ML18017A530

Responds to Region II 790504 Request for Criteria Used to Approve Previously Placed Backfill

ML18017A530
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/18/1979
From:	Mcduffie M CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7905290380
Download: ML18017A530 (14)

Text

REGUI.AT INFORMATlON DISTRIBUTION STEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:7905290380.

DOCiDATEo 79/05/18 NOTARIZED; NO FACIL:50~400 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTg UNIT ig CAROLINA 50 401 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTg UNIT 2g CAROLINA 50 402 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANTp UNIT 3g CAROLINA AUTH ~ NAME AUTHOR APF ILIATION MCDUFFIE M,A ~

CAROLINA POWER 8

LIGHT CO ~

RECIP ~ NAME REC If'IENT AFFILIATION DENTON H,R, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

SUBJECT:

RESPONDS TO REGION 2 790504 REQUEST RE CRITERIA FOR PREVIOUSLY PLACED BACKFILL, OISTRISUTION CODE:

SOOIS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR g ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: PSAA/FSAR AMOTS AND RELATED'CORRESPONDENCED D

500040 1

05000402 so-eo5 PS

~

h I

~ <<<<<<<<<<<<e <<<<e <<<<<<rs<<wrier<<ee<<ee<<<<<<<<<<eeeeee<<<<eeepem<<eeerow<<<<weee<<ee<<<<<<<<<<w<<e0<<<<<<ee<<<<<<eee<<See<<<<<<a<<ws<<ee e

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME'CTION:'05 PM &//V'FC BC C.~W ag COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES CTTR ENCL ID CODE'./NAME LTTR ENCL 1

1 AO U WSS'+ZZO 1

0 0

LA 1

0 INTERNAL: 01 06 I E.

09 GEOSCIEN BR 11 MECH ENG BR 13 NATL ENG BR 16 "ANALYSIS BR 18 AUX SYS BR 20 I 8

C SYS BR 22 AD SITE TECA 27 EfFL'RT SYS 29 KIRKWOOD AD PLANT SYS AD SITE ANLYSIS MPA EXTERNAL: 03 LPDR 30 ACRS 1

2 1

1 2

1 1

1i 1

1 1

10 1

2 1

1 2

1 1

1 1

1 0,

0 0

1 10 02 NRC POR 08 OPERA LIC UR 10 GAB 12 STRUC ENG UR 15 REAC SYS BR 17 CORE PERP BR 19 CONTAIN SYS 21 POWER SYS t3R 26 ACCONT ANLYS 28 RAD ASMT BA AD FOR ENG AD REAC SAFETY DIRECTOR NRR OELO 04 NSIC 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

0 1

1

/ fj

/v)dd gg E't 4 ~< 8 S

t38WAJ8 EPB e4 gs sa'N@

eg bee TOTAI NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 49 ENCL 39

~ 4

'9 s

~

e"

'll II Il

~

h a

v.r/

Carolina Power & Light Company'ay 18, 1979 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER. PLANT UNIT NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 4 DOCKET NOS. 50-400, 50-401, 50-402,.

50-403'RITERIA FOR PREVIOUSLY PLACED BACKFILL

Dear Mr. Denton:

On May 4, 1979, NRC Region II informed Carolina Power

& Light Company (CP&L) that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's approval of previously placed fillat the powerhouse block, dams and dikes, and Class 1 piping areas would be required in writing prior to the" placement of additional Category 1 fill.

In our letter to you on May 4, 1979',

we identified changes made to Ebasco Specification CAR-SH-CH-8 "Excavation, Backfill, Filling, & Grading" which you have subsequently approved; The'ollowing criteria was imposed by these changes:

A.

Field permeability tests shall be run every 2,000 cubic yards.

B.

Permeability shall not exceed 10 feet per year.

C.

Backfill material shall be placed at a moisture content within +

4 percent of the optimum moisture content determined by the Standard Proctor Density method.

The in-place backfill material previously placed against the waste

'rocessing building, a Seismic Category I structure, is evaluated below relative to the" the'urrent specifications which have been reviewed and approved by your staff.

A.

Field permeability test every 2,000 cubic yards.

