ML18003A923
| ML18003A923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1983 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8306240468 | |
| Download: ML18003A923 (9) | |
Text
~
~
JUtt 10 J983 Docket Nos.:
50-400 and 50-401 Mr. E.
E. Utley Executive Vice President Carolina Power 5 Li)ht Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh. North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Utley:
DISTRI BUT.ION document ControI 5D-4DO/401 NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LBIJ13 Reading JLee NPKadambi
- Attorney, OELD
JPhil ip
Subject:
Transmission of Report on Geotechnical Engineering Site Visit and Audit Members of the Geotechnical Engineering Section of the Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch (SGEB) conducted a site visit and audit of the Shearon Harris plant on April 12, 13 and 14, 1983.
Enclosed is the report written by the reviewers now assigned to the Harris case.
list of open items has been presented at the conclusion of the report based on the findings of the await.
These items should be added to the Open Items List in Chapter 1 of the Draft Safety Evaluation Report.
Please'-contact the Project Manager of you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page Original signod by George I Knighton George
'll. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 DivisRdh of Licensing 830b2404b8 830bl0 PDR ADOCK 05000400 E
PDR OFFICE/
EURNAMElD DATEf DL:LB43gtE NPKadam)1%y 6/7/83
~ I~
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ e ~ oo ~\\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
D
..6
. g.ton.
6/ f/83
~ ~ ~
~I ~ 4 I~ OI ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I NRC FORM 318 u040) NRCM 0240 OFFlClAL RECORD COPY USGPOI 1SB1DM DDO
"I
~
y Shearon Harris '"
Mr.
E.
E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 cc:
George F, Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 8.
Trowbridge 1800 M
- Street, NW Washington, D.
C.
20036 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Associate General Consel Carolina Power 8 Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Mall
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. David Gordon,
- Esq, Assoc~ige Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
115 W. Morgan Street
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. George Maxwell Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D. Barham, Jr.,
Esq.
Vice President 8 Senior Counsel Carolina Power 8 Light Company Post Office Box 1551
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr, Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 Mr. George Jackson, Secretary Environmental Law Project School of Law, 064-A University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr P.hajjis Lotchin Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Travis Payne,
- Esq, 723 W. Johnson Street Post Office Box 12643 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr, Daniel F. Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 524 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard D. W!ilson, M.
D, 725 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Regional Adminstrator - Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Karen E. Long, Esq.
Staff Attorney Public Staff -
NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
A Report on the Geotechnical Engineering Site Visit And Audit - Attendees List Enclosed as Appendix Reported. by J. Philip A ril 12, 1983 We started with a brief meeting with CP8L and,Ebasco (a list of attendees is enclosed).
Lyman Heller and Owen Thompson explained to those present that the major objectives of our visit and audit were to (i) review the main plant site foundation, and the earthen water control structures associated with the plant; (ii) examine construction control records related to geotechnical engineering for the main plant area and the associated
- dike, dams and channels; (iii) discuss
{audit) the design procedures used in the calculations of lateral static and dynamic loads on subsurface walls; {iv) discuss with the applicant the implementation of an inspection program (Regulatory Guide 1.127) for water control structures associated with the plant and (v) discuss and resolve outstanding items in the draft SER.
The'applicant was told that I was taking over the review from Dr. Thompson and would be responsible for preparing the Final Shearon Harris SER and would also track the project through ACRS and the hearing boards.
Since I was new to the project, the applicant was asked to provide me with any information that would. be of help in discharging my task effectively.
I was provided with aerial photographic blueprints of the site; the applicant expressed his willingness to acquaint me with the pertinent features of the project.
We were informed by the applicant that they plan to fill the excavations for cancelled Units 3 and 4 by ringing the west side of the Units 1 and 2 structures with a retaining wall, constructed with excess circulating /
water piping and then backfilligg against the proposed retaining wall.
A four foot space between the wall and the Unit 1 and 2 structures is planned to be left open, to prevent lateral earth pressure loads on the structures.
The applicant said that the retaining wall design was still in the conceptual stage and that the staff would be notified soon after the design was finalized by the applicant and Ebasco.
After the meeting, we toured the main plant area.
We viewed the open excavation intended for Units 3 and 4 into soil and rock, we examined the select soil and granular fill used in construction, and we walked and viewed the exposed portions of Category 1 piping for the Diesel Fuel Supply, the Emergency Service Water Discharge, and the Fire Protection Supply.
The staff was surprised to observe no ponded water in the Unit 3 and 4
excavation.
In response to a staff question, the applicant stated that, with the cancellation of Units 3 and 4 coupled with the low permeability of backfill materials around the plant structures, groundwater levels below EL 250 (USGS) were anticipated. 's a conservative measure however, the plant walls were designed for a groundwater level of EL 250.
