ML18003A596
| ML18003A596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1979 |
| From: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907190140 | |
| Download: ML18003A596 (8) | |
Text
JUM 6 egg HEHORANDUH FOR:
Olan D. Pair, Chief Light Hater Reactors Branch No. 3, DPH FROH:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences
- Branch, DSS
SUBJECT:
CRITERIA FOR PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL PLANT NAHE:
Shearon Harris, Units 1-4 DOCKET NUHBER:
50- 0 LICENSING STAGE:
Post CP MILESTONE NUf<lBER:
R-1S RESPONSIBLE BRANCH:" LllR-3; S. Hiner, LPH REVIEW STATUS:
Awaiting Additional information regarding existing fill supporting Category I pipes l
As described in the enclosure, we have reviewed information submitted by H. Hc0uffie, Carolina Power and Light Company, to H. Denton, NRR, which provided results of a study of previously placed fill.
~
Me find that the backfill.which has been placed against the waste processing building is acceptable.
Our evaluation of the applicant's study is enclosed.
This review was made by Dr. Owen 0. Thompson, Geotechnical Engineering
- Section, Geosciences
- Branch, DSG.
T Ori8inal signor by R. E. Jackson.
Robert. E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Brancusi Division of Systems Safety-
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page OrrIC4~
OURIIAM4~
IIAT4~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
NBC FORM 518 (9 7G) NRCM 0240
~
~
U,~, OOVCRNMRNT RRINTINC ORRIC41 l11 ~
2 ~ 0 TII 0
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
I 0
0
>>f ly h
0
'0 8 C"
d'lan D, Parr 1
JUN g
)g7g cco
>v/o enclosure H. Denton E. Case R. Boyd D. Ross H, Thornburg W. Reinmuth DISTRIBUTION:
DOCKET I."ILE (50-400/403)
NRR RDG GB RDG cc:
w/enclosure J, O'Reilly R. DeYoung D. Muller.
D. Vassallo J. Knight.
R. Denise R. She>maker R. Nurphy
- 0. Parr R. Jackson L. Hulman,
~
A. Herdt J. Bryant L. Heller S. Niner J. Harris J. Linhhan
~0. Thompson F. Williams Local PDR PDR OfflCd~
OVCNAI4d W DATC~
USS:GB OOThomp on':s DSS:G LWHe r
...6/)p!:79.
OSS:G REJ c;
...6/~7.9...
SRC FORM 51$ (9.76) NRCM 0240 7
U,~, OOVCIINMCNTPIIINTINO OffICCI ICT~
C ~ I 1 ~f
0 3 Ql)L 1
4 H
, ~
V
't k
hl V
V
/
E.
1 4
4I I
Plant Name:
Shearon Harris, Units 1-4 Docket No.:
60-400/403 Licensing Stage:
Post CP Milestone No.:
. R-18 Responsible Branch:
LWR-3; S. Miner, LPM
Subject:
. Criteria for Previously Placed Fill Prepared by:
0; Thompson-, Geotechnical Engineering
- Section, GB, DSS
~Bk d
During routine inspections, IE personnel found that some aspects of earthwork construction were not being performed in accordance with the PSAR.
These findings led to a Transfer of Lead Responsibility from IE to NRR for certain earthwork items (memo to D. Vassallo,
In our memorandum dated May 8, 1979 from R. Jackson, OSE, to 0. Parr,
- OPM, we approved the revisions to the specifications and the corrective measures described in a letter from M. McOuffie, Carolina Power and Light Company, to H. Denton, NRR, dated May 4, 1979.
The May 4, 1979 letter covered a number of items including backfill.
For backfill against Category I structures, except backfill following criteria were added supporting Category I pipes and conduits, the to CAR-SH-CH-8 Revision 8 specifications:
A.
A field permeability test shall be run on every 2000 cub. yd.
of placed
/
fill.
B.
Permeability of the placed fill shall not exceed 10 ft/yr.
C.
Backfill material shall be placed at a moisture content within + 4 percent of optimum moisture content determined by the Standard Proctor Density Method.
The backfill that has been placed against the waste process. building was placed in accordance with specification CAR-SH-CH-8 Revision 8.
In order to show that all this previously placed backfill meets the additional k
requirements of the specification revisions provided in the May 4, 1979 letter r eferenced
- above, the applicant has made a study of the previously placed backfill and submitted the findings in a letter from N. McDuffie, Carolina Power and Light Company, to H. Denton, NRR, dated Nay 18, 1979.
Evaluation We have reviewed the May 18, 1979 submittal and our evaluation is as follows:
Item A.
The reports show that an adequate number of permeability tests have been made.
Item B.
The test results show that the required maximum permeability was exceeded in 3 tests, but retesting after proper soaking gave acceptable test results.
We concur with the applicant's opinion that the permeability requirements have been met.
Item C.
'hirtyfive (35) moisture content results have been obtainted from in-place density tests taken durino placement of the backfill. All of these test results meet the + 4 percent criteria when the actual test results are considered.
Five (5) of these test results do not meet the + 4 percent criteria when the maximum probable error of + 1.2X between field test results and oven-dried resultsis considered.
The actual test results show a maximum deviation of
'L
-3.7X trom optimum moisture content.
The maximum probable deviation is determined to be -4.9/ (-3.7-1.2).
We concur with the applicants'pinion that these test results are acceptable becausef
a) the test results deviate from specifications only when the maximum probable error is included~,
b) only a small number. of test results deviatez r
c) the.actual deviation is small and~for the placed portion of the fill, wi tl not adversely affect the safety of the plant.
For the above reasons, we consider the previously placed backfill against the waste process building to be acceptable.
All additional fillmust be placed in -accordance with the specifications as referenced in CPSL's May:4, 1979 letter.
Remainin Issues The items of concern which led to the transfer of lead responsibility'nd which have not been addressed by the applicant at this time are:
(i) criteria for backfill supporting Category I pipes and conduits adjacent to structures~
(ii) acceptability of previously placed random fillwhich will support Category I pipes and conduits.
One other item of concern to the IE inspectors-was the quality control of the field moisture content determinations.
We believe this item should be resolved by IE as a field problem.
We recommend that the field moisture contents be controlled such that the worst combination of field measurements
/
and maximum probable error (between field moisture determinations aiid oven-dried moisture determinations) remains within specification limits.
e,
)