as a violation o.of
- q. INCORRECT PLACING PRACTICES W gC%j/J The approved plac'ing procedure required the establishment and M#
maintenance of steps of concrete throughout each placement and the vertical insertion of vibrators at intervals of about 2 feet. Both were violated. The step placement is intended to minimize the area of exposed concrete and thus to minimize the probability of cold joints. The vibrator technique is intended.to minimize the occurence of internal A voids. Because the first three blocks were placed(in the winter,rIne 94 gg)dA1 cold joint hazard was minimal and the necessity for maintaining the step placement relatively unimportant. Proper vibrator technique is more W, -
- important. However, concrete of pumpable consistency with a maximum aggregate site of 1 inch is very easy to place with relatively little
- vibr"' n. Z.; !.c that rock pockets were evident on formed surfaces notnecessarily)Lasef,thatinternalvoidsarepresent. Formed ,
surfaces, particularily in corners and.around keyways, present special problems which frequently are not well handled by inexperienced crews. The reluctance to get the vibrator too close to the form (the specifications x specifically prohibited hitting the forms with the vibrator spud) causes
%\ incomplete consolidation at the form. Available construction photographs M demonstrate the wide open forms with plenty of space between reinforcing bars, condition uM ^ ~ 1' = for easy placing. While k s..... a - . - .1= saurance that the mati ]s free of internal voids, sne very workable &
concrete and the number of vibrators in use makep olcsjunlikely. A few k small voids would have little effect on the performance of the mat. There should be no safety problem attributable to placing practices. JTktL.
*holdej
%A L*@LAlk 4- ~
- r. IRREGULARITIES IN PLACING AND HANDLING REINFORCING C. TEEL Throughout the mat construction there were cases of nicks or bends EMCM in bars or misplaced bars. Except for minor nicks, adequate corrections were made. The only item noted during the first three blocks was an incident when a bar was struck by a sledgehammer to make room for a concrete-placing elephant trunk. The blows vibrated previously placed concrete. This was a single occurrence t Thereafter provision was made FREEDOM OF NFORMATION 4 ggo m%e.WLA
% p c c u.uN % u- .
84-VTT , c-/ 77 7
T U _ '. ,l P during placing of steel for insertion of elephant trunks. Mishandling of steel had no significant effect on structural integrity of the mat. g g. g , gf g CONCLUSION '" g . The construction of the basemat was adequate to insure the safety of J#g the structure. While there were several violations of specification Ty yj requirements or missing records, none were of a nature which would impair W f structural integrity. Most of the violations or omissions pertained to / provisions intended to preserve the workability of the concrete, such as y, air content, slump, temperature, age of concrete at time of discharge, - p V' s[ ! g,M and number of revolutions of the mixer drum. Because the mat was placed .gc during the winter and early spring when workability problems are not y,yV critical sud because a large part of the concrete was passed through 7 Alre-pumps, wL'~h constitute a good inspection tool for assessing workability, M MM8 the lack of documentation of some of the backup workability data is W relatively unimportant. For the same reason the concrete was easy to consolidate, and departure from ideal placing procedures should not prove significant. Failure to document moist curing is not significant because of the massiveness of the structure; and the occasional failure to maintain the required curing temperature was probably an advantage in - removing heat from the structure. Irregularities in Cadwald inspection were administrative rather than technical, and errors in handling reinforcing steel were inconsequential. Waterstop problems apparently were adequately dealt with; but in any event they do not affect safety. While more attention might have been paid to controlling temperature stresses resulting from cement hydration, there in ="fficient_ v reinforcing steel in the mat to erevent safetv-related problems N associated with thermal cracking. e n@ eswa May 8, 1984
# on W> #
hfYf r Y g# # ' f >% y \ v* +pfffh.f
" *'Q* g\p, 0 N o. } Fml,}fdm t, c 7
< vw an$}}