Plant grade is at EL. 260.
The next part of the site tour included the Auxiliary Separator Dike and the Auxiliary Reservoir Channel.
Hater levels on both sides of the dike were slightly below the design
- maximum, EL 250.
We observed several deep erosion gullies on the slopes of the Auxiliary Reservoir Channel caused by rain water.
The applicant was told of our concerns with excessive erosion and with the possibility of siltation in the channel.
The need for an ongoing inspection program, similar to that formulated in Regulatory Guide 1.127, was discussed with the applicant.
The site tour ended by walking the t<ain Dam, the Auxiliary Dam and a
small length of the south slopes of the Emergency Service Water Intake Channel.
At the Hain Dam, we walked the slopes of the spillway channel in addition to the length of the dam.
It was the staff's opinion that, although minor ravelling might occur, the rock-soil slopes of the spillway channel are stable and are not likely to pose a safety problem during the life of the plant.
The south slopes of the Emergency Service Water Intake Channel, though well seeded, did show some evidence of rain water erosion.
Again, the applicant was told of the need for an appropriate inspection program to handle the erosion situation.
We also observed backfill placement, spreading, and compaction adjacent to the Intake Structure walls.
~Aii 13.
98 We spent most of the morning of the thirteenth examining summaries of soil backfill test results from field and laboratory density testing.
Backfill test results for several structures including the Screen Structure, the Auxiliary Building, the Diesel Fuel Building and the Category 1 pipelines were checked by the staff.
We found that the applicant had excellent records of field data readily available.
Spot checks of the data by the NRC staff revealed that the applicant has maintained an orderly filing system to track the progress and status i)f each liftof backfill.
Joe
- Lenahan, NRC Region II, joined us in this part of the audit.
We discussed with the applicant's consultant, Ebasco, their methodology for the calculation of lateral static and dynamic loads on subsurface walls of Seismic Category 1 structures.
Ebasco's engineer, Bill Nercurio, explained to us that two methods were used in the lateral pressure computations.
In the first method, used for a number of
subsurface walls, soil strains were determined from the arithmetic sum of wall movement (calculated from the structural analysis) and the free field soil movement.
The lateral pressures were then calculated using the laboratory determined pressure-strain relationships for the silty clay backfill.
In the second
- method, used for some subsurface walls, a
passive pressure coefficient of 3.0 was assigned for the backfill while a coefficient of 2.03 was used for backfill for that part of the wall below rock.
On the request of the NRC staff, Ebasca agreed to provide us:
(I) sample lateral pressure diagrams and computations, (2) a listing of the walls and the method utilized to compute the lateral pressures, and (3) cross sections showing details of backfill adjacent to the walls and the wall-backfill-rock layout for structures founded below the rock surface.
Activities for the rest of the day included a field trip to inspect the Diesel Fuel and Fire Protection pipeline penetrations at the Diesel Storage Tank Building and a walking tour along part of the south slopes of the ESW discharge canal.
The staff observed a number of deep erosion gullies on the canal slopes similar to those seen at the Auxiliary Separator Channel.
We pointed out these areas to the applicant and stressed the need for remedial work under an adequate long term inspection program.
The site visit for this day was concluded following a short meeting at the Applicant's site office in which we outlined the agenda for the following day - auditing field records on construction activities for the dike, dams and channels associated with thy project and finally conducting an exit interview outlining the conclusions of our site visit.
A ril 14, 1983 4o We resumed the audit of the geotechnical engineering aspects of the Shearon Harris construction activities.
Included in the audit on this day were an examination of the following:
(I) Piezometer readings on the Hain and Auxiliary Dams and the Auxiliary Separator Dike..
(2) Settlement readings and lateral deflection measurements of the l1ain and Auxiliary Dam.
(3) Settlement readings on buildings in the main plant area.
(4) Seepage monitoring documentation on the Hain Dam.
We found that the applicant had excellent up to date records pertaining to the above activities.
The settlements, lateral deflections and piezometric data recorded to date, indicated that the structures and the associated dike and dams are functioning properly and as predicted in the design.
The applicant has prepared a report on the geotechnical aspects of the construction of the Main Dam, The Auxiliary Dam and the Auxiliary Separator Dike.
The'eport is in a draft form and has yet to be docketed.
P.
- Kadambi, LPM, said he would provide SGEB with a copy for evaluation soon after the report is docketed.
One item requiring modification, and pointed out to the applicant by Joe Lineham, involved including a rainfall-versus time graph on the seepage-time plots of the Main Dam.
