ML18017A479
| ML18017A479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1978 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017A476 | List: |
| References | |
| VR-24-4-1, NUDOCS 7902220076 | |
| Download: ML18017A479 (109) | |
Text
TEST REPORT RANDOM ROCKFILL MATERIAL SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TEST VR-24-4-1 Prepared by Power Plant Construction Department
4.
'L.
Wt 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Objective III. Procedure A. Description of Test Fill B. Material C. Settlement Measurement D. In-Place Density Determination E. Grain Size Distribution Test F. Permeability Test IV. Tabulated Results V. Discussion of Results VI. Recommended Method of Placement and Compaction Appendix "A. Data and Computations
- 1. Settlement Data and Curves
- 2. Gradation Data and Curves
- 3. Density Calculations
- 4. Permeability Data and Graphs B. Field Inspection Reports
'E g
'F 1
V' I
I. Introduction Thi's report contains the results of test fill VR-24-4-1 which includes large volume in-place density test and grain size distribution tests performed before and after the test fillwas completed. Also field permeability tests were performed on the test fill in-place, and sev-eral constant head permeability tests were performed on the random rock-fill material. All these tests were conducted by Power Plant Construc-tion Department personnel in the field and in the. site laboratory.
ZI. ~Ob'ective There were three objectives in performing this test program:
A. To satisfy CP&L's,commitment to NRC for defining the properties of rockfill material to be used in Class I dams and the west auxiliary dike.
B. To assure CP&L that the engineering properties assumed for the random rockfill material in the design were consistent with the actual compacted in-place material properties.
C. To determine if the test results are consistent with previous test fill properties which have already been deemed acceptable by the design engineer.
III. Procedure Due to the fact that random rockfill material for Class I dams and dikes may be in short supply, it was determined that the blasted rock from the Cooling Tower Makeup Water Channel should be used if possible. In order to determine that the blasted rock material was suitable, an in-place test fill section was constructed on site to simulate the actual hauling, dump-ing, spreading and compaction process of the dam random rockfill construc-tion. From this test fill in-place properties such as gradation, density, permeability, and settlement due to rolling were determined.
A. Descri tion of test fill Test fill section designated VR-24-4-1 was constructed between 12/ll and 12/16, 1978, just south of the Emergency/Service Water Intake Channel. The area selected was free of excessive surface water and was reasonably level. The area was staked out and graded and then proof rolled with a vibratory roller until no appreciable settlement was detected.
The test fill was conducted in accordance with PPCD SHNPP Technical Procedure TP-1. The test section was approximately 40 feet by 55 feet with 24 settlement points. Also a ramp was
jl t I I
e 0
4
constructed with a 5 H to 1 V slope. The sides of the test section were maintained at approximately 1.5 H to 1 V.
The material was end dumped, spread in approximately 24 inch thickness and was compacted with 10 passes of a Rascal 600-A roller. The roller produces a dynamic force of 45,000 pounds operating force with a vibration frequency between 1100 and 1500 VPM at a maximum speed of 3 mph. The test fill section consisted of four lifts. The number and thickness of the lifts placed, number and speed of roller passes, type and oper-ation requirements of the compaction equipment, and the methods of spreading and compaction were determined fro'm previous test fills.
B. Material - The material used was blasted random rockfill re-moved from the Cooling Tower Makeup Water Channel. All the material came from approximately El. 220 and station 8 + 00.
The material consisted of medium to fine grained sandstone with siltstone. Maximum particle size allowed for the test fill section was 22 inches or 90 percent of the lift thickness.
C. Settlement Measurement Prior to placement of the first lift, initial readings were recorded for each of the 24 settlement points. A system of offset control was used to assure the settlement points were relocated in the same plane after each lift placement. The rockfill material was then end dumped by Euclid R 50 trucks and spread in approximately 24 inch lifts by a Caterpillar D 8 dozer. The method and operating time utilized'y both types of equipment simulated anticipated field conditions.
The surface of the lift after spreading was marked with paint sprayed directly on the lift surface for each settlement point.
Level readings were recorded for each of the points and aver-aged to determine the initial lift thickness. The vibratory roller then made one pass over the entire surface of the lift and level readings were taken to determine the degree of settle-ment. The procedure was then repeated for a total of 10 passes for the first 3 lifts. The settlement points were repainted as necessary. After completion of the. first lift, settlement data
0
¹ 4,~
~ '. p I
was collected in the same manner for the second and third lifts.
The final level readings recorded from a pgpvious lift were used as the initial readings in determination of the thickness of the next lift. A plot of percent decrease in lift thickness versus number of passes was constructed from the data collected for each lift. An examination of the settlement plots for the first three lifts revealed that approximately 6 passes of the roller produced an optimum amount of settlement per compaction effort. The fourth lift was rolled with only 6 passes.
In- lace Densit Determination After the final layer was com-pacted and all settlement data was recorded, an in-place density test was performed on December 16, 1978. The following procedure was used to conduct the test:
A wood frame measuring 8 feet x 8 feet x 7 inches high was placed over the test area and held in-place by stakes.
2~ Level readings of all four corners at the frame were re-corded from a nearby established bench mark.
- 3. One sheet of polyethylene was laid loosely over the frame so that they were in as close contact as possible with the inside of the frame rock surface.
- 4. The depression in the slack membrane was filled with water via a calibrated barrel to'within 3 or 4 inches of the top of the frame.
5 ~ The volume of water added and the distance from the top of the frame to the water surface was measured and recorded.
6... The water was removed without disturbing the ring or dam-aging the membrane.
- 7. The polyethylene sheet was removed and checked for leaks.
- 8. The material within the frame was then carefully excavated and placed into a truck.
9- The hole was then hand-cleaned to remove all loose or sharp material in the sides and bottom.
10 ' The weight of the total sampled 'excavated was determined by weighing the truck full and empty.
- 11. The polyethylene sheet was again placed loosely over the excavated hole and frame.
'C
- J C:
+'
- 12. The hole was filled with water to the same level as in II step 4.
- 13. Level readings were again taken at all four corners of the frame to assure the frame had not moved.
- 14. The volume of water added was recorded.'5.
Steps 6 and 7 were repeated.
E;" Grain Size Distribution Test A before and after gradation analysis was performed on the random rockfill used in the test fill. One gradation sample was loaded on a flat bed truck directly from the point of blast production. This sample appeared to be represent-ative of the type and size of material that was being excavated from the Cooling Tower Makeup Water Channel. The sample was taken directly to an enclosed area, spread out on a concrete floor, and heated with space heaters to remove the moisture. The material was graded by hand to remove all large rocks in the 12" to 24" range, then the 8" to 12" range, then the 4" to 8" range. The sample was then reduced by quartering and graded down to the I8 sieve using a Gilson Sieve Shaker. A Ro-Tap Sieve Shaker was used to determine particle size down to the N100 sieve. The weights retained on each sieve were carefully measured and the Percent Passing Total was determined for each sieve ranging from 24" down to N100.
The after compaction gradation sample was obtained from the in-place density test to determine IV how much breakup particles. The sample was dried and graded1 in the same manner as the before com-paction test sample. The Percent Passing Total was computed for each sieve size and recorded.
Utilizing the 1
above data the two gradation curves were plotted to obtain a visual aid in determining which sizes broke down the most.
Most of the breakdown occurred in the 4" to 916 gradation range.,
There was not an appreciable increase in the amount passing the N100 sieve. However, the after compaction sample was, on the whole, finer than the before compaction sample due to rock break-down ~ 4
F. Permeabilit Test A total of five permeability tests were per-formed on the test filland the random rockfill obtained from the test fill. A constant head method was use8 to determine the co-efficient of permeability of the random rockfill material. A brief discussion of each permeability test will follow and the procedure used:
- 1. Two in-place permeability tests were performed on the test fill in accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation, <ak of the Interior, Field Permeability Test lw'epartment (Well Permeameter Method) Designation E-19. The proce-dure used is as follows:
- a. An air track drilling rig drilled two holes in the top of the test fill. These holes were 2.83'eep.
- b. The sides of the well were scarified and all loose material was removed from the bottom of the holes.
- c. The well was filled to the top with Ottawa sand of known density.
d.'he volume of the well is then determined as is the radius of the well.
- e. Water is added through a float . valve which assures a constant head in the well.
