Revision as of 08:37, 15 March 2020

Text

Forwards Info Requested at 820722 Meeting.Submittal Includes Geotechnical Info on Essential Cooling Water Pipelines Soil Profiles,Boundaries of Four Low Density Backfill Areas & Contaminated Backfill
	ML20023A844
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	10/12/1982
From:	Goldberg J; HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:	Novak T; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	ST-HL-AE-890, NUDOCS 8210200075
	Download: ML20023A844 (84)
	v • d • e

The Light Company ri-sm ugnongu- m ux noo ii sm.wxas7700i aim.nii October 12, 1982 Sl-HL-AE-890 File Number: G9.15 Thomas M. Novak Assistant Director of Licensing Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Novak:

South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Geotechnical Engineering Information On July 22, 1982, members of my staff met with Messrs. L. Heller and D. Gupta of the NRC Hydrological and Geotechnical Engineering Branch and Mr. D. Sells of your staff to discuss the licensing review of the South Texas Project geotechnical design. Attached is the geotechnical information on Essential Cooling Water (ECW) Pipeline soil profiles, the boundaries of the four low density backfill areas, contaminated backfill, settlement and nonconforming backfill beneath the ECW intake and discharge that was requested by the NRC staff during the above meeting.

If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 877-3281.

Very trul yours, Y dl J. H. Goldberg Vice President Nuclear Engineering & Construction McB/mg Attachment

/JoO\

821020007S M F

Ilouston I.ighting & Power Company

.cc: .G. W. Oprea, Jr. October 12, 1982 J. H. Goldberg ST-HL-AE-890 J. G. Dewease File Number: G9.15

'J. D. Parsons Page 2 D. G. Barker C. G. Robertson.-

'R. A. Frazar J. W. Williams R. J. Maroni J. E. Geiger H. A. Walker S. M. Dew

.J. T.-Collins (NRC)

D. E. Sells (NRC)

W. M. Hill, Jr. (NRC)

M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)

R. dordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)

J. R. Newman (Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, & Axelrad)

STP.RMS Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 G. W. Muench/R. L. Range Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Central Power & Light Company Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P. O. Box 2121 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C. 20555 H. L. Peterson/G. Pokorny Dr. James C. Lamb, III City of Austin 313 Wcodhaven Road P. O. Box 1088 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

~ Austin, Texas 78767

'd. B. Poston/A. vonRosenberg Mr. Ernest E. Hill City Public Service Board Lawrence Livermore Laboratory P. 0. Box.1771 University of California San Antonio, Texas 78296 P. O. Box 808, L-46 Livermore, California 94550 Brian E. Berwick, Esquire William S. Jordan, III !

Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss for the State of Texas 1725 I Street, N. W.

P.-0. Box 12548 Suite 506 Capitol-Station Washington, D. C. 20006 Austin, Texas 78711

.Lanny Sinkin . Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.

Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn 5106 Casa Oro Route 1, Box 1684 San Antonio, Texas- 78233 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Jay.Gutierrez,. Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555. Revision Date 08-23-82

=-

. .?

"l 2 ';l R L 's & 2 / VCocde:en bClycia Consulicats 504 525 1154 si 1

. i January 8 79 ('

ST-WC-3 427 i _ , . .

SFN: D 0540 -0087 '

. ;/'

Brown & Root, Inc. .

P. O. Box 3 Houston, Texas 77001

. Attention: Mr. L. E. Hayden, Jr.

Engineering Proj ect Manager Subj ect: Contaminated Backfill Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building -

Unit 2 Gentlemen:

This letter transmits our conclusions regarding extent and compressibility of contaminated backfill in the Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building area of Unit 2.

This letter and the attached calculation package supercedes WCC's letter ST-WC-BR-5414. The calculation package presents calculations of differential settlement between Diesel

. Generator Building and northern end of the Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building, results of Standard Penetration Tests, loge of soil borings and results of laboratory tests all made to define the extent and compressibility of contami-nated backfill.

Fifteen borings were drilled from 23 to 28 October 1978 for the purposes of determining extent of contaminated backfill.

Boring locations are given in Table 1 and Figure 1. Co'ntami-nated backfill was encountered in eight of the borings. Two additional borings were drilled adjacent to previously drilled borings for the purpose of obtaining undisturbed samples.

Elevations of the limits of backfill, contaminated backfill and top of the D layer in each boring are listed on Table 2.

The contaminated backfill was encountered in thicknesses ranging from 1/4 to 4 ft. Because borings BF-17 and BF-18 contained no more than 3 in. of contaminated backfill we believe that the lateral extent of contaminated backfill does not exceed limits defined by borings BF-4, -7, -12, -21, -17, -15, -16 and -18. The contaminated backfill in all eight borings except l

Consumng Erynwrs Geo:ssu l l

and Environrnental Scent.sts [M '

Offres wiOther Pr.nc.Dal Cates j

Mr. L. E. Hayo . , Jr. ..codward Clyde Consultants

ST-WC-BR-5427 Page 2 -

boring PF-18 consisted of a mixture of medium to coarse sand, and yellowish-brown and reddish-brown clay with a trace of rounded gravel. In many instances the sand and clay.were so.

thoroughly mixed that the soil was visually classified as a yellowish-brown and reddish-brown clayey sand. Borings BF-6 and BF-13 differed slightly from the other borings in that in ,

boring BF-6 a lime treated layer of sand and gravel was encoun- l tered between E1 -13 to -14.5 ft (MSL) and in boring BF-13 i limestone gravel was encountered between E1 -16 and -16.25.

The contaminated backfill in boring BF-18 consisted of an approximately 3 in. thick layer of lime-treated clay with limestone gravel.

Using the results of consolidation tests and Standard Penetration Tests we conclude that the compressibility of the contaminated backfill is very low. It is our opinion that the contaminated backfill will not lead to differential settlements in excess of criteria.

If you have any questions concerning our findings or the conclusions presented in this letter please call me.

Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Charles S. Hedges Project Manager Y310XP (12)

Distribution:

Technical CSH/dn l

I

t . . :

a- n ' cr c.

W 0.0, D\,7AR D - C LY D E C O. ,U LT ANTS

n,, 75-3008(6000H) n:3.,e South Texas Pro.iect re ..

IV sas.e. Contaminated Backfill ASSIGNMENT OF CALCULATIONS .

C31culation No.: WCC 9000-H Document

Title:

Contaminated Backfill, Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Bldo.-Unit 2 Assigned by: /[ Checked by: , h Date: '

i Nf/.i ;75 Date: '. [p, [9 Parformed by 1 '[ 'j '- M, 7/f f t l '-- - Verified by:

Date:

b n"l',y D) Date: & n,mr

Purpose:

To determine the extent and compressibility of contaminated backfill in the Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building area of Unit 2.

Procedure: Examine soil boring logs and the results of Foundation Verification

, and determine the extent of the contaminated backfill.

Use the results of standard penetration tests and consolidation tests to determine the compressibility of the contaminated backfill.

Results Used for: To support the conjecture that if the contaminated backfill is left in place that it will not lead to differential settlements in excess of criteria.

l R% visions:

I WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS

0 J g. *9 t WOODWARD-CLYDE CvNSULTANTS *[ ,,

. g, g(, pig

,.,,, wawi 64s h., X cC-" bi24,'M M j

enuu a aeussim a w a,wa-naa saa

. Lim @ 5 Too inds 0> W todenueVed bac)qill as Aped in[ wn' pad onestiv3rmn and pmaahn wiarwn popms uc h PA T10916 i fM hM5 OS & fin %)wab 00EIO11 arc dQined bv gew s M- q fitani-ti on & N6Y 4 -n 0.n d F; on u t 50a Ma ,4n d tg - 11, 7 \$ t.nc 4.9 on 4hc wosy, 07 W.56 b b0ino 5 9 (%AY0JnW. Tad htOlh WR$ cn(/)t116(4-cd im b o n g 5 % 4 % an d -11 'q howcas Mmiam1$8Td hacDM web less im. 4Y Jun % 'y& un ko bevngs so hd on candyec to k%e. Ete tabl khY 0) 4hoy ytqtt \o@; ion. 'Cht noNhtn Gd(MY og att tathnad bEW:'lil 16 dCped h @Mde q%th oil dbOR1) % 'C '194 0 \Re &{ si\ l'A GIM4 ilt4 and 930 on /B 5gbbe id5(4 @itpo 1). 9ht LoWNn5 0% bouw s do))cd 4 domo 2h eXtutY 0) afid Strfhpt WabitaId hLQ1)I M6 bded on iblS I, h ArtliW5 0>lk tmWOfe. jout5 rn %% /L'L4 $t12 070

&fo mun on %fe He-et-4ooo-2 9 h qoundanon volut% qua %s sswRis mys.4v \cy, O' c,0tL b0(rf0 ',

diIIIcd 40 idE Xk edCnr Q (An%mMd ht) Gill sto j<uWul m A]pdrX @ @ Ri5 s'le.D. tit 6 $dfe-

- g%.,-y ,m,- ---,w---,-- -- yw- yw.y + y ---mw -g-ws.* epm-yg---wy

i* -t c 0

{

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS ,4r p)

.... .,em, _. i- $

rob (tAWktD.6$iQMAN cm.asrllll4ss- 8% ID4

'i j

. bctuss * ""**i : .

q hAYGM##46 tilt @{1tu 0]M4 VM(10.0 Il%If 5 Df/DVA7III bath}0) and Ig 0 010.nr it 4tth b0fim0l AVO Iliffd on ialt q_,919. 4hnw% Oy U.v. t0^ hub 8Vfd 'bhtk711\

negd 31on,1/4 @ 4%, h acqun, 07 m todamanYe3 baokgli is dttc.osui im wtts l@c We-mt441') dcmd 0 knaafo n :w upwnna) guys a5 sam +har 4M waxiwium +hidtm,s> 0) fonTGntitoXf) bacQill IAndtfh65 thL /bl0,n1 MfA h) Mf, h0f t1DnT6I Ilinif$ 910WO Vn 91h!(L l, e T.omassibac ustm consohdatim 4m Gesta '

+mV W11) 10 UMumit at unT9an5 u/ gm{vc,wI tnt Ortnf rn a ?-TbRvA lat 6r tot 4he, 6]LeJ101):

ha = H be umfc 11 4 M R 10k % 55 0} 501) IAt;6( / t 14:. dW.00t n'n #16 VMi0 (WLf 4hc ' Aft % 0/AcAtfSim 4 hay Mt $0d Ik(f 15 tub;66744 h 4' iwYlal void faVin An=twg<csutook bauAlimVCd batsi); o.t of l 1E SMohdHim 40 9 led ud glashc limuh kuf osaabs, SM '/pCqt yavi q Vof cohir$ Mc iwhdsd m BypitliT ei 07 415 cthIahta "p t y,,

l

S ',

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS (

m., ,,4 flm n.,No %

vo,. 50.4h i&xM Pfo,yt.cY c,-..o / @ 'm.i.

,I E ts 7f

~

\ntTilAl @nlufth'l5 '65 1h(, p&bmtb WL5s'SW dht (hn(a mrfiGVcd bach {ill

%gW @Y Ah.ht Q ggvN cxauvluo5 (#(,'.

$/jiiw; . %pt, QtMl:A .4 [o . tt 0) [q' ci uo.

hf+)r1k W kg My %,

41 % 1-9 -llh #19;h Iy ' I 11D l.04' O.it- 1.V h14ti T-4 -it.6b-l+ ML6 H 11 6 /L94' O.90 1/14 Mf)g T1 -ithh-lM l(96 ll$ lA/y' O16 ' 1/l(

0Xmm 0 % u wQoud 5tc).uf.

w a w ktD)( Ge4OW:= .A.O M /; '

C tX % 'ful10AO g wrp S) lA% 1.10 hC' N Et O)'UNe, 04thM kn STIL% ?) ,

'}rn(AI 66hhms Mnw Y'.MI d 60 8 1)cg),[880') D WI WY N0* [*M6H bMM k@ 99ti MrA hf'__hNgi

\1 \) T-% %.04 %.61 \b'1 A.Uf f).40 )A0' s.Ob ' %0' liv T-4 a -

t04- 4.06 6.66 ISD' %,lD 9 61

. LOV Tt '_.

lA6 4.W 6.4ti ).9%' 9.Ol/ W/

0')Q, Aunt no 6%H JiskOMi5n d den i.I iM i

(O Gsmvg. W R u &M t Eky, H S.D (O codaG sWp;A S pm Qt T.t.V. %009.00"/-6

WOQDWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS ,,,g ( 'p

,,,. 6o u n N u M h r w R c:

. $$]I?hthh lhlt0 ho imtTal (md pts.) WGH condiYivo} AWEE 4k thaw 6 im s'0id *Yli aid hcm M kw.W5h0A 0}ik cAnV41MuoYod. MEllll tiilff hce ft(E'len'.

Ise M lab )yg win :

W Ab \v.

Ce hid fgYio aY 1111 riel Wo% y t)w/nyt ombud W%n 1,1c hp g

t 9yl[ 6E(

% M/

ff , S 67 66 Mfig gro-a, bk 14 0 T-0 1.10 l 4.)

I o.u11 O.0111 O.0060, t6 0,16 '

1 140 T- + " " 0.ts 0.Ui6d 0.00Fo '40 018 0.00(ol k.'1 0.t'k_

'LO0 T 'L " '0?>l(sk0 4l01 4.4 i C.14; 19N T-9 a 9;,(f !Q.W5 0d/Hi O.00&4 f 150 T-4 T IL :

i "

0/11p0O!1bVl0.00bl

'0?>ilr8 0.h090 0.0 W 4.b (0.0

, 0.th I0 49 _

QQ ,

b.1)W/lMMn i %IlicAlchY 15 0.Ok hi, I XINUA v ]6@lTlP.I 1

4h Otme,I lenaoXer Crnd aWwWld- hkcistua 0.gdien @,5

e wopowARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS "*** *{,, q , g ' p

....smao~.v,adn,}

, sas % wa't -.. .. pun ~. sn n-l u

. >$n,ew ussa wwaud bean 4ka buri ,

SWn0 41( Vir$tdh Ol/ W4mdDf() hch4TtWi {t*,h d4 e%sYL2) 0> W. tenhuuhaYd batPgg) ks W1 woged to e e ,c sa< . %, wadud 0=w est e.m i

hDt hathp3 ';(Ind q (ant (imtSQTk b0t@ )){ (*,vt[ f) 10.1(// &lav a kshi m m S. w te t pstas k ctge 07' 9W..Hoh o} Widad jtekoTita *mkng, yr iht 9 (0.th^ cud 4h6 (oAaweeled b470). BY all Jah45 Of opntow o> owman sTo.ndcud gsntkarna w/bnug YT\ 4Y10 (wnkm)nkTod bAcA70) ML Medh 4han Jbe 'ar M 9 10.tp.

O

e. up e e

WOODWARD-CLYDE C,sNSULTANTS

""' *{, g.gg[h,,; gg }

,,,,%dh fK@s b McY m., ,,,%%%

cm ..i., e! %,.M r.w ' Wi$. l 7% ri f l l

U bb Mht,1haXimwoo cAlte10Ted d6]'UOnTle.1 mwmonY behuco 4'nt Oud Jen:(a:vr huddin0 and At nuht(n Imd0>ThL h

wamrnahJ tamp has ma man tulo alssv own-

%, Q) Sam n vn QV wrc 0-QT all 6M65 07 Cu4smu' 0} GwufuntL tandNd ytrue:<sYttn nowYcwn tA (LL conhnn11aY&d WO11 at owthr Alan +ha'r p Ac 9 luv,

m. undudo hay 4a cowonodi)Jv 07 &

bJnTQBM'OQlb ')dlMC'lIl %t/

13 Sb10)). M 15 Otw 0}r0 a m e m a m aa w e al mij no w a u3 mnw

%Rkmido M M w)o 0) et J m a.

I

l_

I ,

I 5 5 it 3 on -

I hwh01cA%ftW,dIla'-}u~

'}o%ddie vt4 }io l P

10hb 'OD y_g ; ,, , , , itsw3.u_ i > > i ' ' ' " ' ' ' s / / L/

g_ as vg ,

I l h6 tif l

ger-is ! 9 9.BF-2 __j L_ ___

8F BF-190 BF-1 BF-lZ.

er-u $ -6 BF-5

'v--

N36 /,479 4

umns of Area where 8

S'" hgg.3 { M at is c.a si-J 4 " 1 y 0~

OF-ZOU BF-11 B F-21

& -Ah Scale

.gy

' Limifs of Area eshere Seals)sb is Cost , ' '

l . l .

l l 0 5Ft 10F+ to f+ Soff vo/ese g g ,,j g indicales boring wint no contaminaleJ See 7J4/e/ /er cadiaa4s a ef toriof ecaHons

/ f backfill eneounFered {

50856/#2 d r o /e r#/' N N i h indiedes borin9 n which contaminated LOC ATIONS OF BORIN4 5 c/ /condorfes e//<d- g, backGil encountered

//// Jaec/ ecg/a,n/va/ed l p-20 0 indicoles boring in which undishrbed Estenb of Contaminated Back fill

""# ### 'I

[#[ ') sainple obtained M -E A BIdg. Unit 2 See7op,S/3,-5/ay/or/ 500TH TEXAS PROJEC.T pess/co//ov &s/ #sw//s -

-maimbs hwh s} '{endgno Justighi,vi og W ?iW C6k 038 Thickness e f den /aminol<ci esamiswnoteuecais.

