ML18003A523
| ML18003A523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Jackie Jones CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904130318 | |
| Download: ML18003A523 (12) | |
Text
i Disti ibution Docket File-NRC PDR Local PDR LHR g3 File'.
Vassallo Docket Nos.
50-401, 50-402, and 50-40 s:
F. Williams
- 0. Parr S. Niner M. Rushbrook OELD IE (3)
MAR 20 1S79 BCC'SIC TIC ACRS (16)
Hr. J.
A. Jones Executive Vice President - Engineering Construction and Operations Carolina Power 8 Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 II
Dear her. Jones:
SUBJECT:
SHEARO'l HARRIS NUCLEAR POllER PLANT UNITS 1, 2, 3 AND 4-REVIEll OF INFORhNTION PROVIDED ON STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF
'LlEATHERED ROCK AND GRADATION OF ROCK-FILL EhlBANKh1ENT NTERIAL In Supplement 3 of the SER, we concluded that your design criteria for seismic Category I earthen dams and dikes are acceptable, subject to confirmation of the strength of the weathered rock foundations and the assumed in place gradation of the rock fill embankment material prior to the start of construction.
lie have reviewed the documents that you have submitted in support of your request to commence construction of the Auxiliary Dam and Auxil,iary.
Dike.
The results of our evaluation and the information that we require to complete our evaluation is provided in Enclosure 1.
Enclosure 2 is a list of the references used in our evaluation.
Please contact us if you desire any discussion or clarification of, the information requested.'incerely, Original Stoned
>V
- o. D. Parr Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Hater Reactors Branch No.
3 Division of Project management
Enclosures:
's Stated 7900.'>3 0~< $
See OFPICC~
6MllHAllKW OATC~
ext page LMR P,3:
PM Shiiner 3/ gj 79 3/ /fr /79 NRC PORM 318 (976) NRCM 0240 4 v,'I, OovRRNMCH'f PIIIHTIHO ofplCCc Ital R4 ~
7 ~ 0
'R
i, 2%'z ging l~ r
~4a I II few ffo 'I>5g ~ <
q ~r,<),Q,g, I
Mr. J. A. Jones MAR 20 1979 cc:
George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge 8
Madden 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Carolina Power 8 Light Company 336 Fayettevi lie'Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq 115 W. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Jesse C. Brake, Esq.
Associate Attorney General State of North Carolina P. 0.
Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
A f
~
V
~ ~ ~ i I
~ ~
p
ENCLOSURE 1
Me have reviewed the documents listed in the references which have been
'rovided by the applicant in support of its request to commence construction of the Auxiliary Dam and Auxiliary Dike.
In Supplement f3 of the SER (Ref. 6), two items were subject to confirmation prior to the start of construction of Seismic Category I earthen dams and dikes.
Sufficient information has not been supplied f'r us to complete our evaluation of the two items as discussed below:
1.
Dam and Dike Foundations
- Geolo ic Ha in In Supplement 81 to the SER (Ref. 6) the applicant's design criteria for Category I dams and dikes were judged by us to be acceptable provided the applicant submits to the regulatory staff for its review and approval, prior to the start of construction of these dams and dikes, "adequate laboratory test data to confirm the shear strength assumed for the weathered rock in the stability analyses of these dams and dikes."
In accordance with the staff position as outlined in our letter to J.
A. Jones dated June 18, 1974 (Ref. 7), this provision was modified in Supplements g2 and 83 to the SER (Ref.
- 6) to require geologic maps of weathered rock surfaces of the core trenches and embankment foundations which confirm that the shear strength assumed for the weathered rock in the stability analyses of the dams is met by actual field conditions.
Tha~t is, additional laboratory testing of weathered rock foundation materials would not be necessary, provided that the assumptions made in the analyses are verified when the weathered rock is exposed for a more thorough examination.
l<e still require that the results of these
l'I
examinations be submitted for our review and approval before weathered rock surfaces are covered.
Please note that this requirement applies to all weathered rock materials subjacent to Category I dams and dikes.
2.
Dam and Dike Foundations on Residual Soil In some areas, the Cagegory I dams and dikes will be supported on residual soil foundations.