- f. Water was allowed to flow into the well for approx-imately 2 hours to saturate the area adjacent to the well.
- g. Measurements were then begun in 30 minute intervals to measure 'the quantity of water that flowed into the well. This was continued for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. An average flow rate was then calculated.
- h. All the data was compiled and entered into a form-ula to yield the permeability of the test fill.
i,. These two well permeability tests were designated as VR-24-4-1-PF-1 and VR-24-4-1-PF-2 respectively.
- 2. One laboratory permeability test was performed on a re-graded sample of the random rockfill material to gain more insight on the material's permeability. The following steps were performed in the laboratory trial:
- a. No gradation sizes larger than 3" were used in the test.
- b. The after--compaction gradation curve was used and redrawn to eliminate any sizes larger than;3". In essence, the curve was redrawn to indicate that 100%
passed the 3" size"and the new curve then blended back into the after compaction gradation curve be-tween the 3/8" and the 54 sizes. This is the same method that was used by the Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division Laboratory dated October 24, 1974. The procedure is explained in detail in CP&L correspondence letter CE-03589. The purpose of re-drawing the curve was to eliminate any sizes larger than 3" (which could not be adequately handled by our test equipment). The curve was redrawn in such a manner as to closely match the actual after-compac-tion gradation of the test fill section for sizes smaller than, the N4 sieve.
- c. Quantities of test fill blasted rock were warm-air dried overnight and then sieved in a Gilson machine into the following gradation limits:
- l. 1" to 3" range
- 2. 1/2" to 1" range
- 3. N4 to 1/2" range
- 4. Passing N4
- d. The percentages in each gradation range needed were calculated from the gradation curve drawn in step 6.
- e. The weights needed in each gradation range were cal-culated and then water was added to the weighed out sample to reproduce the water content of the blasted random rock material.
- f. The sample was then thoroughly mixed to combine all 4 gradation ranges into a homogeneous mass represent-ative of the rockfill test fill material.
- g. The material was placed in three lifts into a cylin-drical steel drum and compacted until a dry density of 137.8 N/ft3 was obtained. This was the density of the material in the compacted test fill.
- h. The surface between layers was scarified to eliminate
4 h 4
~ '
the highly compacted layer of fines directly on the surface df each layer.
- i. The top of the cylindrical drum was sealed and a max-mum of 5 psi vacuum pressure was applied to the top of the soil sample to pull wa'ter up through the soil sample thereby insuring complete saturation.
- j. Once the sample was saturated, a constant head of water was maintained for a period of about 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> on the sample. Readings were taken every 30 minutes to deter-mine the flow rate through the compacted sample.
- k. This permeability test was marked VR-24-4-1 PL-l.
- l. Once all the data was 'obtained, a coefficient of per-meability, K, was computed from a constant head form-ula.
- 3. In addition, 2 more laboratory permeability tests were performed on the random rockfill material obtained di-rectly from the compacted test fill I
area. The following steps were used in performing these permeability tests:
- a. A representative sample was excavated from the test fill and placed in buckets. Approximately 1505 was retrieved.
- b. The sample was taken to the lab where all sizes larger than 3" were removed from the sample and discarded.
- c. The moisture content of the sample was determined.
- d. The material was weighed out and compacted in three lifts until a dry density of 137.8 N/ft was attained.
This was the density of the compacted material in the test fill.
- e. A layer of burlap was placed in the bottom of the cylindrical drum before the 3 rockfill lifts were compacted in the drum. The purpose of the burlap was to prevent fine particles from clogging the drain holes in the bottom of the drum.
- f. The surface between lifts was scarified to eliminate the highly compacted layer of fines directly on the surface of each layer.
- g. The permeablility test was .then run utilizing the constant head test method. The top of the cylin-drical drum was sealed and a rffaximum of 5 psi vacuum pressure was applied to the top of the soil sample thereby insuring complete saturation.
- h. Once the sample was saturated, a constant head of water was maintained for a period of time and the quantity of water flowing through the sample was measured. The flow rate was then computed.
- i. After all the data was collected, a coefficient of permeability value, K, was computed for the random rockfill sample.
- j. These 2 tests were marked VR-24-4-1-PL-2 and VR 4-1-PL-3 respectively.
IV. Tabulated Results A. Gradation analysis-
- 1. Before - passing 1/4 inch = 17.5 %
passing 1/4 inch = 35 ' %
B. In-Place Density
- 1. Net Density - 1475/ft3
- 2. Dry Density 137.85/ft3
- 3. Moisture Content 6.67%
C. Settlement Test optimum number of 6 passes produced 1.2% settlement.
D. Permeability Tests constant head:
In-place test fill permeability test 1 & 2
- a. K = 2.8 x 10"4 cm/sec
- b. K = 2.8 x 10 4 cm/sec
- 2. Laboratory constant head test using a reconstructed grad-ation produced by combining various sieve size particles.
- a. K = 7.28 x 10 4 cm/sec
- 3. Laboratory constant head test using a random rockfill sample obtained from the test fill.
- a. K = 3.03 x 10 cm/sec
- b. K'= 2'.6 x 10" cm/sec NOTES: The coefficient permeability listed above in 3a and 3b were determined for initial recorded data. See Discussion of Results for changes in
Ml coefficient of permeability. Lowest permeability recorded'as 9.& x 10 cm/sec.
V. Discussion of Results A. Settlement of Test Fill - Test results indicate that an adequate amount of compaction is produced by 6 passes of a Rascal 600-A vibratory roller. The settlement curves which were drawn for each of the 4 lifts in the test fill began to flatten out at approximately 6 passes of the roller. Further rolling did result in additional compaction, but the greatest amount of compaction came in the first 6 passes of the roller. The approximate per-centage settlement in 6 passes of the roller was 1.2%.
B P'article Gradation - A particle gradation was performed before roller compaction and 'again after roller compaction. The results are shown in the Data section of this report. There was an evident breakdown in particles due to the roller passes. The breakdown occurred over the entire spectrum of particle sizes but most notibly in the 4" to N16 sieve sizes. The after compaction gradation for this test fill compared favorably with previous test fill samples that were sent to the Corps of Engineers for gradation analysis.
Xn other words, the after compaction gradation for test fill VR-24-4-1 was similar to other test fill gradations that have been done at this site in the past.
C. Xn-Place Densit Test - The in-place density test performed on the roller compacted test fill revealed that a dry density of 137.8N/
ft3 was obtained. The moisture content of the material was 6.7S.
These values are consistent with test values of previous test fills performed on site.
D. Permeabilit Tests - A total of 5 permeability tests were performed on the random rockfill material. Two testswere made in-place in the test fill itself. The first test resulted in a permeability of K = 2.82 x 10 4 cm/sec. The second test value was a permea-bility of K = 2.86 x 10 - cm/sec. These two tests are identified as VR-24-4-1-PF-1 and VR-.24-4-1-PF-2. The permeability of this material is less 'as compared to the permeability of previous test fill material performed by the Corps of Engineers.
r~
K
~,
One possible source of the reduced permeability in this test fill could be that an air track drilling rig was used to drill the two holes for the field permeability tests. A8 an air-track drills, it shatters the material below it and exerts great force upon the walls of the hole. 'his force could have helped to seal the hole with very fine shattered material that will impede the flow of water during a permeability test. However, the interior of the wells were scarified before the test was begun. Also, the test holes were drilled to a depth of about 33". This means that the hole penetrated into the second lift where the surface of the second lift was compacted by ten passes of the roller. The sur-face of the second lift and extending 2 or 3 inches deep is com-posed of highly compacted fines produced by the breakdown of rock particles caused by the 10 roller passes.
A third test was performed in the lab on material that was sieved and then recombined to artificially produce a gradation that had 1008 passing the 3" sieve. A constant head permeability test was performed on a 9" thick sample inside a 12" diameter steel drum having perforations in its base to allow water to seep out. The results of this test give a permeability of K = 7.28 x 10 4 cm/sec.
This test is designated as VR-24-4-1-PL-1. The permeability of this sample was a little lower than was anticipated. There were two factors which could have contributed to this low value.'.
The first 3" layer that was placed was compacted so much that many fines accumulated near the top creating an impervious glossy skim. This layer was not scar-ified to break up the glossy surface. This would have lowered the permeability.