&w'"a% #n"um % om'd we fly,l WIG in bwngs 8F.n orsd 6f-/2 _ _ __

E 8

m-

~

w B . C'W 5 0 % o o

?

7sD C

k, 100

$ue D LAYER 3

w 5,8 <

A 80 -- - /

G 2 .

N-a$

u, w 3 w

O N m e

x 60 --

8 o

U) _

l- ': b Z b 3 CONTAMINATED BACXFILL -

% .$ $ 40 --

J D e.-- 9m U,) .E 5 5 b 5 u

20 - -

LU u_

I O I U

e

~ /

t 9 =

g 0

// , ,

i i

a g ; 5 i

10 i

15 20 25 i

30 35 40 45

<C ~

g 2 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS /FT Q

O ,.

O ,

N . _ - _ _ - - - _ -

South Texas Project 75-3008, Task 6000, Subtask 6000H Extent of Contaminated Backfill TABIE 1 IDCAnWS OF BORINGS DRTTIFn 'IO DEFDE :

EXTENT OF AND SAMPIE 00NDOIINATED BACKFIII BORING NO. COORDINATES NORIH EAST BF-2( )(295)(2) 361690 2944910 I

BF-3 (296) 361681 2944910 BF-4 (297) 361702 2944880 BF-6 (298) 361681.5 2944880 BF-7 (299) 361702 2944944 BF-9 (300) 361681 2944944 BF-11 (301) 361680 2944870 :

BF-12 (302) 361681 2944953 BF-13 (303) 361669 2944869 .

BF-14 (304) 361670 2944916 BF-15 (305) 361654 2944869 ,

BF-16 (306) 361669 2944854 i BF-17 (307) 361659 2944916 BF-18 (308) 361690 2944856 :

BF-19U (309) 361681 2944917 BF-200(310) 361663 2944916 ;

BF-21 (311) 361659 2944939 Notes: (1) Field assigned boring numbers.

(2) Official South Texas Project boring number designation. i (3) Coordinates of boring locations provided orally by B&R's !

W. Bray on 28 October 1978. i i i l

l i

South Texas Project 75-3008. Task 6000, Sub..sk 6000H

. ' Extent of Contaminat:d Backfill TABLE 2 THICKNESS OF BACKFILL SAND AND CONTAMINATED SACKFILL, AND TOP OF D LAYER SOIL STRATIGRAPHY (ELEVATIONS IN FEET FROM MEAN SEA LEVEL) ,

CONTAMINATED TOP OF BORING BACKFILL SAND BACKFILL D-LAYER BF-2 +2.75(2)to-14.85 NP(I) -14.85 -

BF-3 +3 to -11 -11 to -15 -15 BF-4 +3 to -15.4 NP -15.4 BF-5 Not drilled BF-6 +3 to -12 -12 to -15.8 -15.8 BF-7 +3 to -15.5 NP -15.5 BF-8 Not drilled BF-9 +3.5 to -10 and -10 to -12 -14.3

-12 to -14.3 BF-10 Not drilled BF-11 +3.5 to -14.7 and -14.7 to -15.2 -15.7(3)

-15.2 to -15.7 BF-12 +3.5 to -14.5 NP -14.5 BF-13 +3.5 to -14.5 & -16.3 to -16.7 -14.5 to -16.3 -16.7(3)

BF-14 +3(5) to -12.7 and -12.7 to -14.8 -15.5

-14.8 to -15.5 BF-15 +3.5 to -17.5 NP -17.5 BF-16 +3.5 to -18.5 NP -18.5 BF-17 +3(5) to -13.3 and -13.3 to -13.5 -15

-13.5 to -15 BF-18 +3.5 to -15.8 & -16.1 to -17.2 -15.8 to -16.1 -17.2(3)

BF-19U ND(6) -11 to -14(4) -15 BF-20U ND -11.5 to -13.5(4) ND BF-21 +3(5) to -15.1 NP -15.1(3) l (1) NP indicates that contaminated backfill was not encountered at this boring location.

(2) Elevations are approximate only.

(3) Reddish brown clayey sand identifies interface between D layer and backfill sand.

(4) Indicates that boring drilled for undisturbed sampling only. Limits of con-taminated backfill are approximate.

(5) Estimated based on 1-ft-thick seal slab.

(6) Indicates thickness of backfill sand and top D layer not determined.

i '

. . _ _ _ . _ . . ______._____.___.___-______.__.__.__._.____.____._.--_-.--.a

South Texas Proje '

75-3008 Task 60L.o Subtask 6000H

. Extent of Contaminated Backfill TABLE 3 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCES FOR BACKFILL SAND, CONTAMINATED BACKFILL AND D LAYER SPT VALUES Iy) SPT VALUES SPT VALUES IN CONTAMINATED IN BACKFILL SAND BACKFILL IN D LAYER BORING blows /ft blows /ft blows /ft BF-2 44, 36 9 BF-3 -- 20, 48 (16)(3) 11I) 7/6 in.

BF-4 50/9 in., 49, 50 13 50/10 in.

BF-6 64,50 50, 10 19 BF-7 14, 14, 15, 28 11

~

BF-9 79,48,28(2) 30(2) 7/6 in., 12 BF-11 50/9 in., 20, 23, 37(2) 21 50/8 in.

BF-12 50/5 in., 50/6 in., 9

. 50/7 in., 51/9 in.

BF-13 80/9 in., 58/10 in., 17 12 50/9 in., 76/9 in.

BF-14 63/9 in., 130/9 in., 55 32,25(2) g BF-15 76/9 in., 64/9 in., 12 72/9 in., 64, 78/9 in., 35 BF-16 54/9 in., 54/9 in., 11 65/9 in., 64/9 in.,

70/6 in., 56/6 in., 89(2)

BF-17 68/10 in., 101/9 in., 12 71/7 in., 87, 65 BF-18 55, 70, 85/9 in.,

24 68/9 in., 74/10 in., 33 BF-21 11 70/6in.,74/61.)79 61/9 in., 35t2 9

(1) Values of penetration resistance are for the last 12 in. of an i l 18 in. drive unless so noted.

(2) Penetration resistance value is for first 12 in of drive.

l l (3) Gravel wedged in split-spoon orifice may have resulted in arti-ficially high blow counts. The 48 blows /ft was recorded for the last 12 in. of an 18 in. drive and 16 blows /ft was recorded for the first 12 in. of an 18 in, drive.

South Texas Projr '

75-3008, Task 60L., Subtask 6000H Extent of Contaminated Backfill 1

O APPENDIX A LOGS OF SOIL BORINGS L

BORING NO. w- ,-

i.,

a z- eoRiNG No. <CoNTm =

SOUTH TEX AS PROJECT g'g $ E.h DESCRIPTION 8D u en O J LOCATION COORDINATES t itsette . n 161.vo LOCATION AREA sectaatent-flectetent avetitar, mise- Unit t SURFACE ELEV. *f ?s . < 1- TOTAL DEPTH 19 8 f eet *

~

OATE COMPLETED ' ne, seta DATE E. LOGGED --- -

Ncnts: . ri.i ,,...... ..ri.,i.,... ... .. er.r. ...... -

.. e.,...i.. .. .. ...it m . ..,. -

" E $

h>3 g=U DESCRIPTION yd -

=8 $ [EE 3- :

ntDtun TO COAR$1 $ARD ($W)r y.11.ets, nr.w. .

_ *Stretter.1 S.thft11 5. 4' .

- g- 3 44 51

- ~

1 de.s.

~

36 12 -

i. -

15 _ -

, u- -m i, u ., u .), ... ,. ....... .. . .

3 l .

t gg " f SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 l

BORI M LOG NO. 295

~

FIGURI 11.6-191 ,

BORING NO. w- w .aa'"S * 'co" .

Dr d >m > W o.

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT a a =$ oEscRIPTION $-

LOCATION COORDINATES r resa,10. a settot

=8 5 85 a LOCATION AREA Mer*aa' tai-tiertritmi Av.tisar, aten-. cast 2 SURFACE ELEV. *1 a n 1- TOTAL DEPTg ta.s feet -

DATE COMPLETED fi net te7a 04Tg g. LOGGED --- -

~

I

880716: *Feeld prepared bortr. les destsasted 8F 3. Serias

.. ... . ea s.. i n. i e . .. . e m . .., . :

g- E ,

O

$ 3 gU DESCRIPTION -

(>83

8E s

" nt0IU'l 10 C0ARSt SAho (SW): yellcwith bresa "Structurel Backft11 Send" 5-

~

10 = .

~

20 ll

.misture of Mt0IUM TO COAR51 SAno (SV) and .

i. - "

yellowish browa

e,,e.a.e.

}SILTYCLAT(CN):

,, ,r..e, _

13 53 53 LIT ELAT LEN): St1Tr. redit s h tre.a p .

e.si.. ce ..ie e ie.s- .

20 - .

. l

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2

BORIN3 LOG NO. 2%

FIGURE !!.6-192

< =~m BORING NO. w- w soaia2 =0- .

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT $5 h ,$

E DESCRIPTION LOC 3710N C0CRDINATES r .massoa = tastet LOCATION AREA mech..tc.1.tt.ctesc.) Austit.cr St.e. . cat t t SURFACE ELEV '8"8i- TOTAL DEPTH i' l h -

DATE COMPLETED t. ett ists DATE E.LDGGED --- 2 notes: - re.i. ,,... .. .es. i.. ...i ..t.. er-.. i.ri.

i 1 - .. e.,... .. .. .. .. o r m . ..,. ."

> ed g E =

g5 g gE"D DESCRIPTION Uy -

=8 3 *E 3 :

", a t0 lum 10 (CAR,E ,AnD (,W): ,.11.ut.h br.w. [

.....u.,., ...... , .....

i

i. _ -

,ih si - -

..... s. .. , ..... :

_ ,,_- 4 rr

_tt._,

io

,, ,, -m,u.,..,,,........... . i ro - ..it .,n.i. . i .i- :

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 18t 2 W

BORING LOG N3. 297 FIGURE 11.6-193

BORING NO. _2m - ,_ SoaiNo No. <CONTu> ,

IN south TEXAS PROJECT $,5 eel DESCRIPTION LOCATION COORDINATES r ,esa..a . e sansei.s "O b d l

LOCATION A REA ==, m= = i, i t s. . . e,.i s.. e i .. .. mi .. n ,, , -

SURFACE ELEV. *'=*i TOTAL DEPTR 'n * '=a' -

DATE COMPLETED a-* .a'a DATE E-LOGGED - - - 2 NOTES: e fle18 prepared boring tog eesteneted er.s. sertog I made for sectestaeted backf fll study. -

W =

3% g 2" DESCRIPTION E .

WD 33 3 E -

b si U

~

at0iva ta C0Atit sA.D isvi ,ene.is. .,e.a g- .

- *3tructural lettft11 Send' .

30 -

~

44 11

$ very (east 50 57 ~l s- assium 10 00a151 sans (nuj; grey ens yelleelsh brown w/ trace revaded gravel and clay .

50 53 .

at0tuu 10 C0AR51 5A40 AND GRAV!L ($M-SP) very dense. grey and white.

- - ,I .

appears itse treated

~

80 14

" ' "'8I"" 8'"8' 3g gg .

SILif CLAT (CN): very sttff, reddtsh bre.a w/ 0 ,

stit lenses 20 ~ ~.

.etto. e, . ele , ,0...

as - :

i SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

i.

UNITS 1 & 2 so m s too na. rss FIGURE 11.6-194

I BORING NO. m- s z _r eoRisa uo. <CouTui e

,*5 3 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 9 0 Ig El:!

W DESCRIPTION 4 LOCATION COORDIN ATES r samment = inive, ou en o6 .s LOCATION AREA "***'881 t1*t t' ice s aestitary itse.. Unit ,

SURFACE ELEV. '3 5

5 1- TOTAL D'EPTH 88 5 -

DATE COMPLETED t. Oct 1978 DATE E-LDGGED -- 5 ,

notes: . ,iei. ,,e...e. .. t., i., .e.t...se er.r. .. t.. ;

esse v.e c.atestnotes tact,tti st.dy.

l

~

W

z- e g5 (D DESCRIPTION Ud -

=8 a EE 5 :

193Um ,0 CCAA51 $ARD (SW): yell.etsh br.en

' Structural Sackft11 $ sad' 5- .-

O

[ -

\

30 ~ -

~

le 58 7medivedense .

14 $2 gg N e iteht green v -

Il 13 .

,, ) 1/2 t.. tntet stity clay seem

,. i. .

- m ,, c u , u.>, st1, . ,e.... ,....

20 " ,,

.. .e ., ..se . ro. . .-

. l l

l -

l i SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2 --

l B3RN LOG N3. 299

~

FIGURE 11.6 - 195 e - % --e---v- -

w ---- v v

s .

. i .

BORING NO. 5x- w ,- soam No - (=Ntu ,

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT o I

$_5 EE DESCRIPTION s

LOCATION COORDIN ATES.t risessa . a ;stsel mu a 8' LOCATION AREA N<***'rei tiettettei s..elter, eise. . v.it t SURFACE ELEV '3 5 *

1- TOTAL DEPTH tofut -

DATE COMPLETED 28 ott 1998 DATE E.LDGGED --- I D80TES:

Field peeperes tortog tog costgestes er.t. tort g ,

det11ed for tentaalasted settf t11 stsey. -

> W '

E g (ga .

a 5 3 U DESCRIPTION M.-

"O N $w h J [

utCIUm 10 COAR$[ $At3 (33): yelleetst trewn

(

~

si...t...i ... , m ...- j g

~

i. -- :

y, gg Ivery sense [

~ CLAftY 5440 (SC): dense, gray and yelleetsn

e.e- r .i t e...t t., i .,e r, e, ei .,e, s...

IS -

g eas structural backfl11 stad

.et0 lum 10 C0At$t land (SW) eense, yelleutsh .

40 le ,

treen -

1tructural lackft11 Sand' -

-=

Il 15 .

- 5 5tLif CL At (CN): sttff. reestsn trova o -

It 18 .

. ..ite. e, ele , ,..

~

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2 BORING LOG 10. 300 FIGURE ]!.6 - 1%

e

.oRi~. uo <Co,.Tu ,

EORING NO. w- m hy SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT $$ ( !_E oc3cnip7,ou LOCATION COORDIN ATES t tsaatto . 3 gust 80 $ $$ .a LOCATION ARE A 'et****<*t ft'ets' 8. itteer sise.. tmet t SURFACE ELEV *LS**M- TOTAL DEPTH f l '"'

DATE COMPLETED f

eri mt DATE E LOGGED -

wCTEs: . v ie v e .e..,ee ..ri., i., sei t...iee er.u. i.ri., ,

dettled f.c s.ateetnotes battfitt stvey. .

W E .

9 ga

h. gg DESCRIPTION $ -

"O $ $5 J [

t0su to c0sist sao is n ,eii..... .r...

}.

Stensteret tattfilt Sec.e*

S- ,-

~.".

10 - ,

to ~

T Te 51 very sense .

10 St -

15 - medtwo desse ,

~

23 13 .

l g 3 C

T>- -

. /ELATET trow

5 A hE Tor'd ise dente. reddllh gg ~

~

"IL h " 10 'bO II 3'hs L3*3; 7'H 'a*d"ish bro * [

26 56 -

"Str u g eret tattenti le gp (CN): stry 6ttff, resdish trewn .

20 - 51.fsggt LIV CLAT leases 0 .

gg .

..tt.. .. ..,e . . .

n- -

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

~

UNITS 1 &. 2

\'

- EOR 143 LDS N3. 301 FI M E 1].E . 197

O -m BORING NO. 3n _ .

3 , eCmG No. iCONTu .

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT , ,5 9 I E;! DESCRIPTION LOCATION COORDIN ATES ressants . a sensas

f3 N b:i 8 LOCATION AREA "'ireatest ttectetcet avstiteer siss., Unit t -

SURFACE ELEV. '8 8

81- TOTAL DCPTH l' 8 '"' "

DATE COMPLETED F5 oct 1ste DATE E LOGGED -

880TES:

Flete prepared boring leg destgasted nr.It. series I dettled for centsetnoted battft11 stedp. -

W 2 E 5 l g"y DESCRIPTION Ud -

h>8

= 3 8$ 5 :

at0IUM 10 (CAR 511AND (5W): se11evish brown

=

- 'Stevateral Backf tll land * -

5- =

. =

=

10 - ~

b ~

vers dense

~

h_St .

gg -

h- 53 -

gh- 54 - "

~

9 SS - SILTT CLAT (CN): gttff, reddigh brown 20 g,gge, ,, ,,j, g gg,g. ]

=

\ -

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2 1 t

BORIM LOG M. 302

~

FIGUllE 11.6 - 198

BORING NO. m- I, zu soaiNG NO. (CONim =

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ,*5 mg Ed DESCRIPTION US SO 4 4 Eu g .6 LOCATION C00RDINATES f flesef t . .' iftet, en 8 LOCATION AREA pet 6aat e n t ?1.e tet e.1 a =. git. . eine- ir t , .