The attached figure contains a plan view and developed profile of backfill in place on three sides of the Waste Processing building and identifies locations and elevations of in-place permeability tests'onducted between April 18, 1979 and May 8, 1979.

The'en test locations are horizontally and 'vertically spaced to represent a conservative sample for the 15,000 cubic yards which have been placed.

411 Fayettevitte Street o P, O. Box 1551 o Raleigh, N. C. 27602 V90529038~

~

I

~

. f

~

, Mr, Harold R.Denton y 18, 1979 B.

Permeability of ten feet per year or less.

The field permeability tests were conducted in accordance with the Bureau of Reclaimation Department of the Interior test procedure Z-19.

The results of the permeability tests are tabulated below:

Permeabilit Test 1

Test 1R Test 2

Test 2R Test 3

Test 4

Test 4R Test 5

Test 6

Test 7

Test 8

Test 9

Test 10 16.40 ft/year 7.28 ft/year 11.43 ft/year 7.11 ft/year 5.87 ft/year 12.37 ft/year 4.34 ft/year 6.22 ft/year 1.68 ft/year 7.97 ft/year 2.79 ft/year 8.57 ft/year 7.70 ft/year Three tests (1, 2, and 4) which exceeded the 10 ft/year criteria were run without sufficient time for saturation.

Retests allowing more time for saturation were run adjacent to these locations.

The results of the above tests meet the permeability requirements of the'urrent approved specifications.

C.

Moisture content within + 4 percent of the optimum moisture content, determined by Standard Proctor Tests.

The attached permanent waiver (PW-C-666) describes 35 in-place density tests taken during placement of the Category I backfill around the Waste Processing Building.

By conservatively adding or subtracting 1.2% to the field moisture percent (the maximum difference between the field stove and the laboratory oven), only five of the thirty-five tests deviated from the + 4 percent limitation.

The maximum probable moisture content differed from the optimum moisture content 'for the five tests by

-4.4%, -4.2%, -4.1%, -4.9%,

and 4.2%.

Because the results of the tests include the maximum l.'% deviation, because of the small number of tests falling below -4% of optimum moisture content, and because the actual deviation from specification limits is minor, CP&L has approved a per-manent waiver allowing probable maximum moisture content variations of from -0.1 to -0.9 below the lower limit of -4 percent below optimum moisture content.

0

~

~

S

~

I "I

~

II 4;

4 I I

4 4

'Mr. Harold Denton May 18, 1979 There are no Seismic Category I pipes or conduits which traverse the previously laid backfill around the'aste'rocessing Building.

Therefore, based on the above information CP&L'elieves'he subject backfill is acceptable against current criteria.

Please formalize your technical concurrence with our evaluation so that Region II Inspection and Enforcement can authorize placing additional backfill around the Waste Processing-Building.

Yours very truly, pgw~

M. A. McDuffie Senior Vice President Engineering 6 Construction MAM/tl cc:

Mr. J.

P. O'Reilly

4

~8 TEST II ELEV.

STATION TEST S

ELEV.

STATION 1

2 3

4 5

6 228 225'23'25'27'24'+4'S K+4'W 1+10'N T+3'W G+20'E 5+10'S 1+5'S S+5'W H+9'E 1+3'S T+10'W 5+15'S 7

8 1R 2R 4R 9

10 228'31'28'24'24'16'25'+22'W 1+10'S 1+30'N G+10'E 1+4'S K+4'W T+12'W 1+18'N S+18'W 1+8'S 1+8'S S+29'E l.+10)S G+llsE ELV.2&1 BACKFILL FLY.235 fLV.<3' ZR

~

~

0 4

4R Q

rERT V I

10 FLYf31 fLVPoly

"Xg.,4,~,

lk APF~ ~01 Rev.

12

~/79

<<ROLINA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY S~s.

RON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT~

FIELD CHANGE REQUEST/PERMANENT WAIVER AP-IX-05 Exhibit 1 Page 1

of 2

~PW (--GGS Type of Request:

0 Field Change 5$ Permanent Waiver to "use-as-is" PfReviewe f

Saf t Significance C

G See Recommended Action nature

& Date Ide f Area and Item:

Waste Processing Building Bac'kfill Moisture Control D Non-g D

ASME Section III g Non-ASME Section III Conflict/Condition Reference Documents or Attachment Ebasco S ecification CAR-SH-CH-8 Revision 8

SEE CONTINUATION SHEET Recommended Action:

ase g 'gate and Resolve Ple eYolve as Follows Allow the select backfill to remain in place.