- 2. The drain holes in the steel drum containing the sample P became quite clogged with fine particles and prevented water from draining unrestrained from the sample. A porous layer of'urlap was inadvertently omitted which was to have lain adjacent to the drain holes to prevent them from becomming clogged with fines.
Since it was suspected that the previous test may be erroneous, 2 more lab constant head tests were run. Material was taken directly from the test fill area and all particles larger than 3" were re-moved. The moisture content was determined. The material was then
C KI
compacted in three 3" lifts until a dry density of 137.8I/ft was obtained. Two layers of burlap were placed next to the drain holes before the first layer of soil was compacted. This was to prevent fines from clogging the holes. Care was also taken when compacting the sample so as not to over-compact any layer. The constant head permeability test was performed and a coefficient of permeability K value of 3.03 x 10 3 cm/sec and another of 2.6 x 10" cm/sec was obtained on tests designated as VR-24-4 PL-2 and VR-24-4-1-PL-3 respectively. A gradation was run on a representative sample of material not actually used in the test.
The gradation matched up well with the artificially regraded and reconstructed test sample of VR-24-4-1-PL-l. If All three lab permeability tests had coefficients of permeability that reduced as time progressed. This lowering of the K value was attributed to migration of fines and clogging of the drain holes.
E. Examination of Test Fill After Com action '- After the test fill was completed, a D-8 dozer cut a path through the area so as to exam-ine the cross-section of the test fill. The material was gener-ally firmly compacted and there was good bond between horizontal layers. There were very few noticeable areas of loose compac-tion or voids. These .voids were mostly limited to areas under-neath larger rocks that were placed directly on top of the pre-vious lift. C These few areas had voids of about 1" width under-neath the large rocks. Only 2 or 3 such areas were noted. A few other places did not have voids but contained loosely compacted material underneath larger rocks lying directly on top of the previous lift. On the whole, the test fill appeared to be well compacted. A good estimate would be that over 95% of the cross section did not contain noticeable voids and areas of loose com-paction.
VI. Recommended Method of Placement and Com action Based on the data collected and observations made during the process of constructing the test fill, the following recommended methods of place-
r 1
4
'k
'I
~ I
ment of random rockfill in Class l dams and dikes:
A. A blast pattern of 8' 10'hould be used during production as this is the same blast pattern that was used on material in the test fill.
B Material will be end dumped from Euclid R-50 trucks in the ran-dom rockfill zone of the dam or dike as close as possible to its final resting position.
C. D-S dozers will spread the material in approximately horizontal lifts of 2 foot thickness.
D. All rocks larger than 908 of the lift thickness shall be removed from the random rockfill zone.
E. A minimum of 6 passes of a Rascal 600-A vibratory roller having a minimum dynamic force of 45,000 lbs. will be performed on each 2'hick lift. The roller shall not exceed 3 mph and passes, shall overlap one foot.
For more in-depth information, see Ebasco Specification CAR-SH-CH-4, Rev. 6.
I
\~
Lift'li ~Z 2.
Req) i".e-'rs'cl;"..ess ~<<
T'@pe Co...'- ice Ec'-'l O.-e" t VIENI<<'tr~ puIs, r. ('zI I-(.c - ..
s l bc&-4 llateriaI Desc".ip 'd'or. ~~s < ~yg-y ~~/L7 rr-4m/tsc g f C"cr.ZWc itr N<r-g ~ 25'0< IZ r c
8~
+rI-s Sett e- II!2 trie1 Ir.: tie r..er.t c.err. ..=*t t lr.<<"= 'f'>>.e I!81 Il I ~ k ~ ~ C ~ ~ AC ec,c'sl.~r
~ C ~ 4 ~ SC ~ 4 4 S AC A
hg C. <<C ~ ~ , << I ~
T giw ";.eve '-..~ Ic f I
\ ~
~
7(t c; ZS'l.oS 75<< ?.5< . ZS<f.03 ZS<<t.bff ZS<f.erg 1 /4 Z~CZ Z~<<I.Z .5<I.27 ~z.5'~ a
~~~+,? < Srl,S Z~,
4 ~ .2g z~~t. )1 Zs" t,l<<I ZS', A IQ 25'<l. 2S<I ZZI.)7 ?5<I. 17 SII. I7 IVY; SZ'E
<,2'S'4.)8
! I-<
+)<l. 0
<'sff Z~s~g <I, l. z5'I '77 -<t.Z7 17 .2.7 K<l 4 zff 24 ~LV Zs'Z > 2S I.3l V&9. I <<4 ZS<f. 30 $ 5~ 254 . 74:i ZSIf 30 ZSII, 5O ?C)I '<W 35 7's'I 1 3/is 8 .7, 0 ~
7 r<<l;r ~q, <<Sg ~Z~<I. z 54.> Sff.3 7.~~ I4't I
ZS t.<l>> ~<f.ff<s z.s f <f6 25<i.cr) ZS%'f7 7 Sc! A6 gag, <I 7 2'. <<I 6 Z.s<<t,ff 6 Z I.:I ZS~<<I.'< <I 5 7 'Sl .Ct<t 2.5<l II ZS 0,<o 25<<.dt 2 s~o9 ZSV.W ZS I Crs 25 I.<7) ZPI,O9 s/1-
~ ZeeOt'S<f.<7)
~<.
Z5<l >
z <<I.IIZ. Z~<ff
"'S<l . I'l
<<I clo . 4%i S<f.'L<<j PS'I.
/QI,S~
S"I. *I
~ 21 r )
<<r ZDV.R I ~ Z LS<<.ta Zscf. It. IS eat.)tt 25'l.)7
~
7/lo s/o
< cI
? -Io ZS<I ZS<l.27 Zo<I.<<n SR.VI Z ~ < I.<.l7 25<I Z Q~2P ZS<l. -9'
~
I'I I .. ~
ff..m z5<t 7<l a
~
<I +<It ZS<l s3ct 7%I:15 ZW4~ J 2<8 VQ MVL>B
? SV.W ZSQ<<7Z
<I 2 S~<,'r r~
ZS<<."
zS<t.?e 2S<I 73 S<l ~<I 2 q.e Z5<<3.'7
~2 25~37 ZS<l,
~S.I.N..
73 25<I.
Z5<l. IZ M
G'4X4 Zgl; <I+
259. sR LS<f,73 MHZ.
+:R~
~f jI ZsffI lp 1
ZSZI~ MS<I. IS ZS I.IS zS<I,<<f 25<).)4 ~<f,l< 25<), I I j?Pf. IQ 0/21 I << IC 2~I.<IO ~
Z Sz,e<<4 2 SS4,3. c5ff.
ask I<'r zs<f,? 7 ?Sr)IR I Z,S<<. t.6 25'4. VL ZS<<.ZI ZS4,24 ZSC=6 5 l.26 <<.'5<l,zr srf 25<<I Z7 yt~).7 5P-t Zr<l rc r ?.ZO ScI.S. ~
t ~gt < ZS'Mr rf .e 8~~2+ .<IS.'t
}
Zsg, <<I1 2 SCt 'Pj 254.48 'RS<f .<l ZS4A 7 7scf.47 ZS<IA7 5'II'I7 S<f.ff7 ZS<l,<I I ff6 Y-'W.
rj'03 Zc4D~
z~~<f I 254. M 25<I ~Z 2.S<<I.
Z'M32
( I ZS4 4!
~kl '254. <iI 259.??
?S~M 75<I, 4'5'I.'Z<l 2+~K @gl ~Z ZSH<M. ~IVY 2'.62 12/2I- Zs4.<'&89 I z~z.~8 Sq r S9<S. 5~/
252.3I 254<<37 2S+. 5( ZM.Z4o ZS-<.aS 5g, 2)a Z~r/.yg 2Pg P 25 r +.C f <<gy.pr I
I Avg. Tl;icl:ness Z.O4. Z.O~ Z ~ oS g,, p+ >cr lFercer.. Set tIe;..er.tt o. F C
~
~4 a tie 1
C
TEST FILL PROGRAM -.'RANDOM FILL SETTLEMENT CURVE
- HARRIS SITE Test Fill No V Z / Date /> ZC
~S'P&L Lift No y /~ e Required Thickness 29 Type Compaction Equipment ga Gc ~0 4 ~/( r~7 plgv 4+u)n Remarks 7e Settlement
=a.5'.S
+ 6 IO NUMBER OF PASSES (N) ss es AV s 5 e ~
A C
t t
P
] i ~ ~
'l
'T Lif lio. 2 p,p, /vji jg+ocoAJ ReqL'Ec el>lcPQass 2+ /t~//
'fip6, CO"..."ZC iO".. iC"i"".,e-..t Rr - 4 Rh-. I 0ier Ii raI. V, I V'c~ ie(
Yaterial DaSC".iP iOn PCA57ECI Rock'f/X gkyu/)/r// (~Rhea:"-/4.'V~70/'/C' CC.4ystC'/// PR'JLCW//I// CCtI ~c-I ///C//ES) Z PR.-ROY- P>> ~r C-I P PC.~/ -l I T'=-)) II S Sei. .7~
g IDi tir1 1r.i ti-. -' /1 n I ia J r.-- .