Such a plot could help in evaluating and interpreting the seepage data.
Joe also asked the applicant to define the degree of accuracy to be achieved when using survey instruments for measuring settlements and lateral movements of various markers.
The seismic Category I structures are supported on bedrock.
The structural response to dynamic loading was analyzed by the applicant based on the lumped-mass spring method.
We asked Ebasco to provide us more information on (1) the method used by Ebasco to assign spring constants and Poisson's Ratio for the rock in their analysis and how the chosen values compared with published data and (2) the lateral earth pressure values obtained during the response of the structures when a
fixed-base lumped mass model is used in the dynamic analyses.
The staff then discussed the implementation oi Regulatory Guide 1.127, "Inspection of Water Control Structures Associated with Nuclear Power Plants" with the Technical Services group of CP&L.
We were told by the applicant that Ebasco pad previously submitted a report to CP&L detailing the procedures to befollowed by CP&L to comply with this Regulatory Guide.
We were also told that one inspection, in accordance'ith the Ebasco submittal, was performed by'he applicant.
CP&L has not provided us with a copy of the Ebasco report.
If the applicant dockets the report, the staff could evaluate the submittal:for accuracy and completeness.
Next, Lyman, Owen, Joe and I selectively audited compaction test documentation for backfill around structures and associated water control structures at the CP&L document vault.
Included in the audit were an examination of Plasticity Index Testing of fill materials referenced in the compaction tests.
The audit confirmed our initial observations of the excellent filing and retrieving system established by CP&L.
Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's) and Field Change Requests (FCR's) were well documented and cross-referenced with the date of occurrence, location and elevation of the backfill layer in question, and the pertinent compaction test.
The methods used to rectify the t<CR and FCR situations were also well documented.
A
~
~ 9 Finally, we conducted an exit interview with CP8L and Ebasco and outlined our conclusions and comments of the site audit.
Lyman thanked the applicant for their cooperation in the audit conducted by the staff and commended them on their fine geotechnical related construction documentation.
He listed the following items that need to be addressed by the applicant, CP8L.
(These items were previously agreed to by Lyman, Owen, Joe and I in caucus).
1.
Details of the proposed retaining wall and fill to replace the foundations of Units 3 and 4:
The applicant was told that the final Shearon Harris SER would need to address this issue and a
timely finalization of the design and NRC Staff review was essential to preclude having an outstanding issue for resolution prior to the ACRS and hearings.
2.
Lateral Earth Pressures:
Ebasco would provide the staff with information on the methods used to compute the pressures, identify the walls considered for each analysis, provide sample pressure diagrams and calculations, and -submit sample cross sections showing the details of the wall and backfill.
3.
Foundation Properties for Soil-Structure Interaction:
Ebasco would provide the staff with additional information on the methods used to arrive at spring constants and Poisson's ratio for the rock, compare the values used with published data and check whether the lateral pressure computations change if the response of the structures is based on fixed-base lumped yass model in the dynamic analyses of the structures.
4.
Inspection of water control structures according to Regulatory Guide 1.127:
Thestaff recommended CPSL's commitment to compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.1/7.
CPKL was told that the staff would expect the implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.127 at the Shearon Harris Plant to be a License Condition or a Technical Specification for plant operation.
In my view, the site visit and office audit was very helpful in providing the staff with first-hand knowledge of the geotechnical aspects of the Shearon Harris Project and with confidence in the geotechnical work that has been done to date.
It will help me to complete the review and to prepare the final SER input due in September, 1983.
~Aendix List of Attendees at the site and office audit (Geotechnical Engineering) April 12, 13, 14, 1983.
A ril 12, 1983 NRC L. Heller
- 0. Thompson J. Philip P.
Kadambi D. Prevatte*
CP&L R. Parsons M. Thompson B. Marlar M. Pridgen J.
Paul L. Garner J. Nevill B. Stevens G. Davis J.
Kueck P. Foscolo Ebasco B. Mercurio S.
Goyal A ril 13, 1983 NRC L. Heller 0.
Thompson J. Philip J.
Lenahan**
CP&L B. Marlar L. Garner J.
Paul M. Thompson Ebasco B. 'Mercurio S.
Goyal A ril 14, 1983 CP&L Ebaeco L. Heller 0.
Thompson P.
Kadambi J. Philip L. Lenahan D. Prevatte P.
Foscolo M. DiVernon J. Nevill J.
McKay L. Garner M. Thompson B. Marlar J.
Paul J.
Kueck R.
Parsons N. Chi'angi B. Mercurio S.
- Goyal,
- NRC Resident Inspector at Shearon Harris
- NRC Region II Inspector