Justification:

By Ebasco Requested Site Ap ov D

cip ine ngineer First Distribution:

(Ori inal Ebasco (Co

)

Date es den Engineer - Pro)ect Date (Co

)

'(Co

)

(Co

)

r r

~

.APF-091

~-'Rev > li2 3/79 AP-IX-05 Exhibit 1

~-C-C~,C 6 Page 2

of 2

Design Engineering Approval (AZ)

Telephone Resolution Yes 0 No Approved as Recommended 0 Rej ected 0 Conditional Approval This change requires the following Document(s)

(Specification,

Drawing, SAR, etc.)

to be changed klOjQE

,. EERY PNWW- ~~VF'> PEQ.>~eVP Et=7nMQ H. PI]Vail'e, N.V-E'&~

~~~~ ~ g~~~ ~Q 6--((-'lg, f4 P~EE ViQT&AALbvPW~ D~WGklcQri MlR, s=//-7 i Signature Title Date re Tit Date CP&L Engineering Pool Approval Required Pf.Yes 0 No T~e h e Resolution

'~Ys 0No

\\

V

@Approved as Recommended 0 Rejected

'X~ 0 nditional Approval

~ tL Buc'P poop RPPPOUhL PEd~[VE~I CQ.T~RZX ~&$84 ~,WAQ~i X DCACi6pf2 AIJO 2 klBII<LL D<V s:II.75 py Zr j Lgf7.'-

a '4 "

Q X~ftEP or PPF Date Site Concurrence:

Recommend Implementation 0 Alternate Resolution Second Distribution:

g C

(Ori inal (Cognizant Discipline Engineer)

(Co

) Princi al Q.A. Specialist

-7 esident Eng.-Project Date (Co v)

(Co v)

(Co Y)

Implementatio'n Completed as Approved?

Comments:

0 Yes 0 No Final Distribution:

(Ori inal) File in Doc. Control (Co

)

Eb'asco Co

)

PPED (Co

)

Co

)

Discipline Engineer

~

~

h

'I 8 4

$ 'I

v v sf

~ pw-c-gee.

II CONFLICT/CONDITION Starting on 9/13/78, approximately 15,000 cubic yards of select backfill has been placed along the south wall of the waste process building from Elevation 200 to 231 (including the area at the future annex).

The material as required by CAR-SH-CH-8 Revision 8 was compacted to at least 95% standard proctor maxi-mum density.

DCN-550-259 dated 4/27/79 imposed an additional requirement of moisture content control within + 4 percent of the optimum.

At the time of placement, no control of moisture was required.

TEST 4'PB-10 4'PB-16 VPB-20 Out of a total 35 in-place density tests taken and which represent the 15,000 cubic yards, 5 resulted in material out of the + 4 percent limitation.

The five tests are out only if the probable deviation for the method used for deter-mination is included.

See data below for moisture content, dq ity, elevation and location.

OBABLE NOISTURE LOCATION ELEV.

DENSIT.

4 jC~

EN FROI< OPTPAiH 0'off south wall 200 VS)<0")hJut> tl$y -4 ~ 4/

and 80'est of K

<e~ 'l4 30'est of H in (f/', gX 119.9,"fb~/3t

-4.2%

area of future anyp',

-z,i "4

'iPB-19R 70'ast o+G+ftg't'g+~~

218>~,j559.8 lb/ft 10'orth of+) 't 3'outh of 5 and

~ 225 108.6 lb/ft3

-4.9%

20'ast of G

MPB-27 10'est of P 213 108 '

lb/ft

-4. 2%

NOTES l.

The prob"ble deviation was used to determine the worst possible case al-though the deviation cou d be plus or minus.

2.

For determination'of moisture content for density computation, a field stove was used which resulted in a probable deviation of + 1.2%.

3.

The maximum probable moisture content for the density tests above optimum moisture was +3.9%,

v 41!

't