/ i.c . 2 lie.i
'i
/ ic
'foe i Lc,xie1 it .c:2 Cl Llig
~
~
~ c c
~ ~~ c CFC c.i . ~ L'c>> ~ ~ ~ ~ Cc v ~
c A
i
~ c choir.t c ~ l'= t.' ll= i 1'>>
iI &
~
Z5'I ocI Z.56. '7 ZSC. 256.3cZc 25&.~~ 256.37
~cc l.2 25 250 'N ZC Q/i~/
Z5'I,c1 Z,SC;-./ ZS6 3,1
~ 2 5&.ECc ' ZSC ~~ 256.5 0 >KW 256,'Zl g&6.7'56.29
& 77 r ~iZ/
2S6. 35 2 6.35 . 3cl 2S4 ~ ~3 2%. 3. ~ 256~'5 256. 33 25c gZ 3/ 5 ZN.g cGC,IC ll <~ G.
i 2SLV I >Si6c/d Z<6. An 2&6. Zc) ZG6, SI5 456..7 254. 37 254,'37 ZS'A. '56 4/16 ~~ccii~ ~ I. $ ~Pr ~l'V 2cc + 2'56,3 ~2ic XL 7.5cl.et% 2M.IP. ZS6.S7 256.'36 256. <<A C ZQ"ih 256. 36 256, 36 254. gri 5/17 5'6>6 456. 2,3 Zr&.2.I 45 /-%El L% 20 ZQx2w ZS'I.c7 2sc .c/Z Z "6. ZS6, 35 ZQ+35 256,5 f ZS6. BI r I.77 A
~7 256.Z I 256 So 35'Z
~t 25C.QI 2:%.~ 454, 3I 256,'3 Z C.XC ~<S6i&6 256, 3( 256.3I 4~, K'K ZP.3I 56, g" ZScI . I I 256.is'9:.'33
~
zg, ZCi
? /1".
~@>,3h Er~cli1 r 256.~~c 6 I JC/i I 2~ 3c) l ~26, Q 56.33 256. 33 256.3Z S'6 ~I ZSC zH"2.
3Z.
25~ Z56. S6 I.B.
256. i3Z I+
256.3I
'tg ZSr.
~ 3I 0'
I 8/2~ cI/7 rr Q /~cI 'c Jl ZScI eccl ZS6:~ 254.27 77 256,26 567-6 ZS4.2C. Zg 256,25 256?S 4~'.
pQ/ pr 454 I c'<6 I1 r.~4 Ig ..VS5 U 854, I l 259.27 p.g>,'51 ZS(i 3I ZW. 4'1 Z&6 Z7 254.28 746, Z7 ZRj,27 ZSC ~27 1Q /Z')
MSC +6 25'.cl6 256, I4 2'.~6.IQO I7 256, I/>> 2 56. I7 254,16
....ZPaM7 ZM. I6 454. cS Z54. IS 2$6 IS gg 7 4 11 /1$
2~4>>.% . KcA 254~ ci@CI 'der 3~
ZSQ & ZS6XS 256c 3o Zm.Z I ZS4,3I 25/% 5Z 254, 33 25&,32. 2&4.32 .
2~ci~6 Z~6SP.. gS5:Q~ ... W~.98 !l8 xa '/B Se.II'. ,-~)2 2<4.3+ ~,33 cZ~,SR 25 .~l 257 .3l ~i3) 2o& 3) M~ 5o Z.stc,30 Z~ po 28&ii i
! A'~ S. Tt:icl:ness /. 77 /. vq /. 'F7 /i c//
r ercart Set.1e-...ent O. g~o. /.o/, /.o/
4 P
'i E
I gw v
TEST FILL PROGRAM -'.RANDOM FILL SETTLEMENT CURVE CP6L - HARRIS SITE Test Fill No VE " 2 W
" 6 =/ /Z/Zn rf Lift No By +Ay à N4
//
Required Thickness Type Compaction Equipment E< @o R < ><> ~ P< $ ~ f'g~~ A um Po I/~F Remarks
, 3.5 74 Settlement
>.5'.5 0.$
+ 6 )0 NUMBER OF PASSES (N)
P'/
=!- II r
~ r ~ a r ~ rr ~
X4 I Li:2 Iic ~
1'ecI'iree r'nic12ness /~c,us:s Type Cc-... Z=ticn Eo~ip...en RAy-C~e Vl .V.KV l~~ UPagA P~4C.S C'OO rl1 1'.a arri laD c"ip:aoa r/I/ a ga S~
Sett'- Iri Iri tie 1 i"..el -rf'h rf t mr ~ a 1 >-'--1 r arC I ' ~ a r 4 a a r ~
ri,ent tie'eve1 iat raeZC i..' . e = rl1.hg a' : GCC na c a
~cir.t l:e- dint Fe1cin, 1 =2 1a f, ~~
C'G?t 29+, z,l Zeal, ZO Z.S8, I 9 ZRA. PT i 25lara7 ZSS2 IV c.sR, ZSB. I'I
~z~~l
~e.. I9 ZSEk ZS~&
~'3C.
ZW. I9 ZSg, Ig 4rra/, 0 I Zc++ 1 SL WP~*
25&,< petra. rr ZSB. I9 Cg?LIB 488 IB ZQS. IQ 2$ e,lef z~. l Q
~ML ZSB. I ? Ser I e CSS. I7 ZSB. Il ZSB, IS 7~. IS ZSS, IS 4/16 2SB. 3Z. ZS~32 ZSP 32 2~& 33 C58. 3I
~VL ZSB. ~ ZSA. 32
'Sll.++
ZSe. '3 I 2SI?,'Sl ZQ 7 mSa Ml ZS6.33 258,33 ZSII.Z& ~SPAZ, 2.6 ~ '-.8.25 -'aaa.ZS 258. ZS ZBB,24 25R zu
~%33 ls
~a ZSe
~+aZ9 Mh29 2~lrf zSeI Z'f zse. Iu >SR ~8.2I Zsp, zo aO ZSB. I9 Zsef A ZSB I9 7/la ~Z I .ARK LK ~Sh J9. P3~ 4K.S. . ZSRJQ IB I8 ZSB.'3I Zse. 3I ZSSI,3I'- 258. 3l 3Z ZSB.Q 258 SZ 3w S/0 ..u/ P "'z ZFM~ 2Co ZS8.% ZSBLM (SQ 3s ZSB. SS 9/21 r R/27 2 iR.2 2 7 "1 ZSK 2.QBrZ 33 Z~'Z l ZS8, W .Se.?9
.m<< ZS8~~ SB & .mSB.2'r I
7 B,~I M%5 I z~3Z ZSS. '3I Z.~ % ZSB, Sd eI.Z9
~2c'&29
'29 11 /l'2 I
r ZSQ.al o ZaR. uo Z~ M r".a Q7
'r.a fr. ar a harv a~. QB 'PS+
sKax
~
! 12/24 r7 ZK ...Q.'SM 4$ R~H %lP~> .4KB:.3Z I . :=M 3Z ZS 6 ZO ~ <GB.Zq 258.29 z~.2'-l 2~.2g 25/ .Zg p~.2g '2',27 2Q Vr27 I
I Avg. T1:ic)tness
- F -rccr.t Set tie-...ent P.50 p,50 Q.SO d.$ 0 a tran r0 ak ~ ra l rr ~
t TEST FILL PROGRAM .-:RANDOM FILL SETTLEMENT CURVE CP6L - HARRIS SITE Test Fill No Vg 2V. Q / Date ~+ >+ 7g Lift No 3 s /v@
Required Thickness Type Compaction Equipment god+ vi'4~."fi~g 4 ~gg,/o P. -v.