SURFACE ELEV. *18*t1- TOTAL DEPTH 'i '*** -

DATE COMPLETED 't nr+ inta DATE E LOGGED - - - 2 NOTES: !

ers.la pr.perse nort.,1., s.s t,.. .a sp.33, s.,,.,

8 Fill.8 f.r testa. Inst.d tactft11 study. '

g> g E , -

g$ 3 (x*U DESCRIPfl0N UO -

88 s sg 5 :

-at0IUM TO CCAtSt SA.D ($1f): p.11..ish br..a "

' Structural tactftll Sand * -

i- -

83 TTE -

a ,,

~

= . -

So 53 TTa .

= .

a _- -

n.. . ..$ ,,o , ...,v. ...... r. ... .,... :

a u .

t 17-58 ,0 -

-J M.i. ster.,o. ,fuiti "Steug structural bach.ft1,1.s iio.to 5 .: ad and

~

59 ; stiff. reddfah tr TTI.TY.'.T.T. AY'ICm)f oral settfill naaf.*~.a ./stit 33 m . D _

...t.. ., ..i. , . .

l _- -

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2

soms toc n. 303 FIGURE II.6 - 199

- -+ - , _ - - y- , -- -m

w aoa'"5 "o icoa m BORING NO. >>- Dr d z>

wd SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 820 gm >a t:1 DESCRIPTION $-

s

, mo $'

LOCATION COCRDIN ATES t tseasts . a '361570. -

LOCATION AREA secheatral-tinctetesi Austilary Side.. Uatt 2 SURFACE ELEV. d.l s.s.1. TOTAL 'D EPTH 21.5 feet -

DATE COMPLETED 28 ott 1978 DATE E.tDGGED -

880TES:

Field prepared bortag les dentsasted BF-14 serta. -

d,m ed e.r e.. ..i..ied n.cie m ited,.

w = _

z f*g 3 l gt, DESCRIPTION k -

=8 3 gt 5 1 e.......i.sie. sri..i ...i

"_ fore tag steel sad seal sla.ii.,, ii.... .ei.- .

, mEDIUn 10 C08t$t SARD (SW): pelle.tsh bre.n

. " Structural tactft11 Sand" 5- .

=

~ .

10 "- -

Il . ser, dense

~

- * % to. seen SANDY CLAT (CL)

~

h_$3_ ii - .

II *

$4 -

p sr 3, _

CL,AT[T..$

en ,s AND .($C):.. . . ,e.ei.tos.d,.ense

., te dense. .

= ) .

. Il, w. ,fteste essased gravel

.rn u .. u, e .,s..,s. .,...

,,. mmr c,.,m,,e,

_ , . _=,,,,, - mm .m.,, .. .r...

m,. re..,. _

.. .. ., ..ie . ii.i. .

M M

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

! UNITS 1 & 2 BORIN*a LOG NO. 304 am FIGURI 11.6 - 200

,r. -

7,, - - _ , ,.

m .oRiouo. icosT3) e BORING NO. -

. s x_

W SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 95 i E5 oEgRipfion 80 N LOCATION COORDINATES t itss969 - e 361054 -

LOCATION AREA are s satesi.rlectricei A..siter, side. . unit r fi 5 4 -

SURFACE ELEV. ._*1 5

t i- TOTAL'. DEPTH DST [ COMPLETED 's are inta DATE E LDGGED

--- E pe0Tts:

Field prepare 8 tortas les destenated sF il. sertas det11ed for coats.tnoted betttt11 study.

E -

g .

h>j= , g= DESCRIPTION 3 -

=8 3 8_ s .

nteita 10 COAtlt SARD (5W): yellestin brown

1tructural tackf tl1 land

5- .

~ .

10 "

h Il

[ iery dense g II 77 s: 355 m ,

~

64 54 70 _-

gg ss -

35 56 to] , de,,,

~

(CN): stif f, reddish brown s/Stil

$ D ltif.CLAV lea e .

~

.ette. .. . ort.. . .....

3 .

W

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT i UNITS 1 & 2 5 BOR!% LOG N3. 305

~

FIG'JRi 11.6 - 201 1

BORING NO. sx- ,

=- some No < con m -

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT y5 e Ed 9 l DESCRIPTION UN LOCATION CCCRDlh ATES t resense . e' istase "O N b LOCATION ARE A ee9 ant ent.f t ere,trat mm.ete. . nie. nine ,

SURFACE ELEV, +1 t =

1 TOTAL DEPTH 'a f*** .

DATE COMPLETED n a . *a'a DATE E LDGGED --

notes:

P rieie ere,.res . ... i., essi...ies ar se. serias -

dellied for contestasted battftll steds. *

, t y* l z- e 05 3 7U DESCRIPTION yy -

"O $ $ $ "

. ut014n TO COARSE 5ARD (SW): ye110stsh broen - ,

l

. *ltructural Sachtt11 laad* t t

I g

. . t j

1

- i 10 -

. =

51 $

eery sense .

Se TTE. St , ,

C 15 - -

~

h._53 . .~ i se . .

Q,-88 _ -

& 55

~

5. n- .

l 43 gy . -

E5ILYT CLAT (CM)4 stiff. Feddish brown e/stli

. lenses 0 il 58 . .

Dettee of Nele 9 24' . .

Il _ . . I

. i l

l SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2 BORIN3 h3. 306 FIGURE II.6 - 202

- , - , . . , , ,e - -,

BORING NO. w. m .oRiuG uo i:curo SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT $5 Y b- oES:RipTiou $$

80 N b h LOCATION COCRDIN ATES 3 f t..no - . 34isst

-- S LOCATION AREA .e... air.i-ri..tei.si avsiii. , si... . u.it t SURFACE ELEV. '8 5

s i. TOTAL DEPTH f1 f..t -

t DATE COMPLETED 27 er, ma DATE E. LOGGED --- -

l wons: n.i . ...... .. ..i.,...i .. .. ir-ar. i.,i.. : : ,

e e n i .e e. , . .. . . .. . .. . . . i n n . . ., . .

- y - :

g5 g g.b DESCRIPTION Ud -

=8 3 ME 3

.........i.n.. ....i .., ii... . ..

. ......, si..i ... s..i si. ...n. -

. siva to conse sa.: isvi: ,.u.. . 6,...

. ,; ,,,......i....,iii..... ;

i. -

dk2 ai >>

x I 7};

1 ss -

55 _

- - Ig i .. .e.. .f C<a11, Sah0 iSC) .

,, _ si<,, u., u.. ,,,,,. ,...... ..... .-

n .-

. .. .. ., ..i . e n -

n- . :

. 1 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

UNITS 1 & 2 BORlIG LOG NO. 307

~

FIGURI 11.6 - 203

w .oRiuG wo ico nwi BORING NO. w- ,- a =

.s y

o,j cEseRipTioN SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT #u I$ Eh

$. .a l

LOCATION COORDIN ATES t teasets . 'n uina -

f i

LOCAtl0N AREA perknetemi.rtertrical aestitor, tide. . Uatt t - .

SURFACE ELEY. *LS m e t- TOTAt. DEPTH _ 22 5 h" f DATE ColdPLETED 't nn ieta DATE E LOGGED "

1 i

i .

880TES: + field prepared tortas les destemated af 1s. sortes ,

d,iiied ,or .eni.ei..ied ..tte m ied i.

=8 a EE h DESCRIPT10'd a

d

~

. atalum TO C0 Asst laud (Su): ye11evtsh troen

[ ' structural lectft11 Sand' ]

g- .

= -

= .

~ .

10 "- .

il SI -

_ . eery dense ,

~

10 St ~_

is -

II

$ .~

g!'g_$4 .

7e 55 .

R 16 . i 3 in. sees of itse treated clay and send .

_- I w/19mestonej rsve) .

57 33 gg 10 - ."10 lum to Coaalt SAa0 (lub medive dense.yellest an treen.* *Steve tural tactfili lend'

-

lllTV CLAT (CN): eery stiff, reddish trewn af 9

. stit parttags

~

..tte. ef ..ie . :.i-rs-- .

i SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT l

UNITS 1 & 2 l BORIN3 LOG N3. 308

~

J FIG' RE )).6 - 2lW -.

BORING NO. ~ w g

.0mmG u0. < CONT u e SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT. $>j z

*J N E

zh oESCRipTiON @

J LOCATION COORDINATES r seanett ..uta.,

LOCATION AREA machetc.1.riertrirai a notene, ain. . n.ee e SURFACE ELEV. *a.s.*1- TOTAL DEPTH 'e*'** "

OATE COMPLETED 'a e** **'eDATE E LOGGED --- -

880TES: . et.1s pre,.ree 6.rt.,1., s ste.. .a e,.3,u. e.rt.

.c m .. v., ... ..... .. ... , m .t.., ,,, ...i1.it ,,,,.s. .,

. t.1 1., . . ... i s i . r i e s . .. i . . , t . t .. . . . . t.. ..t i e m . -

W E gj g z"h DESCRIPTlDie d -

8 3 85 5 :

- .EDIUM TO C0AR51 SARD (lv): yell.wish Dr.v.

- *1tructor.1 B.th,111 S..d*

~

=

10 - ,

". ei.id .. .,i...r -

..er's16.

11 11.f strutter .i.t.rer.t.ti..

stet 11 s..d 6. sed 2 1Are1= .

qTie!Ls.11ht.Ts h .

Is - *

"(See N.t.s)

I*I '

CLATET $ARD (5t): 6.rd. redetsh tr.s. 2 Td . ,_ . . .

Mtalum 10*CCAt$1 $A.0 ($W):

a 9,g 20 ,

_ _9f tuS 1.)5tfuttural Jattf f 0bell.stsh SILit CLAT (C : stlff. Feddish br.w.a4*. .

. i.ii.. ., ..i. . 0.i-W

.h ,

2% [

push s..pitag tube but t.uld *

. A.tt tee.ted.t.

. pe.str t. s.11.

l

" A t t..pt.d t. pu.sh s..p11 3 t.ube F.eder d 11..but.t..a.ld

.d

- ..,t

. pe..tr.,t.

s.. 1,. t. s e.tl.

l SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 1

UNITS 1 & 2 1

- BORIG LOG N3. 309 FIGURE 11.6 - 205 h

BORING NO* m. . $ g. BORING NO- (CONTb)

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT z *

$,8 E t@ DESCRIPTION 56 eir a $h j.g LOCATION COORDINATES _t 2944516 . a 361s43 LOCATION AREA Netantea1.f tectetcal Aestitary B1dg.. Unit 2 -

SURFACE ELEV. *e.5 .s.t. TOTAL DEPTH 18 4't -

~

DATE COMPLETED **' '*?*_ DATE E-LDGGED --- .

h0TES: atteld prepared bottog 1es destgaated ar tou. sertas dettled for contaetnoted battf t11 study for espitett purpose of -

e.ia ...g a. e.disi.r.ed saepie of .e to.iani.aied auf m. .

w E yk g g$ 3 (za C DESCRIPTION Uy ..

=8 3 ME 5 :

me chanica).flectrical Austitary 8183. Reta-

- farttag Steel and Seal Slat

" ~

atalVR TO COAT 11 5AND ($W): pelleetshe'reen

Structural Backft11 Sand * [

=

~

1; ". -

35 Field engteeers interpretatten of leser

. Itatt of structural backft11 sand based on .

wash seaples .

12 hard, reddish brown

}SANBfCLAY(CL):

u. -

~

Settee of hele 9 18' 70 - -

2 'M' .

-

Attempted to push sempiteg tube but could

. not penetrate soll, pe sered Itee en end .

ef temp 19mg tube. .

~

- Attempted to push sempling tube but sev1d

"_ .et pe.etrate sott.

35 -

l -

1

\

i SOUTH TEXAS PRORCT I

UNITS 1 & 2 BORIM LOG NO. 310 FIGURE 11.6 - 206 l

e BORING NO. _m w z- *oam$ a "ca m -

Wr d e Wo SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Sg 2' DE$calPTION $-

ev $ 8-LOCATION COORDINATES t toastse - a ! slate LOCAtl0N AREA rechanicat flectricet Austitary ties.. Vatt t SURFACE ELEV. **

s 1- TOYAL DEPTH _ 21 f"'

OATE COMPLETED Pr' m' DATE E-LDGGED -- ,

NOTES: e field prepared bortas les destgasted SF It. Sortas .

drilled for contentaated tattf t11 study. ,

73 3

=8 3 8E f [6 CESCRIPTION s .

. mechantcal Electrical Austitary lies. Seal -

, llee

" utClun 10 (CAR $[ sat 0 ($v): yelleetsh breve

, g "5tructorst Battft11 $ sad' e

=

10] -

h - . eery den.e ,

74 m - $2 -

- 15 - .

79 13 -

,in .. .

).e..e :

m ,, m , a.1, .tt, . re..... .re.. , :

so - .

Il 16 = .

: .ette. .. .sie . . .

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT l UNITS 1 et 2 i ram tac n. m FIGURE 11.6 - 207

A . A -6 i-4

-5:uth Texas Projar'. .

l 75-3008 Task 600l,, Subtask 6000H i

{

Extent of Contaminated Backfill e

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 4

e i

l:

l

\. dward.Clyde Consultants

5 08 as 6 00 Subtask 6000H Extent of Contaminated Backfill S AMPLE NO. SUMM ARY OF TEST RESULTS c%'!IU.* . "be'r'I"'

a'v'u"a

v'l5 *I. "EO*' 'd#5 ' '"

BF-190, T-3 Ya'.*v'N' saivsat 10.90 125.3

89.3 0.9504 2.80' 2.66 11.64 126.3 98.7 0.9425 0.326 e0=0.3247 Contaminated

'~- - Backfill N Depth =16 to 18 ft s

o 0.322 ]

a a \

e .

o 0.318

\

N x ,

\

%D x

~, ~

a l

0.310

'00 '****

e.1 1.o PRESSURE IN KSF CONSOLIDATION TEST LL = 31 PL = 10 PI = 21

_ _ _ FIGURE Bl__

South Texas Project Woodward Clyde Consultants 15-3008. Task 6000, Subtask 6000H Extent of Contaminated Backfill i

I l

sAuPLE No.

SUMMARY

OF TEST RESULTS . ,

BF-190, T-4 *, ay.c),;c .g;;uac,,, ,

o o a v,,,ff,*ir v.

a

,,ajo,c,r,n y,7,, ag;*ft o'd;.;' < a

'~" 8.79 129.5 82.9 0.9832 2.81 2.66 131.2 91.9 0.9701 "aa' 9.15 eg=0.2820 N

\

\' Contaminated 0.278 Backfill Depth =18 to 18.5 ft N

o b E \

N \

0.274 S \

R \

0.270

\ \

0.266

\)

N w

\

~ ~

~ _

% _ \

0.262 io.o ioo.o e.i i.o PRESSURE IN KSF l

l CONSOLIDATION TEST LL = 25 PL = 10 PI = 15 FIGURE B2

5.o dward Clyde Consultants 5 08 s 6 00 Subtask 6000H Extent of Contaminated Backfill s AurLg No. SUMM ARY OF TEST RESULTS '

gej;;uas,,, oav, offf nv. , ,a, ,a,c,ry g g,,

ag;yr oig,fraa BF-200 T-2 g cy,ic 124.8 74.6 0.9846 2.81

' ' " " ' 9.27 2.66 ' '

0.331 eg=0.3304 s

N N

N 0.327

\ Contaminated ,

Backfill

\ Depth =17 to 18 ft

\

S 0.323 \

s

\

I ; .

i 0.319

\

0.315

\

0.311

- ~ _

W- s

\ \

100.0 0.307 1.0 10.0 0.1 PRESSURE IN KSF CONSOLIDATION TEST l

LL = 22 PL = 10 PI = 12 FIGURE B3 v -. ----. -w, ,-~-,.-.m.,, -w,-

Form No. L% M GEOTECHNICAL 7P800(fccag)

DESZGN VERIFICATION FORM SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT Calculation No.: WCC- [dOO M Document

Title:

YheN ??kftlkke BC* YJAXoSY "$21Y L

~

(include revision number and date) LV,Ma/rg 7 ;

Document Author (s) /f/. ho .

DeshnVerifier(s) C#M6~#GdF~f _

Title'! $?/

Design Verifier (s) Signature MMMp gL jo,,j97,9 Date:

y Document Type (check 'one)

Engineering Report [ M c v [4 h [a.cAA Construction Specification Other (specify)

Type of Verification (check one)

" Expert" verification

" Peer" verification Method of Verification (check one or more)

[ Detailed review of Bocument statements.and backup files C Spot checking Alternate calculation Other (specify)

Results of Verification (check one)

O Approved with minor comments noted on Form DV-2.

Approved with major comments noted on Form DV-2.

Not approved because of major analytical errors.