Geologic inspection and mapping are not adequate for evaluating residual soils.
The applicant's methods for evaluating the suitability of residual soil foundations under the Auxiliary Dam and Dike are provided in Ebasco Specification CH-4 (Ref. 1).
The specification does not provide sufficient criteria and detail for us to be assured that the suitability of the residual soil foundations is to be adequately checked or documented to show that the original design criteria are valid.
Prior to starting embankment construction, the applicant must provide details of the inspection procedures and acceptance criteria for residual soil foundations, including, as appropriate:
(a) the location, depth, sampling frequency, etc. of test borings, test probes, test pits, static or dynamic load tests or other methods of inspection, and (b) the acceptance criteria to be used in the evaluation of the test results.
(3)
Results of Test Fill Pro ram The results of the test fill program for the random rockfill materials have been submitted (Ref. 1, 2 and 3) to us in accordance with the requirements of the SER supplements k'2 and 83 (Ref. 6)..
The test results showed that the random rockfill materials from the Cooling Tower Intake r
Channel (Ref.
- 2) and the West Auxiliary Dam Spillway (Ref. 3) contained 35%
and 32Ã, respectively, finer than 1/4 inch material.
The Ebasco Spec'ification CH-4 (Ref. 1) for random rockfill material requires less then 25K finer than 1/4 inch size material.
However, in our letter to J.
A. Jones dated January 18, 1974 (Ref. 7) we agreed that deviation from the gradation requirements could be permitted provided that the design strength and adequate permeability were attained in construction of the random rockfill.
The applicant provided test data showing that measured strength parameters of c=o,
= 40 degrees were attained in 1975 (Ref. 4).
The recent test fill results (Ref. '1, 2 and 3) showed that the materials now available were very similar to those tested in 1975.
We concur with the applicant that the 1975 strength values are thus applicable to the materials now available and are in excess of the design parameters of c=o,
= 30 degrees.
Also, the design moist density of 130 lbs/cu. ft is exceeded by the test fill densities.
The test fill dry densities were in excess of 135 lbs/cu. ft.
The'pplicant stated that the random rockfill is to be compacted by six passes from a vibratory roller imparting 45,000 lb of dynamic force on 24 inch lifts.
Other details of the random rockfill.construction are provided in Reference 1.
We concur with these specifications and we require additional specification which must be submitted for our review and approval prior to the start of random rockfill construction, as follows:
(a)
The gradation of the in-place rockfill must be tested periodically throughout construction and also at any time when there is a change in
i1 0
t I
~r
source or a visual change in gradation of materials.
Therefore, th*'!
applicant must specify the allowable grading limits for all particle sizes and the minimum frequency of gradation testing to be performed during construction.
(b)
The in-place density of the random rockfill must be tested periodically throughout construction.
The applicant must specify the minimum frequency of density testing during construction and the minimum acceptable density.
If the minimum acceptable density is to be less than 135 lb/cu. ft dry density the applicant must provide justification for the use of a lower value in light of the laboratory test results in reference 4.
4t 0
~
ENCLOSURE 2
REFERENCE 2.
Letter Feb.
2, 1979 from CP&L (M. A. HcDuffie) to NRC (H.
R. Denton),
subject:
In-place test fill program.
-I Letter, Jan.
23, 1979 from CP8L (H. A. HcDuffie) to NRC (H.
R. Denton),
subject:
In-place test fill program,
¹VR-24-4-1.
3.
Letter, Jan.
29, 1979, from CP&L (H. A. McDuffie) to NRC (H.
R. Denton),
subject; In-place test fill program ¹VR-24-4-2.
4.
- Letter, May 19, 1975 from CP&L (S.
McManus
) to Ebasco (L. V. Thierwechter
),
subject:
random rockfill test report and Corps of Engineers laboratory test results.
5.
PSAR and amendments 1 throught 73.
6.
SER and supplements 1 through 4.
7.
- Letter, Jan.
18, 1974 from NRC (D. B. Vassallo) to CP&L (J. A. Jones),
subject:
NRC Staff Positions regarding geotechnical engineering.
J
~
T