Remarks 70 Settlement 2'5'.5
+ 6 IO NUMBER OF PASSES (N)
4 d
l
c ~
~ ~
f ~
JCSc rrr( I
.cv ~ I'2-l5- 1 Liit Vo. Ql, Ca (((> (c Reqt.'i reo x I('1Ines s Tv pc Co...j'ec ti on Lc "iQs..e. t Coo A'sc.rc( fYYII.K Perh Ve4J Q.R.
i)II'<
~ P.
Ya terial Duse".ip tion 5> /7 S )? d~ g Sett'- Irci tie Ir.i ti- Fir.a1 r ~ ~ Cr ~ ( ~ C~ 2 l(ac . ir(c;r ~ 4 c ~ (~
r,er.t 've3. rcec..cl..' r C (". C: r. a ~ ('C v ~ ~ ~ C \ ~
choir.t ";.eacir.~ reer 4 A ~
( lc I~ N'=3 !'=k ~ l ZSP, I >.Q). 0- 2'.no 2I'n n Ko nz 2C(r( ~ 04 zg hn ".,~n
/:4 Z58,tp 2'" ;(~r.. n prhrh, I, cg~hQ c/' l?. ((;)O II II
?4 nrc,n IO r(.rh ~ I
-'(
Z58. 78 24> n') ".4,r( I" ao II t4(7> I I (7.II
.CC( h(
2$ 8. ls zr~.ol. pgn.o'? +4n 4/16 "/..n r(4 5/17
'XSB.EI 4
2'" 3nO.I.(t g n. I'?.
err (7 ~
g.n. I-.
2G;n. In roan n( ?e "-'1 4h. C7 (Cr.rh, ng Z5B. r'I Zio I ) 2(hn I- qr(h.I'9 Wo I'I 2/h( . I'lc rcr" I'I 6/16 (I c'~n.~ n Z5g. 11 /l R,o.o'I an.o'1 h4r(.Cc: '24@ C"-
7/1c
'.,l2} n.l 9P r\, Ic ..~4(t." 9:
2'~4o..14
~
'/
ZW.SZ -;, .gr. p<n.l I ?4n I'= h~r<. Ig. gr.,y./(I (!
G 7+ +r 2~ I 4 Pg,n. I/ ..Md5 9/'71 Zse. rr5 X e" I'.- mn ln hr o,q( en< hrp, 2('rh'I II~o ctrn'>o.
h n/(
Z58, N g(7(( 1+(7 ? ~ 2(, n ~ '1 1G/22 Mc(ccL .. I,'"'23 PK Cl 2~n. "4 ~ (h '? rc hc,r ."..4 2.C ("".'.
11 /'7h 3 yew og dQ:E 2&0.' .',c-n I /I
~n.!Q-2.c.o I hr,.rl ~
I"-
.~2.
24( I".
Ch I
12/2< C~~Z, .Ã~<L~ ~n. I( ~~ I C. ~~.l< 4~. I(1 Avg. 5'g.ag 2i'O Ii; Avg. Tl;icl:ness Sd
'Fercert Sett] e".,ent
. 0. S I /,N' (nh / 7 rr(7 ~
4 V I
e P
C
'J r
TEST FILL PROGRAM -:BUM)OM FILL SETTLEMENT CURVE CP&L - HARRIS SITE Test Fill No VR Date W >0 75 Lift No By /pe Required Thickness ZF Type Compaction Equipment Aa - No 8 <s'c~t 8 V'$~" 7 I'y Remarks
~ g 70 Settlement o.S
+ 6 NUMBER OF PASSES (N)
I P
I J~ z I
CRROLlMA PObfER 4 LIGHT HQRtUs s~TF U S STAICARD SIEVE SIZES II I+ g 4 9 + IYg I 3
" '/4 g 8 IP tg 20 90 40S 0 IOO E 0 QO 80 70 50 3
50 CI 40 X
30 X
20 0
5'oO IO LO CLl OOI GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 80U 0RAVEI SAND FINES COB SLES DER COARSE FIN E COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT SIZES CLAY SIZES
~PLE NO. NAT WC LL PL PI DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION grn a YR "ZW+/ Ccxcfccc IttH 8
f yg z+ M-1 GRAlN SIZE DISTA18tJno@
9' fpP ~ +r' ~~~p gz g-o p 7 C c pWL war c 4. @us ya~) /~
~a /g g ~p f C ocr / ~g C4l 4 4 tl g / td5PECTOR 8 O~ O'C V/ ll d'n VV s cI
(.'QQfQ) / vi cs JYc v i //
~gyl cp A7 c A3 g + ~ g~~+/ p~ ol& 4( Qq REllleV
E-
'V 4' 0
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT SIEVE ANALYSIS (Large Scale Gradation)
SAMPLE NUMBER DATE LOCATION TEST METHOD DESCRIPTION Sieve ccumulativ Percent Percent Percent Percent No. / Weight Retained Passing Passing Passing Size Retained II Subtotal Subtotal Total t4(s C 3 P,(
~a.l
~i.a z~ Jk c~
I Ki( cO CZ7 .O 1l ~
fG&
~Z.,f z.,( 7.6
~ j Tool ID Number C ~ l Calibrated Equipment Used: Inspector Checked'A Review
f
~ .
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT SIEVE ANALYSIS (Large Scale Gradation),
SAMPLE NUMBER I'ATE LOCATIONS g TEST METHOD DESCRIPTION Sieve Accumulativ Percent Percent Percent
,No./ Weight Percent Passing Passing Passing Size Retained Retained Subtotal Sub total Total fQ,Q
&Z~G si5 liZ Zl .C0
(~~~2 (Sit Z~ (6 2.,1 lc PQ4 46~
Calibrated Equipment Used: Inspector S .
Tool ID Numbers Z +3 l)0 Checked 43. 8i QA Review
t-Jk 1
Nl '
V
TEST FILL PROGRAM COMPACTION OF RANDOM FILL CP6L - HARRIS SITE Test Fill No.
Layer Thickness Number Layers Type compaction @quip. a 4 cs AaJc a / Vr 6s o7i > D+sfsss Soil('i-8/VF 'cs/ ifsc/i f it /~
~
Material Description ass-/o~
DEMBITY Volume of water for surface measurement Gal. Ft.
2~ Top of water to top of frame In.
- 3. Weight of truck empty Lb.
Weight of truck filled Lb.
- 5. Sample weight Lb.
Volume of water for hole measurement Gal. Ft.
lg 7~ Volume of hole Ss 2 Ft.
- 8. Wet density of material Lb/F t.
- 9. Dry density of material /37 8/ Lb/F t.
MOISTURE CONTENT
- 10. Weight wet moisture sample +Og ll. Height dry moisture sample
- 12. Weight water
- 14. 'eight dry material
- 15. Moisture content
0 C 5
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT ANALYSIS (Large Scale Gradation)
'SAMPLE NUMBER DATE Z DESCRIPTION'IEVE LOCATIONS g TEST METHOD Sieve Accumulativ Percent Percent Percent No. / Weight Percent Passing Passing Passing Size Retained Retained Subtotal Subtotal Total Q,O
(-6 C.& s lC,2
((
g/
(5<2 (r l LG,2 Z3+ rs t k3.~~v.
2.;7 ZOR jR.X Calibrated Equipment Used: Inspector Tool ID Numbers Z - 3 I') 0 Checked Cc3. 5i QA Reviev
5:
'I ~
'o%>plA 99%
p p Q 40
~ rr
&~i ~ ' i ' ~ Q P 'jE Jo 'jr (') g 6 oyB9t
~ "~CR&VAAd&.
<<'~~g~wp'eg Tf ~)Sr,
---'--.<~~>we+-'a ~
~z(, ~ . ~"! <
XXIO L33HLS
':-'~.y>.s 0 j
//n/ h' ~
i rs;S ydlr '4(
SETTO'...