1 1

- VERIFICATION CHECKLIST l

A. DESIGN INPUT Is the stratigraphy used in analyses consistent wit)

1. Soil data:

the pertinent (including the most recent) borings, test-pits, WOODWAFID-CLYDE CONSULTANTS

Revision 1, Deces.Lur 10, lasb Form No. DV-1. Page 2 trenches, etc.? Are the soil properties cited in the document consistent with laboratory test data? Is the laboratory test program consisten't with the various methods of analyses? If

'd.ata are referenced from another document, are tbu data still .

-purrent?

).

^

. 21)Ted/e. Z/ /ws hThis-checklistitemverifiedonpagesp$structurald(tasuchas Physical Structural Dat'a: Are pertinen 2.

building loads, building size, foundation elevations, correct I

and based upon current drawings? The document itself or its backup data should contain reference to structural drawing num-bers and their dates.

~

(This checklist item verified on page p.J [.JVg 7g.p. ).

~

3. Performance and Functional Requirements of Structures: Are performance requirements of structures (e.g. , maximum al-lowable differential settlement) correct and based upon current,

. documented information? Is the function (s) of a structure clearly described (e.g., a foundation supporting vibrating ma-chinery should be ide'ntified so correct analyses procedures can be used)? Have special performance criteria for Category I structures been identified?

(This checklist item verified on pages p .)'N((' ).

4. Environmental Data: If ground-water taBre data are pertinent, have they been correctly interpreted from measured values?

Have during-and-after-construction ground-water effects been considered? Are extreme climatic effects (e . g . , floods, ex-treme rainfall or drought) provided for in the analyses? Does the water table elevation (or other environmental data) have an appropriate degress of conservatism?

(This checklist-item verified on pages jgp-. I ).

5. Assumptions: Assumptions are those input data not supported !

- by drawings and specifications, laboratory data, or field mea-l

! surements; often, assumptions are referred to as!" engineering judgements". All assumptions should be clearly identified in WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS

~

ness 2en r,1 s..w .., .

Form DV-1 Page 3 the document itself together with their bases. The bases of the assumptions shall be reassessed by the verifier to ensure 1 that they are rea'sonable and consistent with other project documents.

(This checklist item verified on page /r PAL, Z- _

).

6. Standard or Codes: Are any standards or codes (i.e., ASTM laboratory testing procedures) appropriate and correctly refer-ences when used in the document? All codes or standards used for the office analyses, laboratory test procedures, or field specifications shall be referenced.

(This checklist item verified on pages

/

/k/Ihb ).

/

B. ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Methods of Analyses _: Is each analytical problem clearly identi-fled? Does the analysis procedure fit the problem? Are the analyses procedures at least briefly mentioned in the document and fully detailed with the backup calculations? If feasible, a good (if not the best) validation of a complicated analytical pro-cedure is a calculations based upon several simplifying assump-tions.

(This checklist item verified on pages IVjfjp. 2. ).

2. Interpretation of. Laboratory Results: As geotechnical analyses are often dependent on detailed appraisals of laboratory test results, interpretations of the more complicated laboratory tests (e.g. , consoli,dation and consolidated-undrained triaxial) shall be carefully checked by referring to graphical results of all applicable tests. Have a large collection of similar test results been reasonably and correctly interpreted?

)

(This checklist item verified on pages _ pF 9 _.

3. Engineering Experience: Just as engineering judgement is used in the determination of some design input (refer to item A.5, above), engineering experience is sometimes used as a part of

~

i I

WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS

, hevision U M L ., 2,,o Page 4 Form No. DV-1 an analysis procedure.. Engineering judgement might be used, for instance, where no closed-form mathematic solution or .

computer-aided analysis of a problem exists. Any engineering experience or' judgement used in an analysis shall be -clearly, noted in the document or its supporting material. The veri-fier shall validate that all such instances are reasonable in their context and the reasons for choosing a particular experi-ence-based analysis method are clearly stated; for instance, if experience is deduced from similar analyses reported in the literature, the pertinent literature sources shall be explicitly documented and interpreted.

(This checklist item verified on pages fAjP.[ Eb r [ )

4. Design Recommendations: Do the recomm[kbations clearly fol-low from the analysis procedures? Are recommendations pre-sented in a distinct manner not likely to be misinterpreted by subsequent plant designers? Are the recommendations reason-able with respect to input and engineering experience from other jobs? If specific construction materials are required to satisfy design assumptions, are material specifications cited in the document text?

(This checklist item verified on pages II ).

5. Field Monitoring of Design: Because of rGe empirical nature of some geotechnical design procedures, field data collecting during and after construction is necessary. Field data may also be require,d to establish precise control over a construc-tion process (e . g. , the ground-water level, which is drawn down during construction, may be raised or lowered slightly depending upon the results of field settlement or heave measure-ments). If field measurements are described in the document, are they needed and practical to obtain? The criteria for ana-

. lyzing the field data shall be presented in the document together with the reasons for requiring field instrumentation. Does the instrumentation monitor the parameters most critical to suc-cessful structure performance? Is additional field instrumen-tation necessary? .

(This checklist item verified on pages jd' )

l -

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS

Eevision 1,"ta cL..Le t ' 2 0, u,u Form No. DV-1 Page 5 c' . 's C. DOCUMENT PRESENTATION

l. Organization: Make any comments about the overall report or-Are the tables and figures ganization that improve its clarity.

readily understood and correctly referenced? Is the -logic flow from input data to design recommendations clear to the reader?

(This checklist itiem verified on pages afdh ).

rr

2. Editorial Comments: Edif.orial/ typographical mistakes will generally be handled by the document author. Any that are no-ticed, however, should be noted on Form DV-1.

)

(This Checklist item verified on pages l

D. OTiiER REMARKS _

e

[4 [I"E dd .

9 WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS

Item 1: ECW Pipeline Soil Profiles -

HL8P was requested to provide the following information related to the Essential Cooling Water (ECW) pipeline soil profiles:

a) The South Texas Project (STP) position on the boring spacing requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.132, b) An ovaluation of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results with blow counts less tha.n 10 (N values) in the subgrade below the ECW pipeline, and c) A drawing depicting the location of the , borings identified in ST-HL-AE-855 relative to the ECW pipeline.

(

e I

RESPONSE . .

Item la: Regulatory Guide 1.132 Based on the numerous borings drilled at the STP site and as evi:denced by the regional and site geologic studies presented in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), the geology is uniform within the STP site and only minor local variations exist within the individual strata. Therefore the intent of the Regulatory Guide 1.132 Appendix C requirement is met. The requirement states:

" Principal borings: This (spacing) may vary depending on how well site conditions are understood from other plant site borings. For variable conditions, one per 100 linear feet (30 linear meters) for buried pipelines...."

As stated, the subsurface conditions are uniform (not variable); therefore, one boring per 100 linear feet would not be the requirement and a greater

. spacing is permitted. A lesser frequency of borings, as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.132 for uniform conditions, would accordingly be appropriate. Note that in addition to the borings obtained a continuous geologic mapping trench was excavated between Unit I and the Essential Cooling Pond, approximately following the ECWS piping alignment (PSAR Figure 2.5.1-45, attached).

The design phase subsurface investigation program was supplemented by geo-logic mapping and geotechnical engineering foundation verification performed on the piping trenches during construction. The basic intent of the veri-fication program is to determine and document that the foundation is of the quality evaluated in the design work and meets the desion criteria.

Heave /settlenent monitoring field instrumantation was also installed during construction of the piping to allow observation of the soil behavior.

The geologic mapping and foundation verification programs (

Reference:

FSAR Appendices 2.5.A and 2.5.B) provide documented assurance that the soil stratigraphy and parameters satisfy the design basis, at all locations. As of this date (August 1982), the mapping and verification has not shown anv anonalous conditions. The results of these construction phase field studies will be presented in the appendices to FSAR Section 2.5 as part of future amendments.

The overall geotechnical program for STP provides sufficient information for evaluation of subsurface conditions along the ECW piping alignment and j conforns to the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.132. Furthermore, Regulatory Guide 1.132 " Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev. 0) was applicable only to construction permit applications docketed after June 1,1978, or for evaluations of foundation investigation results obtained after that date. The corresponding date for the current revision

. (Rev. 1) is March 30, 1979. Because subsurface investigations for STP were conducted in 1973 and 1974 and the construction permit application was docketed on July 5,1974, Regulatory Guide 1.132 did not govern the STP subsurface investigation program. l l

1 2

Item Ib: Evaluation of-SPT Results Underneath the ECW Pipeline The NRC requested an evaluation of the SPTs with blow counts (N values) less than 10 blows per foot found in subgrade materials below the ECW pipeline.

the subsurface conditions in the pipeline area were reviewed to the top of the D layer. A copy of the subsurface profile developed along the ECW ,

pipeline is presented in the Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. The soil conditions illustrated by the soil profile are summarized and presented in Table 1-1.

A total of 240 SPTs were made.in layers A1, A2, B and C. The ECW Pipeline is :

founded in the A2 layer. The A2 layer is cohesive therefore the resultant blow counts are not of major concern in this layer. Of the 80 SPTs conducted in the B layer, 21 had blow counts of 10 or less. A review of the 21 low SPT results (10 blows or less) reveals that 19 SPTs were performed on cohesive materials which are medium stiff to stiff and therefore are no major concern to the stability of ECW pipeline foundation. All of the SPT results for the C layer, silty sandy, were 12 blows per foot or greater.

The two low blow counts in Boring 121 are identified in the B layer as sandy silt. The 4 blow count test is immediately beneath the A2 layer, silty clay, and above an 18 blow count test, sandy and clayey silt. The 9 blow count test is between the 18 blow count, sandy silt and clayey silt, and a silty clay layer. Laboratory test results show that the 18 blow count test material is cohesive. Further, the low blow count materials occur in isolated zones and not in continuous layers. The zones of low blow counts will be inspected in the field during foundation verification. Should layers of loose sandy silt or soft clay be encountered within 2 feet below the ECW subgrade, then these layers will be over excavated and replaced with compacted granular fill as specified in the specification for structural excavation and backfill (Bechtel, TPNS No. 3Y069YS043).

Because the low blow counts are isolated, the stress developed by the weight of the pipe and the backfill will not create an engineering concern regarding differential settlement.

4 3

1 1

Item Ic: ECW Pipeline Boring' Plan The ECW Pipeline Boring Plan is shown in Figure 1-4. i 4

l l

e .

4

l. I.

1 f

$i t i

.N ies I

. )' .> eus l " "

.:> n mec l(' "

i } 8U h,

, i : j\s i6 ,

"a ,

};/ I hl 2%;

j (l .h!:\

L l

I l) saj

p sf **

l} , N., I :* E

. i

l k[f'y n f

l i I

s. : 11

, i 1 - .

3

> i i ll *L.*l's ij '. hrii!!!!! g j[l' ~. la h iM ! .

it l l )-

fj l 'i lIIlt DEW }!! t P]d

,3 !

s.

.s j. :it; i ,i(lail Les

. t ' dit

- ses I

!: :-.s y ,:+ ,-

i. *

)!;;

N l

?

'}i3

' \}') g ~,' : e.: ..=.-.

i, N. .'

l '(

\'x i

! :4 , i :c l i i ii! L! ! !:j r]

i, is ,. !' . .!rii'li ji,!'I' ', , t, bih i

I ,!,!

~

' Ij 3 .s j '

i ;

//

('U i t 1

} h;) ilth,,;.

i 1

. i[;

1

l.,

I

-l E2 0 .Il . ~ ..--

-/: . IM i

'l :: 1: 11 .! . i f

!!/:

a : : : -

. . q :

'i 3

o

};

a 3 s: :

} .! 1

f: i r. j ! j ,' ; g ; (gg (; l g

] gnch @.

8 I

) e, 1 a

}

s:i!! .I .I !. ..~. i6 .!!

.i i f h':l 1 ! !.'!I *!:!ir \: 1 : s!! 3 W

-ij: 'I ,, . ( ' -' i \ l. / -!

j

'" ill }l/ -f$ -!

. /

,.p'

..x l .,

i t) ;! l }y r n. i I'i Ii4'.I > :s s

. Iin g I' I'../ , ;.. i .

t!'.

,1, sa :; ! .f 5 : ,4 ..

\\

. i./.

i . : i . ..

. //y,../ ./

i ! 9l .!:

l:l' i //!. j '.

', l' T ;g i l 1: . !. .i [) '/ g

{j i

i i- : !-

Et J

! I

' :!le -

l ;@!!'.'-

-A E T I 1 g ! !!s I'k !

}, lt I

>s j ii'li!p J

6,$! T3 l

g d- 3 l

.. I . .F.I e

! );; . li:\ ] i.li.

/I } . ! [I' -

f 1i k $$}.

l5hNY lf:::. h

,, t. ; , -

n:.

\

s ell$_! ; i T. ).,.:. i

, i I I .I _-e .3 f, k is .

.----/,

i

%v. .

t *r .

.1 i j i 'g' ii l

\

l 1! fI-l f!!)g ,i is

~

it i

1. -Et<i Y'es .- .I;g'l :i i

i !

li

~

.< 1 il il :i!i.I l

-s 11 I bf3 4/ N.

J i.

\ -'

u- %Is} -t 1

, 9

.t v

-', \

)/ L l! 4in t 1 T\ il -s ! ..%.- .l. V.4 =

! .I i\...

I h.!!!

yr.+. i.l t ' 3 3

'i i

J s i

!! ,t!!,f, is i

r.

! is i

}i 4I i r s \\, . :: e.V.

!7 l Li %1

/?' Ti e *

3 . . . i .1 c u i u i . . i >_

i.. F 1

ua v.i * *

..~, - ;jI . - , - .

3f .. l eo -w-

_ l i 8i Me.I _ lg gid . !ll!!!

i.

l;upl 16 j

, ll g, ,

l 7). .

I

.Y i

js >

s2 .i.r sil-l m.

i v

I v

t v

t

......f.

!t t

?

t I'

t

!I !i

! t t

!t

!i c

)

l I e .s 4 .

k Al't(\. .W. N, .g. I, e s E 4

f I Y T & I h l

. . .t . . . . . . . . .; lpp .

iS.,.,pm,

. . . m... . . m.... .x. .. .m. . . .N. m. . . . .\m. ,m.. m.\. m. w...me., m. \.w.w.;

g y

l l . *

! ! 'si ia I ! l I

! I I I j m o . .. . \t ,

g E],2h s.% M....$.......o

'EE.

t wwyN. N. .N. N. .\.w. . .AN. :.l

.' T. . t :. t\!/t\! 1 ! ! !!

sdcFx,m,e m:. wwa '

=g (

esmwwmvewwwe;

(

y ) a

. ij il gg I

,i ,r i .

""f e

[ !! O ! er '! I !. .I

'i e !! li i! !!

4liii u ini; pI (E ,a I il I ;r!

d

.i il s

PI

. e qi l ~.

9(

I l i. l.i i is li

! If i.l li l i i Oj b P, yt 9 fj 1.,1! ! ! !'

, !li

J . , a . . s . 's3 . a a s . . .E

.LN.R Rl$< M.m.\\\wN\\ l\W\V2RB, ,Ij

== 0 ' ,

I*i.ihN..AN.

. .N.M. . .

Y N s ** 4 k n

.ql e . .f . . I ,e . I ',s a e E

=

Ettih M, . .M. . ,i E 3 Es' )

A.N. \. .M. f.5.... .. .~.

c. r . .

. . . it .;

b b h k h h k k k !! !! ll k- k- k- k-Ir ,,,.: ,,..;,

- . . . - . - . . . . . . _ . . . - - - . . . - - ~ . - - - - - - - - -

e f

s

~

- - ,e < .x

qw > p .; 1... ~; s.g .4 ,p m -m Je i

j $@I.l, A-

,g Y. dr l ing t g il .

&[riE I,f -*,: j- ~F

! s d ,y i ,

n 1 iLe_d .../ k el ;!gg .

I i,

_g-

.JP l mL L;ri !d.g.! ..'..' .

g

. I ld, .i =

iii. . g .

Agi j.m i I g a

al !.,,E-ll ==

p t I i

e f

i i

f e

f

!f !I i

i t

!I

!t

! i

!I l il .

.!! 8a 8 ,863 a 4,

. f

. . {sd ,, g MM i .. s 4. th..,j -

l ~

e . c..

[l ,

f - .

[

f I sa sh s e e a s $

2 s s is mw j :.n

,.u F .m... .. w.....t. w.. .....s.. m. . . . m.

gg

. . . w. . w . w.. w. w. w . m.. x. gg;g g. . w . w.

I ,

/ i l!!

31 i

e o-1 i

it lI i; i tl!

s W

G e ' hl i , .:

iri !!

- a !: ,11, c;e : i i.

i i

l.i!-

I

! !) !s J'!

1 ike n a, f't! ;- ::

l lf

- F N Fg . .E I43 pl

'j i ~ 8 I t1 j!!

i ; ! : ;

l 5 E 't j' ,

5 l gg y a ,, s i j .

gs g e a ! e ]

til : i - i s.i ! i ,, .

s-v L . ! .. i: B

. 9:3 %. ".....a.....g.................

, . 6 , a . .v g e m w xgg m s.sa;;.

" e e

a ...: ,..a

]

.....-.....M..==..-=.....-..--.--=====

. - - ~ - . . . . _ . .

e. - . . _ -

. _.t I' I L@d ] i

[ f Id lI I b. e'

-0.- g=ll lloslt i.s !:

.l 4,:g*i;g;f-l..;ime.,g

!! I a u.an n ry e ' *g . ',

9 ! ! ! !. If I E I I E a.

I- ~,i i i e i i i iiiiiiiii i c

a I. E$ s ! I "

!att*Is 9 NH. f 155 : .

AYc. .. . i.i,J t

. i

8 .

- i. .

I ,I

, -. . ;, l *i =

m a i.. , , f. . . .

L g 3 E,$[2N. .:.h.. .N..T. ...

A. . .. .NA.N.=.1. \. .\N.El g

,, i,

- !, . I

i i .

. i. ,

e i e,.,+' ,\m l T

in'

[I it g

i n

m

. gi

1 1 N

! H. m' a a si ! -

2: :

41 a - - /

' *1' i i irit !' :'

e t si. i i .

. ' I'! !$ ! !(!

'If! !!i .

s.a =u [cs e tm::.... a : :::ioxx:::xw::.:n\x\xxxxxwssm.

g p- t y

8 y y :

i -

i s.

$a ! ill!

. I y g! 3 im *

$! is i ! E li .i:

a ,

i!

I8 I:

c '

d 3 d a

~

2 u,i. lld..3 T! .. =

. . \a,.

i . ,e

!8iic., hM. =.EE. N.f.x. ::...

',R g

EE

......:J.A.g\.Y\\.\\\.h\\.\\\.

. \NE \\.\\\. \'

e

$$.$N.1; j r .

a '

\ l1 i a j

1 , ,

E s s .es e a s . n . . .s a .I u

5c.,*ii f A. .O.%..=.EE. .W.::.':.:.:

. .. N. :.\. h. .N. .E 22 A. .N. .x.lJ I

e i . . . . . . i i .. ...

~? Y 9 9 : : : :

I E I E* E*

.4 au. u in

~

,~ . . . - - . - . . . . . . . .

- ' . . . - _ . _ ' . . ' ..' _ ' . . _ . . . . - i ---

N s

-4 .*M.t ,g,,

9 e_1 e- -- --w - - - - ew y-T

g 58- I %

y j se s,3 :

w

o s 8E O k I e ; ac N *

}

, g.

nEs t : t g a. g t=l I e E ,

5 i ;

E e -- 5:li j x gl ; I l -

m 0_-2 ['e'

=a[.I w

41 lr.

2 i

g' I

s E

l so bZ 5 1 Z

3 *I-Et

,> w e E {r y{ {I -

,J !" , * ~= $ t I 'k

~

g vs

. I s. i . L i n a

< ji 3c,., E..

3.go ooa ec+4 gl l s = 1,

! ~.

,1

.,/

'l i

[ ,1 El.,

/ -

I

.",, '///,/

3 1g_!

/

/ i

.[ i's E

l .

l

\. .

_ /

l

[// ! "* ! "gg / i.

- 5

/ .~/ / i i- e e

a r . r

/

i-i 4 l) a '/ s 5

g... AE.}X . ' , g , ,, ,

A 8- 4 s. -

. . J' i ". .

E.

! :. - - 3F:,-

<% E.

i

\a e .

i

\ ;^

n. e. , d i. \

~. O *g

c. t I ,. g_

_ g_

h e !, i5 Et I =*

=

, E, ? ,

s I

"'- hl t

~

si .

3

. . .. z: . . ,1, , se %.... A J' _ l , .

= .

L=

. '. cr =\ '

. ". ^~p.b % f- '; ,y 3 E' f g E , t E' /

-....lE g

. . . : ; @s,g .

s

. .. _ _ . . : !. Si I

).

a.

=.

=. ! .

e ;E.. .

e e .* _ =.- - >

i

, - _.m. . P

= .,

p{ h n =

..aaq g g ,

. , , , ,i '

i 8 8 N j,E= E 3.E,J E i

Is t E. . o I.

i-33 3

i e r

I u *1 0 * /~e E 3

- .ue e

I* s ?[ j g

~

===.-.

e (1 ! W.,f4

! [o.3 '

~~ l i g. ; e 8 1 l diT

-- :4= -

k...___, I*

E. ._______.I. ,

d1r ~,

I _

~ s E 2 .E <e*

I g

t -

<h

${g

.i t;'

l R.t R l, 1

s 1

.l

TABLE l-1 GENERAL FOUNDATION CONDITION - ECW PIPELINE i SPT-Blow Cotmts Soil Approximate F,ag ge Averace Unified Classification Percent Clay Layer Type Depth Range (ft) . Low W High . Value (Field) -

(Laboratory)

From-to A} Silty 0-8 4 7 5 CH 73 ,

clay A Silty 8-25 7 26 12 CH 49-59 t 2

clay -

B. Sandy Silt 25-35 4( ) 39 14 ML 9-16 !

Clayey Silt ML-CL '

Silty Clay CL '

C. Silty 35-45 12(3) 125 60 SP-SM 2-6 sand

%, a

?

i Notes:

1. Low blow counts in isolated zones.

2. Encountered in isolated condition in Boring 101 only.

3. Encountered in isolated cohesive zones within Layer C sand. (See Boring 160).

. 8

1 L

Item 2: Boundaries of the Four Low- Density Backfill Areas NRC requested that HL&P provide a discussion of the actual backfill construction sequence to explain how the boundaries of the four identified low density areas were established.

RESPONSE

A special investigation including a two-phase boring program was conducted in 1980 to verify the backfill, compaction adequacy and the measurement and

~

mapping of compacted lift thicknesses in open excavations at the site.

The fifteen original boring locations (part of Phase I) are shown on Figure 2-1. These borings were designated as 101 through 106 (Unit 1), and 201 through209(Unit 2). To gain additional information or samples, other borings were drilled for both phases in the vicinity of those shown. They were given the same base numbers, but with various suffixes (e.g., 205A, 205B,205-V1,etc).

Phase I Borings Twenty-one borings were drilled and 288 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the structural backfill during the period of January 28 to February 8,1980. Out of the 288 SPTs conducted, only eight indicated relative density less than the 80 percent minimum construction control

~

criteria (as determined using the Gibbs and Holtz correlation of SPT N-values versus relative density). These eight tests showed four potential problem areas with relative densities less than the construction quality control criteria.

Phase II Borings Twenty-eight additional borings were made during the period of March 24 to April 11,1980, to better define the horizontal and vertical extent of those areas and zones identified in Phase I with densities less than the construction quality control criteria.

Unit 1-Results from Boring Program Within the Unit I area, results of the SPTs indicate that the structural backfill equals or exceeds the construction quality control criteria of 80 percent relative density, as determined using the Gibbs and Holtz correlation.

Unit 2-Four Potential Problem Areas Four small areas within the Unit 2 area have relative densities (based on the Gibbs and Holtz correlation) less than the construction quality control criteria. The relative locations of these areas are generally situated as follows (refer to Figure 2-1):

1) Area 1. West of Unit 2 Reactor Containment Building , adjacent to Tendon Gallery Access (Boring 204 area)

2) Area 2. Northwest of Unit 2 Reactor Containment Building (Boring 205 area) 5

~

3) Area 3. Ea'st of Unit 2 Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building ;

(Area of borings 208 and 209)

4) Area 4. West of Unit 2 Fuel Handling Building (Boring 203 area) -

For each of the potential low density. areas, a comparative evaluation of the boring logs and the backfill construction documents was made to compare the in-situ density test results with the SPT data at similar depths. The construction document's were researched for evidence of any anomalous fill conditions or construction practices which locally might have affected backfill density at the point of the low SPT blow count. Boring logs were reviewed and discussed with cognizant on-site personnel to ascertain whether blow counts might have been affected by drilling practices or anomalies at the test boring locations (i.e. SPTs taken adjacent to subgrade cut slopes).

Evaluation of Test Data in Areas of Potential Low Densities t

Area 1.

~

Area 1 has an extent somewhat larger than any of the other areas and has several isolated zones and pockets with indicated densities less than the construction quality control criteria. The locations of the zones within i Area 1 with low densities are shown on Figure 2-2. The area is within the local excavation approximately 70 feet. for the Test Reactor Boring No. Containment 321 (WCBV-204 Building)at showed a depth low blowof counts in two of the lowermost three lifts above subgrade.

From construction records, it appears that lengthy exposure and consequent sloughing of excavation slopes during inclement weather and relaxation of the foundation subgrade resulted in an irregular subgrade surface. The subgrade 4

and the slopes had to be repeatedly reworked. Trimming of the slopes created near vertical slopes of varying height. Static compaction was performed to avoid further sloughing. In the southern portion of the area between the RCB Tendon Gallery Access shaft and the local excavation slopes, the required

, rework and over excavation of the natural subgrade lead to placement of the first lift to a maximum thickness of 2.5 feet in the southern portion; while, in the northern portion of this area, the first lift was only one foot thick.

The lift was not tested where the construction difficulties occurred. This lift was also static-rolled, because of concern over possible subgrade ,

4 pumping through the fill and slope sloughing. Lift No. 2 and three subsequent lifts were placed atop Lift No. 1. Backfilling.was then halted l -for some three months, and fill material already placed was removed down to Lift No. 2 before placement of-Lift No. 4. Possibly, Lift No. 2 was disturbed by removal of the overlying backfill. No density test is recorded for Lift-No.4; it appears that no test was required based upon the area of j that placement on that day.

' Additional test borings in this area showed a few scattered low blow counts .

higher in the. fill (up to Elevation -27.8). These generally occurred I

. adjacent to vertical subgrade cut slopes where compactive effort may have :

been low in isolated areas of small extent.

4 1

, 6 7

i i

~

The densities as indicated by the SPTs are rather variable within the area of concern and can predominately be contributed to two causes: first, the too thick and statically rolled first lift; and second, the difficulties experienced adjacent to the near vertical, sloughing slopes. HL&P believes that the combination of difficult construction conditions experienced in this area are unique and should be treated separately from the overall evaluation of the backfill conditions. The Expert Committee also concluded that the area 1 conditions are unique (Expert Committee Report, Page 28).

The boundaries of Area 1 are well defined by the excavation slope, the structure, and the borings, and the conditions within the area were defined by the extensive boring program as shown in Figure 2-2.

Area 2.

Area 2 lies northwest of the reactor containment building, where 1 low blow count was recorded for Boring No. 322 (WCBV-205) in Lift Nos. 25 and 26 (Figure 2-3). Subsequent borings show that the possible low density area is limited to these lifts and is only some 6 feet by 10 feet in extent. The 6 foot width was assumed based on the dimensions of the vibratory roller, while the 10 foot length was estimated simply based on the assumed limits midway between borings. Construction records indicate that structural backfill was halted and temporary backfill was placed atop Lift No. 26 in June of 1978; the temporary backfill was removed about two weeks later and permanent backfill placement resumed. Possibly some disturbance of these upper two lifts occurred with removal of the temporary backfill.

Area 3.

Area 3 is east of the machanical electrical auxiliary building, where borings showed low blow counts in two small isolated areas within Lift No.11 ,

(Borings 325 (WCBV-208) and 326 (WCBV-209), Figure 2-4). From the boring !

logs, it' appears that these two test holes penetrated lift No. 11 immediately I adjacent to the subgrade cut slope where compactive effort may have been l locally low. Although these two borings are only about 65 feet apart, standard penetration resistances in the two subsequent adjacent holes indicate relative densities exceeding the quality control criterion; the areas with low blow counts thus appear to be isolated and few feet in extent. The verification borings were laid out parallel with the subgrade benches and placement / compaction orientation.

Area 4.

In Area 4, southwest of the fuel handling building, Boring No. 320 (WCBV-203) showed low blow counts in two widely separated lifts (Figure 2-5). The deeper of these penetrated lift No.1 immediately above subgrade. This lift varied from approximately 12 to 18 inches thick at the boring location, and -

was static-rolled due to concern over possible subgrade pumping through the fill. The relative density was apprcximately 78 percent. The shallower of the two low blow counts occurred within Lift No. 16. The approximate relative density was also 78 percent. The limits for the lower zone were controlled to the south and west by the excavation slope and to the east by the adjoining restricted area placements against the Fuel Handling Building.

7

I i

The northern limit was' assume'd midway between borings. The low density in the upper zone was not verified by the two adjacent borings. The length of the zone, following the building and excavation geometry, was assumed midway between the borings. The width was, as in the other cases, assumed to be approximately 6 feet based on the roller size.

Table 2-1 gives the field boring and corresponding FSAR boring number, elevations, and coordinates.

Summary Backfill with indicated density less than the construction quality criteria has been encountered in two generalized groups, namely adjacent to cut slopes or the subgrade and in isolated pockets within the backfill.

Area 1 and the lower zone of Area 4 exemplify cases in which the subgrade or excavation slope probably contributed to the backfill conditions. These

~

areas are well defined by the excavations, structure locations, and borings.

It is unlikely that similar areas would be found within the interior portions of the backfill. ,

Area 2 and the upper zone of Area 4 exemplify small isolated pockets of material in the interior of the backfill with densities less than the construction quality control criteria. Area 3, with two separate isolated pockets, is sinilar but influence from the subgrade cannot be precluded as the indications occurred within the first lift. It is important to note that the initial low density indications in these areas were only repeated in one instance (Area 2), which provides further evidence of the very limited extent of these pockets. The probability of occurrence of pockets of backfill with densities less than the construction quality control criteria is further discussed in the following.

Because the low density backfill occurs only in isolated pockets, settlement due to compression of the backfill is not a problem.

8

I

~

Overall Backfill Relative Density Evaluation Statistical analyses show that the probability of low density material within the structural backfill mass is very low. Thepgobabilityofbackfill with a relative density less than 70 percent is 1 x 10 ,andthepgobability of back 11 with a relative density less than 60 percent is 1 x 10 to 1 x 10- .

The review of the pla' cement data and information showed that finite layers were placed thus large zones do not exist. The liquefaction evaluation (Expert Committee Report, Page 45) shows that small areas or small masses with relative densities of 60 percent to 45 percent will not liquefy and affect the safety and operation of the plant.

The evaluation of the backfill adequacy was based on judgement as well as the statistical postulated likelihood of existing randon pockets of backfill with relative densities less than 80 percent.

Two statistical analyses were made on the field density test data obtained during construction of the structural backfill. One analysis was made on all

'of the Category I backfill placed within the plant area. The other analysis was made on density test results for fill placements penetrated by the initial boring progran compared to all Category I backfill in order to evaluate the representativeness of the initial boring program.

The purpose of the first statistical analysis was to determine the probability distribution of in-place relative density of Category I structural backfill materials for the different building areas of Units 1 and

2. The probability distribution of relative density was to be used in evaluating the likelihood that the relative density at some locations could be below certain values.

The data base for the statistical analysis was the final in-place density test results used for acceptance of the backfill, expressed in percent Relative Density. The data pertained to backfill placements made through July 1980, subdivided according to units and building areas as follows:

1. Containment Area

2. Pedestal Area

3. Fuel Handling Building Area

4. Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building Area

5. Diesel Generator Building Area The pedestal area is the backfill soil beneath the Containment Building surrounded by the tendon gallery. Each data set was analyzed separately so that individual buildings could be evaluated.

9

e

The field quality control specification criteria required at least one field density test per 20,000 ft. (which corresponds to one test per approximately 1.100 cubic yards of fill when placed in layers not more than 18 inch loose thickness) of each lift in unrestricted areas. In restricted areas, at least one field density test was required for each 200 cubic yards. All' building' Category I backfill had an acceptance criteria of a minimum relative density of 80 percent. If upon testing, the fill did not meet this requirement, the ,

entire work area or placement area was recompacted until repeat tests showed '

a passing result.

The number of field density tests used in the first statistical analyses was 2813. This is approximately one test per 250 cubic yards of structural backfill placed (as of July 1980).

The analysis showed that a shifted lognormal nodel would fit the test data reasonably well. The best estimate is that 93.4 to 98.7 percent of the volume of the structural backfill in the various building areas is expected to have relative densities of 80 percent or greater. The best estimate for the entire plant area is the 96.4 percent of the structural backfill volume

, is expected to have a relative density of 80 percent or greater.

Correspondingly, the exDected probability of random portions of the fill having a relative density less than 80 percent ranged from 1.3 percent to 6.6 percent for the different building areas in Units 1 and 2. The overall weighted average probability was found to be between 3.2 percent and 4.0 percent, indicating that the variance of this probability is very small.

The statistical probabilities are very low that random portions or pockets of

, backfill may have relative densities less than 70 or 60 percent. The weighted average probability is less than 0.1 percent that random pockets of backfill could have relative density less than 70 percent, and the progabilityof_yelativedensitylessthan60percentisextremelylow(1x 10 to 1 x 10 ). The results are shown by the probability distribution curves of Figure 2-6.