~ SW ~
~+IS, %4, s mrs'dr-y ~l / C y '~~(j gQQ,VLSS IHO13AL rNW
~A SZ'IDIHM HOLON 80 'L8ZQ '3 'M Odd
~ ~
N. C. DEPT. OP MOTOR VEHICLES pS orjo iO'tkr E-- WEIGHT STHTIGN D~o 0 C>.z J-STREET ~
- r CITY .A "r S rN ~ hj<m. ' A
'N,q~%
2 4 0 qg 6ti SC, J~ 2 or 263 ra~I
r
'N gQ~oo 3 or 3 4 or 4 ted ljd 4
5
.... LP.~.~ ~
~
'ifg I
~,4jjF'I, II r, C Pg ~~
1
'I I
pl
~ 1 7" I.n,
~ I I
~
t jt e ~
0' I!lj I
1!
~1!
0-
~V ~ r tttf 4<0 I Ql > >I t 0
t
~ I
~<<
>}
7'., !/PAL)l Z. 7 ~ r r '<< ~
i t
~
K'i'. 8 r~ c
~
~
ri
~ 5
~ >I ~
<< ~ a J><<a " <<y% << ~ <<IÃc i >I>t >CWr i(4 I'<<I ~ Irc ~ ittg I "
I "III}Ig 'f<< Q%gg i>58~<<$ + )
v~>
II
'4 II Jf T
SHNPP WELL PERMEAMETER TEST ~VR >> 6 l / F.
LOG AT(ON 7-"2 - -I TESTED M. V~d S. Br<o~g hl 100 W 2'g)c OBSERVATION HOLE
-- STRATA DEPTH (ft.) SOIL CLASSIFICATION FROM TO COEPAA I I. DEPTH (ft.) TO WATER TABLE:
- p. DEPTH (ft.) TO GROUND SURFACE Zl. DEPTH (ft.) TO BOTTOM OF WELL!
- 4. DEPTH (fth) TO TOP OF SAND: o. oo
- 5. DEPTH (ft.) OF SAND (3) -(4) 2. P9 6 DEPTH.(ft.) TO WATER SURFACE IN WELL:
- 7. DEPTH (it.) OF WATER IN WELL h=(3). -(
8 DENSITY (pcf) OF STANDARD SAND
~
- g. WEIGHT (lb) OF SAND + CONTAINER BEFORE FILLING WEL S2.! 5" IO.WEIGHT (lb) OF SAND + CONTAINER AFTER FILLING WELL: D. o5 II ~
WEIGHT (lb) OF SAND USED( 9)-(10): o I P . VOLUME ( cu. f t. ) OF WELL ( 11) t (8) o. 3oS IB.RADIUS (it. ) OF WELL r= ~~22 PF !&~
(5) ~
I V>>
k I P-
~-
h n
SHNPP MELL PERHEAMETER TEST V jZ ZW 5 /
r TIME WATER VOLUME ACCUH, DRUM NUMBER DRUM NUMBER TOTAL ACCUM. TEMPERATURE CLOCK (MIN.) READING DIFFERENC READING IFFERENC DIFFERENC FLOW
- Oo Z. C
.'O t. lo.5 2lo 0 &5
~ 0 M~ /,oo lo. o
- 0. 'Za l.zo B.o
~ 0 ~
\
~ k tl f d 4
4~
t~
fj f'!f Ij>
!Il t
~ ~ l l[l f Ij ljt "I
~ ~ ~
~
j
~ ~
l Pf' j III
!Il
[I[
I I I
.3 f4
~
0 f ~f f Il l) -I ll ~
~ I o
~ I OO
L OC AT(ON oo 8 zae
~ a~ Viz-z+-4.-l TESTED BY
~. P7. Haou4 b'BSERVATION STRATA DEPTH (ft.)
HOLE SOIL CLASSIFICATION FROM TO dd t-LAQN~S'AutaTOAG RAHDohrt ~K~(L<
t, DEPTH (ft.) TO WATER TABLE:
p, DEPTH (ft.) TO GROUND SURFACE
- 3. DEPTH (ft.) TO BOTTOM OF WELL:
'5. DEPTH (ft.) OF SAND (3) -(4) 6 DEPTH (ft.) TO WATER SURFACE IN WELL:
- 7. DEPTH (it.) OF WATER IN WELL h=(3) -( po
- 8. DENSITY (Ptf)'OF STANDARD SAND
- g. WEIGHT (1b) OF SAND + CONTAINER BEFORE FILLING WEL: a5 .3
. IO.WEIGHT (1b) OF SAND + CONTAINER AFTER FILLING WELL: 8.o it'WEIGHT (1b) OF SAND USED( 9)-(10):
) P.VOLUME (cu. f t.) OF WELL (11)e(8)
(5.RADIUS (ft )OF.WELL t /~=12 0, le (5) m.
T'QQL (TED+>N'
) P Crfc-+W 0 A ~ 01)8 ~ ~ I8 ~ t ~ ~ ~ "P
\
Cll S
SHNPP MELL PERMEAHETER TEST Q g 2.
P + /
TIME PATER VOLUME ACCUH, DRUH NUMBER DRUM NUMBER TOTAL ACCUM. TEMPERATURE CLOCK (HIN.) READING DIFFERENC READING IFFERENC DIFFERENC FLON
/:/n 2:/o
- 9. 4o o.N
/5'.45 o. zg 47 ~o
- d. Zo
- d. Zo o.r5
,Pv
/B.o 4: /o dzo ,o5 /. 5
I C e ~ -'
't.
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COEFFICI'ENT OF PERMEABILITY Sample No. R-Z'4 4-l - PL- I Date l~- SC --ZP Location M (oo ~ ~ao 1
Tested By . hA.Ba>>m uJ.o. Fk Description 'Bce iso k. Assoc ~~-R~() aosu'ATER CONTENT DENSITY Wt. Container Mold + Soil Wt. Cont. + Wet Soil Wt. Mold
< l.O Moisture Content (p, 41 Dry, Density I37. 8 Standpipe Cross Sectional Area, a = sq cm Sample Cross Sectional Area, A =
Sample Length, L ~
I Constant Head Test No. h cm sec CC T C cm sec 5 72 i +s.o /Zoo QL Variable Head 'Zest No. h, cm h, cm c, cm/sec K =
aL AtLn-hl h2 COMENTS
4>
CARGLlMA FOWER 4 Ltelfr'i]i~{US
>lTt=
".- o" I'Iz I' -" ~ " r.
U S IO I~'u 5TAIIUARD SIEVE 20 iU> 0 SIZES tvO ROO 90 70 eo 50 IQ IO 0
5'o 0 IO OQI QRA!H SIZE lH LllLLIhlETERS BOV 0 RAVEL SARD FIRES GOBBLES DER COARSE Flk E COARSE LIEDIUH FIIIF. SILT SIZES CLAY SIZES
~P~ HO. HAT WC LL PL Pl DESCRIPTIQH OR CLASSIFICATION grp s ipn S C.c>qguc 7"C P vc z+-<+-
i GBNM SIZE DfSTBfl3UTIOi4
/Ki > 7~
~a~ <4~
5p I p /o fp 6 +~
/pq g4~
+
~ 7 cp
~ 4~ ~
)
C)i p/hw( I DilTE.
tgspEcicq Cl)ECTED 8 ' r vt I/
In ~
'<<~...~ (-J fg~ c Q .,>,gg,c7'~ c >~
QQ REIGN
a "S
='I P, ~
I Aw
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COEFFICI'ENT OF PERMEABILITY Sample No. VR-2+4- I -PL Date ~-w- zs Location > /~o cD a<oo Tested By SiMi8~s"+ Jiff +r RZIDG~
Description . ml- Fi~ ~~pm gLAS' fBOM WWDc'ne WATER CONTENT
~ 'i) DENSITY Wt. Container '
R, Wt. Mold + Soil Wt. Cont. + Wet Soil QOD ~ 0 ~ Wt. Mold Wt. Cont. + Dry Soil Wet Density i'd. o Moisture Content 0o Dry Density 9T 8 Standpipe Cross Sectional Area, a = sq cm Sample Cross Sectional Area, A = sq cm Sample Length, L = cm gpss/d Constant Head Test No. h cm t sec CC T C cm sec
- g. o3)c Io -3 Q3. 5 g.9'/ j(rc
/z uu .ZO 0~
Q.
'Variable Head .Test No. h, cm h, cm c, cm/sec K = aL hl Ln-At h2 COKENTS
'f 4
4L
~ ~
~1
CAROLINA POMER. 5: LICHT"CQ.
HMRI8.@X'.
8 0>>STAIeARD US 20" 40~0SIZES SIEVE IOO 70 eo 50 a
40 R
20 IO ~ S Gl GRAIN SIZE IN Q ILL IME TER 5 SOU GRAVEL SAND FINES DER COARSE FINE COARSE MfDIVE FINE SILT SIZES CLAY SIZES PL NO LO TION NAT )NC PI DESCRIPTION OR CLASSIFICATION YR-2+-+ - I H IOO GRAlw SIZE DISTRlBlmON F'LL2 NI RSVP
~ST FILl- <</A DATE:
VR-2+-+-I INSPECTOR S.W. PaoA CHECKED GJ.Q-Q/A REVIE
P P
I C
CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT SIEVE ANALYSIS (Large Scale Gradation)
SAMPLE NUMBER DATE LOCATION 8 /ao kp y g-~ TEST METHOD A~M D DESCRIPTION Ver / /~ 88ht cc Bpl575'4 joe k Qv'sew f-iu, Sneer Annnn~a ~nvz + Bee. rasr Vg - ZW g ./
Sieve Accumulativ Percent Percent Percent No./ Weight Percent Passing Passing Passing Size" Retained Retained Subtotal Subtotal Total O. OO (7roo /io Oo 44'2
~ 22. y/. +o pg, /o (0
3/ ss. 7I z7. v4 3g.
et'7.
/o
/i~i,oo 2'i. i o 7z. 95 Moo, ~o >Oo 2B +V 77 X7z P~ ~ 4h' 2/ 7,$ 0
/ao Za~, /g> sg . z.f /8'/
Qcc 8L 9 Ll~ Qo. go df.2O o
+~ goO Op Calibrated Equipment Used: Inspector Si&'a~~<i'-< +~
Tool ID Number CPc. - 41rZ/ "/ Checked . C3, QA Review
t 4'
l
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT-COEFFICI'ENT OF PERMEABILITY Sample No. 8 "~W & / I~ 3 Date ~ +8 78 Location W'oP W aS od 'ested By 5- JS w'A Description 8 as ~c'~ <<(k7 r//
WA'ZER CONTENT DENSITY Wt. Container '
p Wt. Mold + Soil +/8
~~gt-. + Wet Soil M od 0 Wt. Mold Z~~. + Dry Soil / P.O Wet Density /+ S g 3' Moisture Content 5- 3 0 Dry Density /~7. 0 Standpipe Cross Sectional Area, a = /V r sq cm Sample Cross Sectional Area, A = 9d . sq cm Sample Length, L = .gc cm Constant Head Test No. h cm sec CC T C 'cm sec
~.c x-/(. ~
2 ~ 9 X/0
/7 ~O 2 0,S g/0
~
god 'F SO z.og x'/0 dao /.39N/~ ~
(< OP /,/Z x/u Variable Head Test No. h, cm h, cm c, cm/sec K =
aL hl Ln-At h2 Tts Px g goo<<l F wove o <M era CZ.
/ a 7 4n(V d n l($ 'cc
~pp a7 Pcw uriah c( e/i0 aS wg'~
/Z > r 7t P'oy(g je
~oc yc o'f
. c
~ 7CXg 6
~+~
oooo
/e, f4'
~ ( /I'Fy I
co l ~i d'zli +P'"
c.'p
(/rPSP Cg c:
~ .I cP'>
c/'+Pe
~f 5
~o 7
o4 Pg), j'ry',
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date 2. // Spec. No. ZA -4 Location N do LJ z5m Inspector Z, Wo~
Elevation Shift 5/l Weather COMMENT P~X. ol Z eSr Fin 'VW - 24-. - I a) S ~A~eC 7o~
d RE ~CaVP Ve WE ZM&aae/V'C D ~KK CS/AAIAIEL AszeA cDA> &EL S&oov 8 LcRF AHZO 77& j ol-LED Vl RA7Z)R ouER SELF- R2oPBLLSb . 7o E u, BH u3/r/v'/> /A/C/P 4
'r/EI ~A cWS
/o o /wrS ~E RE~os'
~c.~FE0SS l S LE dEVLEbf&Vt '7VB S htEV/ AI8 Al&LIBLE.
~ ~r
~
NG ~ 'J1fH ~audDAW<RS 5='OM ~
S Al -~pZ ~ rm +am~ Sore@/e . ~ g+S
- 2. - Iuc H LW 4 D- 8 te &e., TRAVEL Cu=b ao~ y~ E~~ r-IN//77lg eerza w - ~+> /h- Zmae ~W n smoorll'a'pace.
~
AAI EeX~ W~ lee-r m 77Ae: W
/muCW~uru ~W Wi/.~ ~b ZoLt~ A Rm~ ~ A Va~~ P~~~C
~ orsf A~~ /PA.&I/II& R.N lAItr/~ AKS ~ H~vr~LO A/ S~oU
- 4. I. oz -0 l . 7 rg<ury -Fane ~q s~~cdr wrAIra Wgg an/ au~ d4 refà S~WCE'O m~d m8 A~L. ~~~D/ ~
ou)BVe/ C ~ To 7 ih4E LuH I rA r/o4'5 PoLL/4'~r/o/J S Qzc.c Albr R'w~D INSPECTOR Q A REVIEW
=I t f C
'l
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date ~D. / Spec. No. Ch'-+ 7P-0/
Location A/ loo Inspector 9. W. BRocJA Elevation Z~4 cd&
'hift Weather COMMENT ~E g os' 7h"/8' s7 D P Cd/-5 7kKEA Fj oN EZEVWTTod 22.D rVE&R SrerroA 8 4 OQ ~~ 7M &W4d 7od&?. Aa
~Ms/SrK'9Rosod sedb sj cyz radar AND s eie~w& ~~At 2/
/b h
~~as
/4 CA'~ /A/
7'Al/77ih'/-/ 7/CK~ ~ ~~Cr~
Ex'p" M8
~Cn~/rt/&
~ e/VM Let>~ A&PS 44WD ~ m Z)~~rES 5 INSPECTOR Q A REVIEW
I CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date /~ /2I 7F Spec. No. GY + 77'o /
Location uo Ld 2G4O Inspector Elevation Shift Weather +/prD Ctd c CO>KENT $ A~ 1d<Z drNw Zrr-r rC<pdSS Cd66.=
&r Tec IB~re& ~s r4r~r~~ PMas. z s~a S r c ad 3 m r/o~ m /r A.v~em r'Ws~wac Zo FMr w r . rP/ ag+rJurs LcLRF rr/i'rN ~a, / rn /5 ~ re sos mrz Vi RA R ~W 2dks r4 Cow ~CE chrV TP-OI ShmrMrm ~ Dv~
EMH Ro~ AM 7M@ dvECcAp iB oR wovcE PA@,H 8P We vznJ PAaes ~ &roars cd~ Smr '
rtopurF SEvrzE&~r cdmf'W 7 Z)r<wp~veE'~ ~R
/Hr7IM / ~ ~ RsHA Dopant'- ~%Ah-E'xcwQXD PALS' >r S 8 AJ
&4s Ci~eeAr ~ Lwr~
'- ~ dCk I< ZAMEa Be~am (her u ~ r 4'0 23~/A/hill/G. GCCddZO l-//=r . Z Q n/ ESFE~A
-C ~PEG B &-Cu bS cu S'hraWW ERS7" SION r lu. S &CCAv+7&->
INS PECTOR Q A REVIEW
J tiff t h
E
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COHPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date Spec. No.
Location Inspector Elevation Shift Weather COMKNT p 4FZ E- Qaos-iA/6 PaQEie A8'cd PsO Arm ~QvcnY~r oC wE ~e.