The second statistical analysis included two sets of data to evaluate the representativeness of the backfill conditions at the original fifteen Phase I boring locations. The data sets were:

a) Relative density data from in-place density tests for all backfill placements penetrated by the boringt, including placements in which no SPT was taken due to the sampFna interval (called the large data set).

b) Relative density data from in-place density tests involving only backfill placements penetrated by SPT (called the small data set). This data set is a subset of the large data set.

l l

i 10

I Statistically, the two sets of SPT related data (large data set and small data set) both have essentially the same distribution as the distribution obtained from the first analysis based on all final in-place density acceptance tests. The results are shown by the probability distribution curves of Figure 2-7. This close similarity demonstrates that the 288 SPT .

results obtained at the original 15 boring locations are representative for-the conditions of the entire plant area backfill.

Note that based on the statistical analysis of the in place density tests approximately 3.2 percent to 4.0 percent of the in place backfill could be expected to be below 80 percent relative density. Thus, out of the 288 SPTs performed in Phase 1 of the boring program, between nine and eleven SPTs could be expected to show results below 80 percent relative density. This is consistent with the results of the Phase 1 boring program in which eight of the 288 SPTs showed results below 80 percent relative density.

11

1 f

--- c

-*- a t..___.

/- f

- t m

o. '

N w _- _ i,. . . :. .- .

p=@ .

1.j g ,

i <

3

~

W l j .s

.,,. ,......_n _ .a _n.... ..t_ yw . -

~,

- - 7:. -.. -

,, , , .u.

.i:----

.. .. .. ._i_. . . . .. .... .. .a[!!

\

~

i ,,,,,,,

l a <.I. .. .. . ,

.) I,l .) !! .

t I

i, o :::' r., o ::.!.b .

y. swp

!!,i

j g.)

\

~

? N- i- !.!!. r r4@ I' i

?

!! L -

d: i=4 .

}- 106 @

d t 206 .

iir 5 l o I $.. '7! D:P,sps A

=.. ET!i,ii p Y- i c

~

-s 20 usls Y?.. st __.e

/. .\

k./

.-e- 204.0 -

,;.gs,.;M.i oW

_- . ?*

g .

.,T -

?.

< -208 f ;' 103 !"--~~~.

203 E */209',Q_1 ! @

k */

[4..

IN 2y 2 -..

102* E _,p

' i :. :n ,

._;iii a

...t

. : 8Cb

,s.

. =... ,

=-

gp.. .. 7.4._.m. :, ,

/ : . ,

s_q. ;g.=- = = = = == = = = 4. .... p: '

.!! .n..a. .n< l l j

, i i. m,,. __

/TI I

uu. . ,H,,H. N i.iii.!!!!J I. ...... f._

c..u., .......i,

_ a. . -->-B

---> C LEGEND (1) Reactor Containment Building (2) Tuel Handling Building sea (3) Electrical Auxiliary Building aco 400 ,

(4) Mechanical Auxiliary Building O_ _ scatt.rtc7 (5) Turbine Generator Building (6) Diesel Generator Building O soil Boring .. . .

Location NOTES-(1) Borings with A, B and V suffixes drilled in vicinity 'of other boring with same boring number, eg. , 205, S0Il BORING LOCATION PLAN f 205A, 205s and 205v1. see rigures l .

2, 3, 4 and 5 for detailed boring FIGURE 2-1 l

i location plan in Unit 2. ,

t

~ . .. . . - . . .

l Q 16 V g(

V17 ' Limits of zone with a k vg4 density less than N $ s construction quality contro)

__ s criteria.

j p .

g ra O. ' s en y13 g endon T Gallery Access O s Yll

.A N ,

V15

\

VO

\

V10

'h 5VO

\

V1 V2 l h sss 9 s11 s A N V9 204B bsODY gv0 V12

$ 204 . $V7 Eroded Bottom o,f Slope 204A D V8 V5 g U Original Top -

of Slope--

E a

$ N61, 475

LEGEND A El -27.8 to -30.8 ft SCALE 9 El -31.8 to -32.8 ft G El -36.7 to -37.8 ft FO L-;

Y El -38.8 to -39.9 f t 0 20 40 feet Q El -40.8 to -41.9 f t A El -41.4 to -42.4 f t and El -42.8 to -43.8 ft ,

l 4 Boring location Q Indicates standard penetration test performed in structural backfill had a standard penetration resistance less than 80s relative density.

LOCATIONS OP ZONES WITHIN AREA 1 WITH A DENSITY LESS THAN CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA FIGURE 2-2

p 205V1

- U N -

S . x . . '

5 M N 61,659 .

( - -.

s I

I 1

I I

-l Lisnits of zone with a l g density less than j construction quality

.205B l control criteria.at g g

. approximately El -8.

I 1 205V2 g 205V3 l l I i i

j Y'5 i I I .

L ._ _ _ _ _ _ _J

$ 205A h Berting Location .

. - Indicates standard penetration test performed in boring had a standard penetration resistance less than 80% relative density in structural backfill.

0 2 4 6 feet r

! NOTE:1.) Borings 2054 205A and 205B were drilled as part of the initial structural backfill study.

2JSee Page 3/5 for discussion.

3.) Limits of zone approximately midway between borings or to structural boundary.

[

l l

BORING LOCATION PLAN APIA 2 l

i FIGURE 2-3

l

. 1

( - - .

~

. h 208V1 Limits of zone *

?- , with a density !

3 css than .

208 construction

{

l- - s' quality control criteria at 208v2 approximately E1 -1.

Steep Slope Approx:1 1/2:1- # $

J-n '

" E 209V1 Limits of zone W N 61,364 F with a density l

I I

h 09 less than construct} ion quality control criteria at approximately 09V E1 -1.

g

. Shallow Slope h Boring Location Indicates standard penetration test performed in boring had a standard penetration resistance less than 801 relative density

. in structural backfill.

0 10 20 30 40 feet

_ _ . ~_-- H NOTE: 1.) Borings 208 and 209 were drilled as part of the initial structural backfill study.

2JSee page 3/5 for discussion.

3JLimits of zone aporoximately midway between borings or to structural boundary.

BORING IOCATION PLAN AREA 3

. FIGURE 2-4

. ..e n ,

l

\

L -

s s

- l N 4

=

4 : .

h 203V1 ,

. f- _

- Extent of zone with a s density less than \

- . construction quality [ ,

control criteria at

~ + + ~ approximately E1 -17. .

s d ' (Dots, not dashed lines, s

\

define limit.)

a ,

s nJEL g

\ HANDLING BUILDING 4

- 203 , f e

4 ED 4 ' \

,N , . s .

. W y[,1/396* *** *

{

, g Extent of zone with a density less than

\ \

construction quality I

\- - 203V2 contiol criteria at approximately El -34.

g g

(Dashed lines, not dots,s

\. define limit.)

\ -

g- .

N Boring location ,

- - Indicates standard penetration test perfonned in boring had a standard penetration resistance less than BOL relative density in structural backfill.

O 5 10 feet

'- - - - - a NOTE:1.) Boring 203 was drilled as part of the initial structural backfill study.

2.)See Page 3/5 for discussion.

3.) Limits of zones approximately midway between borings or to structural boundary. ,

BORING LOCATION PLAN .

AREA 4 FIGURE 2-5

3RR -IS"OGRR* RsJ 0GNOWR_. PJF RELRTIVE DENSITY MODELING UNITS.l A 2 TEN BUILDINGS 1.00 -

~

0.55 -

0.90 -

0.05 -

ORTR SET LOGNORMRL PDF 0.80 - 3.67 MERN 94.99 NERN 0.7s - STO. DEV. 9.8S STO. DEV.0.24 SHIFT S4.54 o.70 -

0.65 -

0.60 -

N b 0.55 -

a 3 0.50 -

cc S U i3 ~ LEGEND

' o MODEL 0.40 -

EZ Et1PIRICRL o.35 - /^\

,/

0.30 -

o. as - ,' f -

o. za - :

0.15 -

7- ld SRMPLE SIZE

o. to - :/ / 2813

' ; d j

'// A i; ,

E0.0 70.0 B0 .0 90.0 fD ,

100.0 110.0 133.0 130.0 140.0 l50.0

, -g 160.0 RELrlTIVE DENSI*Y

,A-14 FIGURE 2-6

pro 8 ABILITY IISTilBUTieu FOR -

~

8.35 - RELATIVE BENSITY TESTS OF ALL SACRFILL PLACEMENTS PENETRATEo O.30 - BAR HIST 0GRAN

(' O.25 -

CROSSES (+) DEFINE PROBABILITY E [5ISTRIBUTieu SylLVE FoR ALL

d. 28- .

j ONIT I PLUS U10f 2 RELATIVE I.u- ,

- BENSITYTESTQ-e.1e- y /

,, M / - / $y 4 ,

70.o so.o so.o ion.o tio.o tro.o iso.o RELATIVE oENSITY - 5 A. ALL PLACEMENTS (LARGE DATA SET)

- PRoBABILTY elSTRIBUTiell FoR RELATIVE oENSITY TESTS oF BACKFILL PLACENENTS PfMETRATEo 4

BY EACH STANoARo PENETRATloN TEST

~

BAR NISfoGRAN 0.3 o - IN THE ORIGINAL 15 Pr.ASE I BORINGS a.25 - / , +

tgo.2o- +

2

[ CROSSES (+) DEFINE PROBAB elSTRIBUTloN CURVE FoR ALL Dilli i PLUS UNIT 2 RELATIVE

/ f go.15- /

BENSITY TESTS

c. t o -

g l.

':s4A Af$ Mw o

fe.e 00.o 90.0 100.0 RELATIVE oENSITY 5 11o.o 120.o 130.0 B. PLACEMENTS WITH SPT VALUES (SMALL DATA SET) r NOTES f, 1. THE UNIT 1 PLUS UNIT 2 oATA INCLUoE ALL TESTS south TEXAS PROJECT

["" $$",'T$' ' "'" '" ** I "* "' '" STATISTICAL COMPARISON.

B0 RINGS VS. TOTAL PLANT f 2. REFER To TABLE 5 FoR STATISilf AL SUNNART of ABoVE oATA.

, 3. oATA oN THis. FIGURE TAKEN FRou REFERENCE 28.

FM N

FIELD BORitiG FSAR 80RIliG ELEVAT10ti C00RDillATES j NO. NO. M.S.L. FT -N E WCBV-101 312 28.06 36F.326 2.945,660 WCBV-102

~

313 -

29.93 361,327 2,945,419 WCBV-103 314 31.33 361,444 2,945,280 WCBV-104 .315 31.51 361,530 2,945,253 WCBV-105 316 31.31 361,614 2,945,255 WCBV-106 317 22.10 361,789 2,945,628 WCBV-201 318 19.10 361,331 2,945,024 WCBV-201A 318A 19.0 361,444 2,945,285 WCBV-202 319 21.24 361,332 2,944,849 WCBV-203 320 26.72 361,402 2,944,692 203-VI 320A 26.7 361,412 2,944,690 203-Y1A 320B 26.65 361,412 2,944,697

~

203-V2 320C 26.53 361,392 2,944,692 WCBV-204 321 27.25 361,520 2,944,644 WCBV-204A 321A 27.25 361,510 2,944,644 WCBV-204B ,

321B 27.25 361,529 '2,944,648 204-Y1 321C 29.43 361,543 2,944,600

~

204-Y2 321D 29.61 361,540 2,944,619 204-V3 321E 29.35 361,514 2,944,619 204-V4 321F 27.32 361,534 2,944,640 204-V5 321G 29.4 361,508 2,944,640

204-V6 321H 27.25 361',531 2,944,671 204-V7 3211 29.58 361,516 2,944,666 204-V8 321J 29.5 361,513 2,944,657 204-V9 321K 29.61 361,524 2,944,619 204-V10 321L 28.18 361,550 2,944,619 204-V11 321M 28.28 361,563 2,944,619 204-V12 321N 27.4 361,523 2,944,676 204-V13 3210 29.37 361,576 2,944,619 204-V14 321P 28.9 361,589 2,944,619 204'-V15 321Q 29.8 361,557 2,944,600 BORIliG ELEVATI0 tis AtlD C00RDIriATES TABLE 2-1

. l

_ . _e -

-: -m __ o.. m . . . _ _ _ _ . . ._._ ---. - _ . .... -.

l

' l FIELD BORIliG FSAR BORIliG ELEVAT10f; -

C00RDIliATES '

NO. -

NO. M.S.L. FT . N E 204-V16 321R 29.4 361,601 2,944,619 204 V17 3215 -

29.0 361,601 2,944,637 204-V18 321T ' 29.6 361.570 2,944,600 WCBY-205 322 25.67 361,648 2,944,644 WCBV-205A 322A .

25.67 361,640 2,944,644

, WCBV-2058 -

322B 25.67 361,653 2,944,644 205-Y1 .

322C . 27.23 361,663 2,944,644 205-V2 322D 26.84 361,650 2,944,654 205-V3 322E 27.6 361,650 2,944,640

~

WCBV-206 323 9.50 361,749 2,944,952 WCBV-207 324 15.91 361,641 2,944.072 WCBV-208 325 27.97 361,429 2,945,082 WCBV-208X 325A 28.0 361,394 2,945,076 208-VI 325B 28.0 361,439 2,945,084 208-V2 325C 28.2 361,419 2,'945,082 WCBV-209 326 28.37 361,364 2,945,076 209-VI 326A 28.31 361,374 2,945,078 209-V2 326B 28.38 '361,354 2,945,076

! BORING ELEVATIONS AND C0 ORDINATES :

1 TABLE 2-1 l

~

Item 3: Contaminated'Backfi11 :

NRC requested that HL8rP docket the Woodward Clyde Consultants' (WCC) report on the contaminated backfill underneath the Unit 2 Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building. : '

RESPONSE

The subject WCC repor't (ST-WC-BR-5427) is attached.

l l

r I

1 I

s

, 6 12 L .. ~~ -~~ -- - __ .__ _ _ _ ,_

l Item 4a: Settlement - '

^

NRC requested that HL&P provide an evaluation of the observed settlement at STP to date.

RESPONSE

The evaluation and analyses of plant unit ground movement (settlement) has been an ongoing engineering work item since the design phase (1973) work began and will continue to be an engineering work item. To date the match between predicted and measured movements are good after the maximum heave occurred.

FSAR Appendix 2.5.C Subsections 2.5.C.4.5 and 2.5.C.4.6 and the responses to NRC Questions 241.1 and 241.2 will be updated in the first half of 1983 to incorporate the settlement monitoring data through December 1982.

The differential movements experienced between buildings are shown on Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. On these. Figures six individual data graphs are shown. These graphs show differential movement of one point relative to another point. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 are updated through February 1982. To date, predicted and neasured novements are good and within design criteria.

The differential movements within individual buildings are shown on plots for representative dates on the attached Figures 4-3 and 4-4 for Unit 1 and on Figures 4-5 and 4-6 for Unit 2. The locations of the data points for Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 are shown on Figure 4-7. The Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 3 and 4-6 are updated through February 1982. Table 4-1 shows a tabulation of -

the measured end to end tilt of the buildings. To date, the match between predicted and measured movements are good after the maximum heave occurred as evidenced by Figures 4-8 through 4-15.

No Category I piping has been connected between structures as of Augutt 1982.

Recording of differential movenents between buildings started when adjacent portions of two building foundations had been conpleted. Category I piping systems were only partially installed within the Unit 1 Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building (MEAB) as of 1979, and no piping installations had been made in Unit 2 MEAB as of 1980. Any effects of differential movements on the piping will be evaluated upon complete installations.

The tilt criteria, FSAR Section 2.4.5.11, applies to piping after final installation and connections. The tilt is also considered for the structural design. Table 4-2 shows a tabulation of end to end tilt of the buildings.

The end to end tilt is also seen on Figures 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6.

The ground movement (heave, recompression of heave and settlement) analyses and the ground movement observation made to date (August 1982) show results that were anticipated in the design phase of the STP. The ground movements have been predicted and considered in design and construction and will not detrimentally affect the plant construction or operation. The ground l

movement is caused by heave due to excavation unloading, the recompression l due to construction loads, and the new or net settlement due to loads greater l than the excavation unloading.

i 13

~

The critical connections, none of which have been made to date (August 1982),

will be constructed at such a time that the remaining differential settlement and ground movement will be accommodated without adversely affecting safety or operation.

N 4

l 14

1 Item 4b: Tilt NRC requested that HL&P address tilt reported in the Unit 2 Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary Building (MEAB) in 1980.

RESPONSE

For the MEAB, the design criteria is 1.0 inch tilt in the East-West direction and 0.5. inch tilt in the North-South direction (FSAR section 2.5.5.11). The observed tilt and differential settlement of the Unit 2 MEAB is presented in Table 4-3.

Differential Settlement The differential settlement and curvature of the mat for the Unit 2 MEAB were anticipated and factored into the design. Although the design criteria were exceeded during one segment of construction, the corrective action taken during a subsequent segment of construction brought the differential settlement and curvature to within the design criteria tolerances. The structural design effects of the differential movements experienced by the Unit 2 MEAB mat were evaluated and it was dete'rmined by Brown & Root that temporary differential settlement resulting in bending of the mat during the construction period could exceed the original design criteria by 50 percent without any adverse effects.

The maximum design tilt in the MEAB is defined in FSAR Section 2.5.4.11 and is specified as 0.5 inches tilt in the North-South direction. This differential settlement criteria is to be applied at the time of penetration connections or pipe installations for Category I piping. The North end local curvature criteria is defined as 0.25 inches. The values for maximum design tilt'and North local curvature were exceeded by 0.2 inches and 0.05 inches respectively.

The tilt and curvature experienced by the Unit 2 MEAB foundation mat resulted from the deviation from the planned construction loading sequence. The major contributor to the situation was the lack of placement of backfill around the North end of the MEAB. The actions taken to correct this situation involved the removal of approximately 11,143 tons of backfill from around the South and Southeast end of the MEAB and the scheduling of concrete pli ements such that the North portion of the building would be loaded first. The efforts to correct this situation were successful. Corrective action by load modification was described in a letter to NRC dated February 3,1981 (ST-HL-AE-616). Piping installation had not begun in Unit 2 MEAB in 1980.

The design criteria are not applicable in the early part of the building construction and before installation of interconnected systems. It is i

desirable to minimize deviations throughout the construction period in order i

to avoid adverse trends which would affect the structure or piping systems at

' a later date. The differential movements were found not to have any detrimental effect on the Unit 2 MEAB.

l 15

?

Compression A special study was undertaken to examine the possible relation between observed tilting of the Unit 2 NEAB and compression of the structural backfill. : -

A method of evaluation used to determine if the tiltino could be associated with compression of the structural backfill was to compare vertical movement histories of structural bench marks (SBM) located along the profile in question with vertical movement histories of nearby bore hole heave points (BHP) and Sondex rings located in D-layer clays.

The only naterials between the SBMs and the geotechnical instruments are the concrete mat and seal slab, structural backfill sand and a few feet of D-layer clay (above the geotechnical instruments and below the backfill sand). Because there is very little relative movement between the SBM curves and the geotechnical instruments, it is concluded that there is very little compression of the structural backfill sand below the Unit 2 MEAB Building.

The Expert Committee also concluded that the condition of the fill is entirely adequate for the design requirement of the project. "For the Unit 1 -

Auxiliary Building, a compression of about 3/8-inch is indicated, which is approximately equal to the amount of compression calculated using the imposed building pressure and the soil modulus value E for very dense structural ;

backfill material as determined from References 3 and 4. Thus, a very dense structural backfill is indicated."

t I

16

a 1976 l 1977 ' 1978 1979 1940 1998 1942 1976 1977 1970 1979 1990 19 81 1992 1975 1977 1978 1979 1900 19 81 1933

~' ,

L

';n", ;lfdo"OuW !.4 l l I I

l !

5_8 R ,',"' "/111l14ll11111' If ! I _, _,

1 i w =tacioa co=r stos rsotarar. vatyts cueica gt cron coni. stos p ,; i g

3 ilh'1 , *'i...

..*'/ '"I l i O [y m , , ,, ,'--.., .

1 II Ilibbl

'i.

4.0 l, 7 I-

l l

-I s.tm.c o.i.,,I r

m unn-co,,. ,-

=cn ttte. aux l!l l-' l O, l. i ! . I l , stoe womv m I

, I ;, ,

k l l l

,1 i i h ll l 1 a a

' s FUEL HANDLING BUILDING MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ISOLATION VALVES CUBICLE VERSUS AUXILIARY BUILDING VERSUS REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING VERSUS REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING .!

1990 1982 1976 1977 1978 1979 1990 19 81 1982 1978 1977 1973 3979 3g30 g933 gggg 1976l4977 I 8978 1979 19 81 h ll!, l

==,w) i:' =- re .e. = r 80, inplrpi!!![$k!O , 'I lill n' , ll111111111111111101111

,e a i......,io.i

, f

"""" ",,,,,,,y

"'* "y . . f l1 7

i !

I j I! ]

I I a

' I' E MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ISOLATION VALVES CUBICLE AUXILIARY BUILDING AUXILIARY BUILDING VERSUS

-- VERSUS VERSUS TURBINE GENERATOR BUILDING FUEL HANDLING BUILDING DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING ;

CoNTRot PoiN7S 3 4 7 e 9 10 ,01 12 is 14 17 le NOTES:

1. SEE FIGURE HE AVE (INCHESlstt NOTE 2 -00 0.3 44 -Es -t Sl-ES -te 40-te -24 7 FOR LOCATION OF ANALYSIS SWTH TUM MMM

2. POSITIVE NUMBER INDICATES SETTLEMENT. UNITS 182 3 T INDICATES START OF DIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENT COMPARtSON DIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENTS j BETWEEN BUlt. DINGS UNIT I FIGURE 4-1

~

}

e

.- iers mir nr. nr. m.o m.i is.2 mis l mir l nr. mr, is.o ii is.: iers sorr r. ior, is.o .

! ${,$1l.% lEff/7%

I

~' ' ' ~'

$ ~~I ; , j- [ , esotavsom v.tvts cuoctt 2* l fj I O .sl I.

wo'a ' s'i llll llllll I

,l '

l g i t , 1 l lf I l ii, ,

%N

j lilllllllliiiU"M"El!

l UN I" g g ray'am?% i j ,

mtc.n... a.t.e,c.

.to wo . a,ux '

aggaamawat *uom -"

= ;

i

, , i E I l

l l I d

,8 '

2 2 s FUEL HANDLING BUILDING MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ISOLATION VALVES CUBICLE VERSUS AUXILIARY BUILDING VERSUS REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING VERSUS REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING UtEACTOR CONT. BLDG. FIXED REFERENCE) REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING (RE ACTOR CONT. BLDG. FIXED REFERENCE)

,.r. . 77 ier. i.r. i .

., , i.r.

i.rr i.r. . 1. .. .. ..

ior. i rr i,1. .1, i .. i 5, l

'l l I l '

l [

{1 l

$ .i gg run a. ou . .no

!h !

.i

_i m r ....

2W '

$EiiI!ilIIIIIN{lllll0 <ii , , IEn@i?>Iiil u-gl, ilE&.EfeL ik a ,

, 1 .

ga,rg watves cuscu

~"'

, !*c'"7,,51'! !! lillli I ll , ,

! r 5 l l i

' ' l a a t

5 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ISOLATION VALVES CUBICLE ,:

AUXILIARY BUILDING AUXILIARY BUILDING VERSUS

._.VERSUS- --

VERSUS TURBINE GENERATOR BUILDING DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING FUEL HANDLING BUILDING CONTROL POINTS S3 54 Sr S. S. So 3, 62 83 64 Sr 6. NOTES:

-si -sa -so 3

'. sEE rmuRE 1 ron tocAfew or ANAtyse nE ave t CnEsine nove e os 3-4

,_ , SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

2. POSITIVE NUMBER .NoiCATES SETTLEMENT UNITS 18 2 j

NDICATES 3 TART oF oIFFERENTIAL MOVEMENT COMPARISON DIFF'ERENTIAL MOVEMENTS l Y

BETWEEN BUILDINGS UNIT 2 ,l FIGURE 4-2 s

l IS II IS u n'w ....z..... ,:wnyavcvAvnvAVA nO gyfG[yfy. w.e.e w m e.;wllc*"- '**\n. .~

WAVAV^VAV^

.uu:c- w : w a* w .a';I"***

V^V^V^V^V^V' 57 NOTES i 5-n I I

I L SEE FIGURE 7 FOR LOCAftceeS OF

, ,. y a L 5-77 AseALYSes C0esTROL POINTS.

w l2

2. SueSCRsPT NUweER INosCATES SUIL0008

-78J E 2-78# CODE AS SHOWYe IIe FIGURE 7 5-79 y 5-80 y 10 - 7 83 E

E 30-73 # 7 -79 5 5- 10-79 -J m,79

$4 -

r * ' SETTLEneENT OF peceviOUAL A8eALYSIS y

W5 J w5 ,

CONTROL POINT ?WeCE MAT CONSTRUCT 1001.

$ THE TOTAL eWOVEMENT Pu L IseCLUDE h 12 80 .1 L 2 32 2 /_ 12-80 b 2-82 ,

REC 00sPRESSIOM OF MEArt' (AVERAet

! S 4 geeCHES) PLUS A feet SETTLElsENT.

7 7

4. STRUCTUstAL SEleCHhlARgt AT ApeALY313 C00eTROL PCINT 19 WAS IIISTALLEO SECTION A,-A, SECTION C,-C, se OCToeER,197s.

REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING ME I IS A88ALYSIS C00stit0L Pouet g, 2-78 04TE RTAOINSB MRE TAfttes

U" /

w or MF%L-(ave. "'

.'.... i4

? ? 9 ? so ' so EvggA--' " ' ' *

. O ov e sv ""dsv" Q p 4Esv5vnv, 0

' I I

e-77 s , f

~0 "8-"r- a-7e g ,,_,_, 3 -n3 a # -'

E 30-7s _

E3 "~" ?

. 10-n g3 7 / -

it-e0 =' ;, s

3. '

5

>S 2-82 -/ !,-

g 3 22-79 / --"D '

1s y

, . ~

. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UN!7S I & 2 e.

7 7 OtFFEllERTIAL RIOYEnfENT PROFILE

,. g j "*"'""''

/ 3, SECTION B,-B e i *'-t .

SECTION Cg-Ce ineT

-7, , j f * 'g. s . . . .

-l 1

/ FUEL HANDLING BUILDING ,

FIGURE 4-3 l ;~

~.

&.3 f t

+

y x y

. . - , ,, c .

<f g te er se p eo as s e

,... .. m zn,.mvn-nyg.m m ; '. m ' n- m'- 7.

q-e c, t west, ' ,.

f .

_.m,., m..',4 m .s n. .,2,EA3T r m .w ,,,g,vevm-ny .

svn-n , ,,, .

-s--s--s

,,',..ss,-s,,-s,

,aal

_ In-so

, = -

_ : To g e-Ts ..

T5 e-ye -

g r' ; - ,_3 yI e-77" 2-7e 1 so-7e- 1 s-To .

" 3 I

L ,##

' 4 --25-50 zr =2

-w 10 - 73 5-90 -

c.79 W'""7 2-s2 ] $>4 12-80 / \.- r-s2 E w#

ls E S

ke 5

EEETION[A -A, SECTION B3 -8 3 . SECTION F f -F, ,

..s ,

s r- / \

as 24 23 R S to 24 4 3 I w . . w. ...i.-;... .=wr.--me. . ..*.. ..r s . . . L .- r J . t ra . m . ,

g 30Um,,(,, v n y ,[,se0RTie a v n gnvn y m resv esynvnve Nynv 5-77 4%v n vn' v nvnv e Nv 4 Nv s ,

w

<n v 4x v 4x y ay E-M

, v ,3 y ny n y, T -00 is-77 9 2-7e q g "

68 M

I N c-7e 1 c-%_ *-75 s ll :-n I o-re _>

5-75m ?-" a C2-s2 3 .b @ ;

3 5-* -

' ~

h

>4 '

2-s2 - ! 4 2-82 '$.4 E 5 s 4

s n SECTION 3D -Dj. . SECTION E 3 -E, SECTION Sf,G --

~

MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL AUXILIARY BUILDING DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING NOTES ._... -

,, , ,. .. SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

l. FOR NOTES ANO LEGENO SEE FHBURE 2 "0"20' stat scatt us ratt UNITS I & 2

2. MOVEMENT SHOWN HEREIN INDICATES SETTLEMENT OF E ACH INOMDUAL ANALYSIS CONTROL POINT SINCE MAT 3. THE SAME POINT IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS ISAY SHOW DIFFERENTIAL 800VEnaENT PROFH E 4

CONSTRUCTION. THE TOTAL AA0VEMENT WILL INCLUDE DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS ON THE SARAE DATE, BECAUSE ,,y,else M DespoS Rt.COI4PRESSION OF HEAVE (AVERAGE 3 INCHES) PLUS THEY ARE MEASURED FROM OIFFERENT STARTING WTI A NET SETTLEMENT. DATES.

FIGURE 4-4 i

. ., . . ., - . . - _ , . . - ~ , - - - _ - - - - --- . . . - - - , _ _ _ - . - -- - - - - ~

s 9

a si s3 ao EAST,

g SouTM MoRTM

~' N0'ES

.. . . . - a v. g u..yp.-;.s .-* . .. . e .:r;;i.e .e ._ . :ar ; . .

l

,0 N v)Y1 dYA'VAIR(AVR N ' ""' *

, . W^VQ i%V^V^V^ y FV^N Ysas cook Es.

E3 II 1. Sue 9CmPT NueseEn neceCATEs eUILDess

I s-To l st-n , r-in-se W , _7,, *-re_in-n 7- e-so cooE As snown a rieunt 7 E2 g E r,-Tg LEeEND M-Ogl

/ / / \

>- g $3 3. PoSITivt 880VEneENT SMoull tee 8EM -

-f i i W

3 -

g F 1 1

usetCATES SETTLEasENT or pepmounL l' A884 LYSIS CoNTacL POINT SeeCE esAT

-We A4 - -

casestnucTions. TieE TOTAL isovEnsEc g L -82 2 I

1.--2-s2 wiLL uscLuot nEcossenEssicas or S HEAVE (AVERAst S INCMESI PLUS A NET SETYLEteENT.

l .

SECTiON M,--M, SECTION O,$

i

. REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING '

j LEGEle J

s3 AfeALYSIS Co81TitoL F95sf g,

12-79 DATE IIEAouses WEnE TAstEst ,

soutn:- -

es,e7(Avt1 es eT M,Mu--- - -. ...m

, , se , se W. 7

N % s ocas e aca, c " - - - - - - - - ' - - - '

o WVATVA .6sy asv 8-77 y v=swewv, TVATyn v A s-TT

, , , , ,-e-TT

, , ,3, ,', g,y 3-77# '8-ID s-Te d

~

s-Te dy -- it-7e

~

Et Et -

4-n N, ir-Ts x M 4-n 3 e-in-r* r - e-so E KI -

r .

g3 . _

= 2-" y, l y h 2-82 h L r-ar m,

$c e SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS I S 2 4

omrrEntnfun. esovtan=T rnorn.E i SECTION Og-OS SECTION N,-N, uist FUEL HANDLING BUILDING n m 4-s

e-t s2 74 sa 70 7e 3, S2 77 e 3*4m.tv; xn5mer:/,'" ,, OIf'M h w =;s7nn,'/sA+WE'I'" O s ,. . , ,, , "Ahe w nv S " ,,,,,,,,, i

" 4-79 U 42-79 " " 0 l S-T e-7s d f-- 12-ec g' az-8o j' ' l 2-82 Gt E2 xt p p [ (NO CO8tSTRUCTIO8152-900 2

3 53 Z3 m a W W, se g. -

E' E 1

$ 5 S SECT!ON M SECTION Ns-Ns SECTION R,-R, 3 -M, 73 76 7S 62 56 70 74 S4 S3 51

,y7py' DIE 8 ^ ~ ~0MAJINE 0e4wawe 'v

'4 4wewe

": . - ' W O -- E ' ? Ts ? f 5{ 9 i .

.' _ i y, Y8 V

. ii l/

L 6-eO 7 --- e-7s { w-79 12 g

i I

M -

y E 182-80 L , .82 6-80 LI2-80 7-79 2-82 d (NO CONSTRUCTION 82-800

3 z3 y

z3 5 E I b,'

$4 4 j$ E 5

"hS l i

SECTION P3 -P 3 SECTION 0 3

-0 3 SECTION S,-S, MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL AUXILIARY BUILDING DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING j WTIS- '

^

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

1. rOR NOTES ANO tEoENo SEE riGuRE s UNITS I & 2 nomrouvat scatt h etty

. 2. MOVEMENT SHOWN HEREIN INDICATES SETTLEMENT OF INOlVOUAL ANALYSIS CONTROL POINT SINCE MAT 3. THE SAME POINT IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS MAY SHOW DFFEREME MMEftf Pfl0 FEE CONSTRUCTION. THE TOTAL MOVEMENT WILL INCLUDE DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS AT THE SAME DATE, SECAUSE RECOMPRESSION OF HEAVE (AVERAGE 2 INCHES) PLUS THEY ARE MEASURED FROM DIFFERENT STARTING A NET SETTLEME*4T . DATES. !

FIGURE 4-6

u n- g e

I

_L.EG(ND_.

e amaLite$ C0esf *0L P0ests (i) et ACf 081 C08stApowCNT *U'tt'ese.

C) FUEL M440LsNG BUILOeseG

. Q) MCCMaNICat 8 ELECT #eCAL AUUt tAft e *=* *

@ Ost$tt Ct9tRat0e Dustes*G

@ fuRPett GENER47088 SusLD,aeg C E-

,_ c- -

0* P= - *- C ==- 0*< *-

a a l .srL_ .ssg. iJ i u ~~l .,

i ,

.'- j . . !-

3. i _ _ .s>

1 o i 1

,,g>, .