Ws Secor'o P~57CM Zce K ~ ~ha ASH KRocuAJ J'+
- r. R A-4 OoA@rspeD oF'e iud Al SW/hiSD SAX)OSTbAIG 43 5lg NE u)~ MA~ ABC& ~~V~dnJ ZI5 is uE 8 ajar ed&
hei -giPA56-EO acr or /4) 77~ ou8o ~T in'iLi Ad 7 CuCrriC.
oieieo u3 ecE Limni ops'NSPECTOR Q A REVIEW
> Yi
~ f 4
A L
t 4 ~ Q ir e+
CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date 2 Spec. No. dH + VF'oI Location A/ oo zoo Inspector S, M. PIao<A Elevation 2v 8 Shift Weather COMMENT YPS7 /LL Tn
~~ ~GA'O lQoRK Ar 'rh'& doR 8. '77aEnlc.p ~ L gag ou' AS LATM Al> AJI77r9'A I < CANC.KED FOR. ~~CA pppq /250 tQm4id S Vrm~OgS.
s &w ~s AMA kmVAmoQ5 MME sHor ltvo TH> Zo) FFe~cE Ws Sl&r4lF<Co,NT Gism lr IA>s Nor RouZO CKME-rJT'V SEmEMGAtl Fb< HTS . 6'vlATE/bg L 854hl TQ OO FrE E S> t ", e M ASb I'll6& FouR S CtllSM&tt AS Art I hll AL . &PTER. COALET7dA 8 7PE TEAITh Id LC345 NO S7cSAfIMCRer CS/~~ & ~ S~~ WP~jEPQf~ SIW~
& rent' As@'
INS PECTOR Q A REVIEW
h P
V t
P 6 ~ P
.S J
a C' tC I V
'h
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date t'2 Spec. No. -0 Location dd 25ao VR- ~-+- I
-IZsr Fi c Inspector 8 Pl'4 Elevation Shift Weather ~~8 Csee COMMENT ada~ 44/ ~ 7B5r Wr~ HeCAM n cdrrrr ~ Wm~~
~
CQ
~75& 77/i' HJCau)d S/~~E +S Coeur 7odEi< AHA KF-~ /hC) users S"ramey 8 ~~ ~lEvA~oN ZOO .
SdC -CI~P EunlOS EC> 7Ã'8. ArE& u! ~ r SsDB So Ar o EQ. Aou LJO I Q A Es~l- Kol o 2.+ lhCH TV iClc'- .
V fN AAJO RECO~IAI& ~E h)ITIN(. C. IFr Th'/CgNE5$
I/f%
Z4 S &rTLEQsvrp>i S'uRFACE M 4 RocJS Ol= 5 LX. 4 PASS EI.~ATlOh% 408~ R6CrORC)EQ r S 5 suRFAM BEcAhrtE'hboarH
~
hl FvER v HB'rn PAss E-m.MM< 7WPE D LPGA S ex& 6 LEAST E'A C e C Vl S~ awaEe +QD Q. 3' 4 / -/SCOAAn Fry aA w ptssGS 77t8QK 4&s 4/o srGertreAn/7 dh&}nr58 /d pppdibNM.
-XWM~ATEL A PrCW CO@1 ~I OQ G FouRT LI rl- LdAS Fl. b hhlg. MA@/AIER ABovE 13Reu36 SII- Sn N K I U *A Z Isle,lh u AND 6 NI 6 Ll Pr Tt IRK,NELS Lier lI4S nn +Ram . . ul45 KE WR&kuSB Fb R, A LAMESCA C-6'RAV7od . 5'4 PcE g~~~P m ~EAExI4& olc'- Kl /IC-Tlp+ INS PECTOR HAS'pr Q A REVIEW
C I
P
\
't
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Date / Spec. No. W-+ ~) -0) 7Es f Location 0 Inspector RW ~add Elevation Shift Weather COMMENT
/I/ I or~
ZI<lED &AraRI C am~ W ~VaaW ASS Oe r~ Vl O<.MM ~ 6's rB rPAs'& e DJA/&S OF 7F~HP &II'lOuS &P Z W4r Zgri- NIZ C
+Can O4l- S< waARo ~c<. pub~
LC.OSAGE.Q EETZC7 AJ 'ASSt< S
-Roc 4 Af $ ILI'R D SIWTIl y'" MS. ~ AC<r SrCP lS rO ~Phae' un. SCC i@I- 'FLA DEHSI S Q< LlADES, T C OLLO&lhf&
cc A )c8 ~7 L&IC D sJ'6 TIV<= TtI ~ lH Pl-A~ ~ I- ~ MN E'SI FRAILC ~ H CO t
S AIJIO FILL MITlt ~ rO uDITHI<vI Z Ix) S 4-. -T'E'o~G u ~n
. TNG
~ ~VRC~o (A3&vER &A<c AN@
.0 <"e&=k, P Fo<-LE@.
Co ~ THQ MATERIAf kS ~oV'
-eW II Nro AQ A. emvme
'Ttt pa Akr< r rra4 4 EW.
~
~
I L,
'I 1>
CAROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIELD INSPECTION REPORT
'ate j
Location
/~ r~
o 7g'ssr i Spec. No.
Inspector
)
~D~~
ri or Elevation Shift Weather COMMENT P~ Zor- Z Vlf& W/PErlr o~ d./ L.&vEr ~ Z r~aEa &ream gueAscE
~ )i
- 8. L&J&c. 1MAoi<Gs uKRe REr- caves re (H~ nh neoism~
80%< E FQAhrt 6 o~E c9F M u.aCO Wz QEC.oRaea Auc 7 HEd.
]3 QA.~ 0 Af ~
lo Fni AA h6srrd &FEaWD roe ~A=s.
r5 ~R7 oP v AR&l uc.uc c E 7Esr Lcehwok PEXP&u Co( c~ R W de TEST- ru 'R r"/va A rs'uric r wr r r- mrs~/= ~ /Argo rr QAS AA> 4<5>> ~
vg- Z<- g-/
Nice.
Spec. No.
Inspec tor D. &. 8>~u,m Elevation Shift gi
E Yo~< ow co&<< 5 . z vice sDir// NarBA?'//D moro svp2nwc Mete/7 . n-Aw (g~gp +ECoR&h& %PA) ZFa ~v~~AR ~ s=l ~ A~L A S~i=icieivr QUAun e-" u)area . lc ts lvlAVER> 6t G a VE 7o E A~AA.~ L.os 72M~~ ~&cilA o~ EA~ l/AS l3EeN Cc ~D ~ ~r F- vd CuleVE ClAAAIK X) hh>sJK Q Il F~ RavE Inl CuBsC FCgt Tu)o W Pt RC TBsT's - VlFRE counur~ ~3 RescuxvQc ix) wl.oA ~~ Os N'7/.+0 Hi~i .C4 d FLoTrfhf& Nfl CA~~Tlhfg- TftK CO&f=P'lC.IL all ~ t=&~~9iz 'BANC~ oN c. ve.~ 'Resow w 2. ~x lo ANo 2.87 x la @ED ~ ~ FowVIO OP ~MBA,Q itJ'6- 'S INS PECTOR Q A REVIEW J I C gl. h '~i.- ~ ~ I ~" t 1 g j~ J', 'T I e o~ ~IV~ ~ ~ o
- g. '~~~f:
Yy j!- w QUARTERING OF GRADATION SPJfPLE AFTER REMOVING STONES IN 12" to 24" RANGE; 8" TO 12" RANGE; AND 4" TO 8" RANGE.
t~
C r
hl = l
'l
1
~'
S.
,t "t.
~ mC
'a
~4 W ' f44 r I p ~
r 1 g
A BEFORE TEST GRADATION SAMPLE OF MATERIAL TAkEN FROM THE BLAST:
PRODUCTION AREA IN THE COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP WATER CHANNEL'
~ ~
~
pV '
lay'J N ~
(QI
>y0 A~
~ ~
J ~
I
~
~
BRUSHING ALL FINES FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATION DURING THE IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST.
'I ~
~ ~
pl~ ~
J'ILLING PLASTIC MEMBRANE WITH WATER TO DETERMINE THE VOLUME OF 'THE HOLE DURING THE IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST.
1 &J gib g
r'h J@f 4 CROSS-SECTIONAL VIE'W OF RANDOM 'ROCKFILL MATERIAL IN THE TEST FILL.
NOTE THE .GOOD COMPACTION AND LACK OF VOID AREAS.
y C,
gA
.Qe ~ ~
~
t fye) \
,ip
.8%,
- p. ~,
@gal
~
z
~ ~
~
>'y'
~ C I I I~
~ ~
SET UP FOR PERMEABILITY TEST CONDUCTED IN THE FIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUREAU"OF RECId&STION DESIGNATION E-l9.
TAKING SETTLEMENT READINGS'FTER A PASS OF THE VIBRATORY ROLLER.
SPREADING OF ROCKFILL lSTERIAL IN TEST FILL BEING CONTINUALLY HONITORED BY A~CERTIFIED SOILS'INSPECTER.