1 "s. ".

s9 4 , 9 "4 y .0 g A 10 a =

i ., g .. .%,= - ,,,

,,, g .. ,,C *= r,,

l

,,. .r.

.3 83 V 75 n Y s

g j -

. . i. ,,. 1., ,= ' r, . ' . .a ='. i

@ ... .m @ .n .0 I I I I '

.9,_ 19 0- .- 0- c- o~ t-SOUTH TEXAS PROJEC1

_ UNIT 2_ UNIT I UNITS I B 2 LOCATION OF DIFFERENTIAL ioo so o ioo ' 700 MOVEMENT PROFILES cQMut FIGURE 4-7 1 2 3 4 S r. y o

! '75 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1 19 81 1982

- s.o

-Observation Curve for BW 211 Y

- 5.0 ,

. s / l E 1

-4.0 i

( ,>

~

G J * '

. '\

( , - -Observation Curve for Structural Benchmark 324 S g

Q $ -3 o Y I I

_ .. i EE c ..

O- ,

' i

-2.0 N ---- - W-- - - -- r ll

. sh ;

Predictco Curve--

g

- s

-1.0 ---

5 -

s,,_, -----

s-- a s '

O .

} * 'j \'

s s I

---s

[g ----- Ma ; Corn wxuc ta 5l 1b MS c/ w

=m . g g

f ---- s

-ll -

"e-5z +l.0 .

i - -

l-C; =

m .

+ 2.0

]

REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING UNIT I NOTE: Maximum predicted long term settlement of ,

buildings after 1/2 complete = + 2.0 inches Geotechnical Instrumentation Herv!/ Settlement Movement FIGURE 4-8

$ln4 9 1

'75 1976 1977 1978 1979 1983 1 81 1:82

-60 1

-so ----- - - - - - -- - - -

y,-

i l: *

-Observolion curve for Sonden 206 X, Reg 35 l, ll l.

w3 _I E 6-30

-f_ <

l Y$

Predclion Curve '

.c ', A' E

g ,.,

-- --. - - -- - s

-2.0 ,

y 3 l.

4 .

-i.o --- f, -

\:49 _ l ~--~~[

~ - ~

l~' .

! g . - -Observation Curve for Structural Benchmork 315S.~

l O ,

L--3 f ? ,

Cmmtract.ed 5,C 7 y

y g

- '4ai .-,, .

{.

.,3

"., 5 +i.0 %, fyfv_ / l

$E w I vi

+2.0 MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AUXlLIARY BUILDING NOTE: Maximum predicted long UNIT I term settlement after building is 1/2 complete

= + 2.1 inches Geotechnical Instrumentation Heave / Settlement Movement FIGURE 4-9 Unit 1

'75 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19 81 ' 1982

-60 - - - - -

- Observat' e n Curve for BHP 216 Y

-5.0 -

}l >

-- -- -~~ ~ ~

wo -4.0 \.s zg- - -

i s >

g

-3.0

..j c

)wwy%

II s l l-- 1

}s , yObservaten Curve for Structurot Benchmork 326 S .;

.a lli r j I u I i

-2.0 7s -

llll -l T'- '.

f! 'M

\

-Observeton Curwe For Structural Denchenork .52TS f

s I --g l l 'l !

- l.0 ;

- g/

~

) Predicton Curve -- -

g f. p w '

9 4- 4 . .lj.

y

- nt. Coms ru :ne'd 7 iM '.'

_f})>-m 9 - - - - - - - -

l-(

5g s ,ls s '

l

s m .~ a/ ---,

/ --

l w

J zu +i.0 i-

-- ' l CE tll l

M

+ 2.0 l

li! ;t FUEL HANDLING BUILDING NOTE: Maximum predicted long UNIT I term settlement after building is 1/2 com-plete = + 4.8 inches ..

Grotechnical Instrumentation Heave / Settlement Movement FIGURE 4-10

, ilni t 1

'75 1976 1977 *

~ s.0 1978 1979 19 8 @ 19 81 e

1982 l -

l

~

-5.0 - - -- -

a I'

m

{u s, W

Observation Cwve for BHP 204 Y t I!! -

/ ,

fI

2. ~

j .

-3.0 l

' =

) -'- I

/

Ti r, T.7. ;

-2.0 i. .

/( 3 ,

, sv I

-1.0 i ( , - -

~

SERVATION ~CbRVE F0ll STRUCTURAL BENCHMARK

!l .!'

II 304 s I 4 b h bd\ l.

g pq .

ll: .

0 kl Y<

--p %

"z f

,- 1 ,-,,

a m

", 6 +l.0 ..-- -

l, sz

- = - -

- --- - - - t i b '

0~

/ - - - -

li:

Comt ra:1:ed L!i?9 j' 1

Mar. *

+ 2.0 1 l l8

. h DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING NOTE: Maximum predicted long term settlement after UNIT I building is 1/2 com-plete = + 1.6 inches .

GE0 TECHNICAL. INSTRUMENTATION FIGURE 4-11

,18E,9'!E/,

. c. . - SETTLEMENT MOVEMENT

e f .v1 .

?- s ,

'75 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19 81 1982

- 6.0 . ieieiieieieieiei 5- --0BSERVATION CURVE FOR BHP 234 Y i g

\ e ,

-5.0 N-[-- %I -

J4 h

-- - = - ---- - J J b' !-

I Ii,

% \ s ERvarion Cunvc roR so.e 374 s .

l;

-4.0 -ygS ff -- -

b 2" -

m RI-a gf i \

u,

[

oBSERv4 TON CURVE .

.P r421 ji g .

E $. 3.0

- N ^

\- -,

-2.0 - -- 1 ,!I u -

f r Y\-./ j \/

Y van -- l

-1.0 ,

O

/ I!!

\

h' G in.->

( ~

tit Caimtru:u d 3 fD IIi

,m !

>-5z +l.0

.l E

m t

+ 2.0 ~~~

REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING .

IT 2 NOTE: Maximum predicted long "

term settlement after ,

building is 1/2 com-plete = + 2.6 inches

<0 TECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION FIGURE 4-12 VE/ SETTLEMENT MOVEMENT

. . I -

'75 ID76 1977 1978 1979 I;83 19 81 1982 l -6.0 il q-

-50 ---- -

Il f -[1 oestavmon convt ron Ew 23:Y

<-4f y el- I

-4.0 F$r / \ L if

[ y ( ,

-oustRVATION CtRvt FOR SfMA 360s- r W0 % r . '.,

E z6-30 ' (^T A i

w g ph U fM[ vi 1a t i

<-^-'vb t 'Spl I

-2.0 %dro.t m-s

. < I

,(t s

q) 4, ;,

't

-1.0 -

O '

/ / t I

g_ Man Com sa oct rl 2/7 s

i-!

we 2w ie-I-----

w 6 +l.0 r z g [

4 Y

, + 2.0 '

I MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL '

AUXILIARY BUILDING NOTE: Maximum predicted long UNIT 2 term settlement after building is 1/2 complete

. = + 1.7 inches -

Geotichnical Instrumentation FIGURE 4-13

!;tave/ Settlement Move;ent

..4. o

! ' ,l'

. {

- - ~ -

)

I.

,.m

-,,i ' i lp!l; !

,il

!~

j :d. ! l

- i I1-_ .- 'l-

,ki ll l1 -

2 . - ~

8 -

,l :

~

9 i 4

1 1 l

l 4

E ls' N %

R U

S -

G I

. F 1 '

r_

8 _

9 1

L V

- i f.,

0 :

8 9

1 6

7 3

g G M

s

~

N I

S R

D v

7 O

F L

I

. . 9 3ln Ef V -

U 2 R U

j B

P C H

. 9 Bl N - G 7 R .O T \ N 2 9 Ols - I f .A V T 1

El \ R g' L I D N V \ts R

.e ,V U U

C O ' P N N'

O 3 7

/

A TI

- T 1 2 H

-a A

V de 8 E R L 7

s e q. t c E 9 o \

u U x

1 r

\ t i F

s{' s '-

\ o

~ :

c

'R 1

t

" a g 7

f&\

I_

M t

l nr oe- s l t me f oh 7

9 M L { d ecc e n 1 j t t2i D ,

cn/

i e14 ge d m j ees4 p rli pt t g+

men =

Nf usi m d e 6 h I i ml t x ri e 7 c aeul 9 } Mtb p 1

n

)l : o

' / i 4 E . tt

/ T an f O t e 5 vj N nm ee 7

D mv uo 0 0 0 O 0 o. rM 0 9 u 2 t l

6 3 2 1

- + + st

.- 3_ - - - nn

_05g G$5 I e m

W8I $wh0W l e al ct i t ne hS c/2 ee t vt oai een GHU

,j'

, . i! -

I; ',

)r.

T~

,T jjI H

l! .l il i jIl

- t '.j' l

j

- _ j J -

1 2 '- _ -

8 _ - _

9 1 _ - _

_ , _ 5

_ R, 1

_ o_ -

v . 4 J

E E

v e

u s' R U

c 4 " .

- G I

n 5 ,'

F 1 o i 5 8 uv 5 9,

1 n M 3

.w E

s B s S o

3 8

"r -

G 9

1 \ N I

D

. l m I L

v ) U

- 5 a B g

e

/ R 9

7 s

a o

r 4p O

T 2 9

1 e A v

a t R T I

u E N c "

U n

o i1

.S N i

E uv Ij G

t aW 8

s e n L 7

o s E 9 S 1

E p

I D

\ s 1 l e

4 2h T -

t/c d a - n1 n e

- e i r u

7 7 d f dms eei6 tl o

p 9 ct g1 1 b it n t2 T

d ei+ o8 esd n/

y r l = 7

, pmi t1

\ rue a/

y mebt m9 ut e

[ m rl 2f 6

-(

_ i gep xnt m aof o B

Gs o

7 2

l/ Ml ac Da n

o 1 : : i l

1 2 tt

- - s an

- - E b t e (M/ T O

T O

nm ee 5 '

N N mv uo

_ 7 rM

' t 0 0 0 0 st

o. , o o. 0 l 2 nn s ( 3 2 1

- + + I e m

3_ _ -

a

- l e agg z- al zwh.r;,m ct 5W it ne hS c /9 ee tv.

o a4 ee- i GHi

f TABLE 4-1 '

MEASURI.D DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT UNIT I ,

MEASURED DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT (in.)

OCT, 1978 JUNE 1979 DECDtBER 1990 JUNE 1981 FEBRUARY 1982 BETWEEN BUILDIMCS DATE STARTED FHB vs. RCB July 1976 0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.5 MEAR vs. RCB Oct. 1977 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 MEAR vs. FHB Oct. 1977 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 MEAR vs. DGB Dec. 1979 - -

0.2 0.0 0.3 IVC vs. RCB Dec. 1977 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 UNIT 2 MEASURED DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT (In.)

DECEMBER 1979 DECEMBER 1980 JUNE 1981 FEBRUARY 1982 '

BETWEDI BUILDINCS DATE STARTP".

FHB vs. RCB March 1977 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 !

MEAR vs. RCB April 1979 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 :

MEAR vs. FHB May 1979 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3- !

MEAB vs. DCB (1) - - - -

IVC vs. RCB July 1979 0.3 0.2 0 (5) '

NOTES: (1) No construction of DCB-2 as of February 1982.

(2) See Figure 1. for Unit I differential movement plots.

(3) See Figure 2. for Unit 2 differential movement plots.

(4) No Category 1 pipe connection has been made between buildings as of

~

August 1982.

[

's (5) Insufficient data for evaluation from 7/81 to 2/82. i P

94 b

9

l TABLE 4-2 MEASURED 13b-lo-LhG Tit,T * ' '

UNIT I ,

MEASURED END-TO-END TILT (in.)

BUILDipC DIRECTION OCT. 1978 JUNE 1979 DEC. 1980 JUNE 1981 FEBRUARY 1982 RCS E-W 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 RCS N-S O 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 FNB E-W 0 0 0 0 0.2 FHS N-S 0.3 0 0.4 0.3 0.4 MEAR E-W N Portion 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 MEAB E-W S Portion. 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 N-S .

E Portion 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 MEAR N-S W Portion 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 DGB E-U (1) (1) 0 0 0 DGB N-S (1) (1) 0 0 0.3 7 1

i t

UNIT 2 MEASURED END- W END TILT (in.)

BUILDING DIRECTION OCT. 1978 JUNE 1979 DEC. 1980 JUNE 1981 FEBRUARY 1982

+

RCB E-W 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 0~

RCB N-S 0 0 0 0 0 FHB E-W 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 FHB N-S 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 MEAR E-W N Portion 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 MEAR E-W S Portion 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.3 D MEAS N-S E Portion 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.4 MEAR N-S k Portion 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 -

DC8 E-W (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

DGB N-S (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)

. . . cont.h!.

TABLE 4-2 (con t) -

~i' MOTES: (1) DCB, Unit 1. construction started in December 1979.

(2) No construction of DGB. Unit 2, as of February 1982.

(3) See Figures 3 and 4 for differential moves.ent profile within Unit 1 Buildings.

(4) See Fir,ures 5 and 6 for differential movement profile within Unit 2 Buildings.

(5). No Category I pipe connections has been made between buildings '

as of August 19827

l.

?

I:

j.

l 09

+

f 6

TABLE 4-3 1

OVERAI.L TILT AND DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT -

MEAB-2 BUILDING Peak

. Load Overall Differential Curvature Ordinate Date Modification Tilt . Settlement Overall North Local 6/04/80 Prior to Load 0.7" 1" 0.65" '

0.2" modification 8/07/80 6/30/80 8-ft 0.3" 0.8" 0.6" 0.3" excavation 9/11/80 1,533 tons 0.22" 0.65" 0.5" 0.25" add'1 loads 11/25/80 2,985 tons O'.15" 0.55" 0.45" 0.25" add'1 loads 2/20/81 3,878 tons 0.15" 0.5" 0.45" 0.2" add'1 loads 3/30/81 4,378 tons 0.1" 0.5" 0.45" 0.2" add'1 loads Ref.: B&R Technical Reference Document, " Load Modification Surcharge Monitoring Data" 5Y310SR156-B, 1/27/82.

t 3 -. -

l J O l

Item 5: Nonconforming Backfill Beneath the ECW Intake and Discharge Structure ,

The NRC told HL&P that they had seen a document during their site visit in April 1982 that indicated the existence of backfill below 80 percent relative density beneath the ECW intake and. discharge structure. HL&P was requested to review available i scumentation and explain the existence of any such conditions.

RESPONSE

Nonconformance reports have been reviewed to determine whether any nonconforming conditions exist within the backfill beneath the ECW intake and discharge structures. No nonconforming conditions have been reported within the backfill beneath either the ECW intake or discharge structure foundations.

NCR S-C-7957A identified those tests within the overall backfill areas of the ECW intake and discharge structures which had relative densities below 80 percent. This is the required degree of cnmpaction for Category I backfill for structures (70 percent relative density is required for the ECW piping).

Three tests were listed, and justification for the less than 80 percent relative density was provided in the NCR for each case. According to the NCR, in one case the material in question was removed and replaced. In the second case, 70 percent relative density was required because the test was ad,iacent to the ECW pipeline. In the third case, a nonconforming condition identified beneath the concrete apron east of the intake structure was accepted based on an evaluation of the overall backfill condition in the area, including consideration of areas with limited access for compaction.

The backfill conditions under the apron are scheduled to be reevaluated by Bechtel to ensure that all pertinent design criteria have been satisfied by the as-built backfill.

l 17

-

@@ Line 795: / Line 795: @@
 :                                                                          UNITS 1 & 2                   l BORIN3 LOG N3. 308
                                          ~
-J FIG' RE ]].6 - 2lW -.
+J FIG' RE )).6 - 2lW -.
 BORING NO. ~                                                                                 w g
@@ Line 1,040: / Line 1,040: @@
 : 3.      Performance and Functional Requirements of Structures:                                                               Are performance requirements of structures (e.g. , maximum al-lowable differential settlement) correct and based upon current,
                     .      documented information?       Is the function (s) of a structure clearly described      (e.g., a foundation supporting vibrating ma-chinery should be ide'ntified so correct analyses procedures can be used)?   Have special performance criteria for Category I structures been identified?
-(This checklist item verified on pages p .)'N[['                                                                          ).
+(This checklist item verified on pages p .)'N(('                                                                          ).
 : 4. Environmental Data: If ground-water taBre data are pertinent, have they been correctly interpreted from measured values?
 Have during-and-after-construction ground-water effects been considered? Are extreme climatic effects (e . g . , floods, ex-treme rainfall or drought) provided for in the analyses? Does the water table elevation (or other environmental data) have an appropriate degress of conservatism?

ML20023A844: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:37, 15 March 2020

Contents

Text

Dear Mr. Novak:

Title:

Purpose:

SUMMARY

Title:

Reference:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

ML20023A844: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:37, 15 March 2020

Text

Dear Mr. Novak:

Title:

Purpose:

SUMMARY

Title:

Reference:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

Search