ML20198G090
| ML20198G090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1976 |
| From: | Spencer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198G095 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1106 NUDOCS 8605290231 | |
| Download: ML20198G090 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON REGION V SUITE 202, WALNUT CREEK PLAZ A 1990 N. CAUFORNIA BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK CAUFORNI A **696 JM 1ctyg Karl Seyfrit, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch, IE:HQ WASHIrlGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (UPPSS)
Wl4P-1 DOCKET f40, 50-460, CPPR-134 Attached is a copy of various memos and meeting minutes describing a recent problem at the subject facility relating to soil compaction.
This material was received from the licensee by IE:V on 1/16/76.
Please refer to daily report items of 1/12 and 1/15.
IE:V will be making a routine inspection at this facility during the last week of January 1976, therefore we would appreciate receiving any comments or suggestions relating to the problem prior to that time.
W. G. Albert is the IE:V principal inspector and phoned com ents should be directed to him.
)
-['k ((b,)
- b G. S. Spencer, Chief Reactor Construction a d Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
As Stated ccurso,k
[a 8 8
8605290231 760116 PDR ADOCK 0500' 460 J
G PDR
w o,
1/13/76 Tom:
The total procedure is as follows:
1)
Dig out about 1 ft3 of recompacted material.
2)
Line hole with rubber liner, fill with water, pump.out water and determine its volume.
3)
Dry and weigh sample.
4)
Calculate the field density, DF, from 2 and 3.
5)
Put sample on table and shake.
6)
Determine volume of shaken sample.
7)
Cal cul a te the test density, D, from 3 and 6.
T 8)
Calculate the relative compaction from RC = Dg x 100%; must be 2 97%
DT 3
The problem first appeared when PTL calculated PT about 112 lb/f t 3 for the PSAR work.
. whereas S&W had obtained 120 lb/f t
.?
... ~..........
' RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION To t:e confirmed Cate Time
( ) No TO FROM Alan Hosler Name Tom Cox Name G//,-e3-74 l
Company or Dept. WPPSS Company or Dept. NRC. Bethesda WPPSS Nuclear Proiects No.1 & 4. Soil Density TosHng SUBJECT (S) DISCUSSED i
REMARKS Mr; Cdx was infomed that we are having difficulty meeting ASTM-02049 for our. Soil Density Testing.
I explained that the standard requires among other things, that the sample be vibrated on a table that was capable of vibration of 60 hertz over a range of 0.002 to 0.025 inches 4
of displacement, mean to peak.
Pacific Testing Laboratory (PTL), who is responsible for the field work, initially purchased a Syntron VP-86-B1 which had been calibrated and certified to comply with D2049. Later however the calibration was with-drawn when it was realized that the table did. not satisfy D2049 in regards to the amplitude of vibration.
PTL then purchased a Syntron VP-181-Al
~
which the catalog infomation said complied with D2049 and which was certified to provide an amplitude range of from.002 to.025 inches mean to peak, i.e. it satisfied D2049 in regard's to the amplitude of vibration.
However, af ter delivery when the table was calibrated, it was found that it did not meet the amplitude requirements.
UE&C then called the chairman of ASTM Committee, who is responsible for D2049. He stated that he was aware of the problems with D2049 and that it is planned to revise the standard to specify an amplitude of probably 0.015 inches peak to peak.
I explained that in other calls UE&C learned that the Bureau of Reclamation uses.0075 and the Corps of Engineers i
-uses 0.015 inches.. I was not able to tell Tcm if these were mean to peak or peak to peak values.
After the failure to have the new PTL machine satisfy D2049, I explained that soil samples were sent to the University of California, Berkley, for tests on a Syntron VP-200 which was a machine capable of vibration up to 0.025 inches mean to peak.
The results of these studies showed a maximum density essentially independent of amplitude for a range of
.007 to 0.015 peak to peak. Above and below these values th densities A slight variation in densities of about i lb/ftg was decreased.
4 measured which is nomal and is admitted to in the PSAR.
l I explained that with these results it was decided to adjust the PTL machine to run between.007 and.015 inches and then continue with the production testing.
This was attempted on the evening of January 9 NW n. -,
r--
m-
,m_
en.-
,-n---
i A
Record of Telephone Conversation (continued)
From: Alan Hosler To:
Tom Cox 1976.
However these amplitudes could not be obtained by modification to the machine.
I said that the machine was then restored to its original condition and was to be recalibrated and certified for the maximum amplitude obtainable.
I told Tom that we were not at this time in a position to tell him what the final resolution of the problem would be. We are currently attempting to purchase a vibration table that would have the capability to provide the required amplitude.
I did not go into detail in terms of our plan of action for the next few days.
I did tell Tom that I would telecopy to him a copy of Duane Renberger's Telephone Conversation Record to Bill Albert and also a copy of my meeting minutes of January 10, 1976.
Tom replied that he was not sure what action he should take but it did not seem like a stop in work was required.
I replied that we would continue with the recompactions but no concrete would be placed over the backfill until the problem was resolved.
The NRC would be informed of our final plan of action.
I concluded by making the following points:
1.
We are making six recompaction passes and all evidence indicates that the soil is reaching in maximum compactness after only 2 passes.
3 2.
Data to date shows that we. are within 1 to 2 lbs/ft of the maximum densi ty.
~
3.
Everyone contacted is running tests at about 0.0044 inches peak to peak and we have found no one that complies with D2049 in this regard.
4.
We have no reason to believe we have any soil recompacted to less than 97% relative density, but to prove this we will require additional testing on other machines.
Tom asked some questions on the basic testing procedure which I could not answer but said I would investigate.
(This was done and telecopied to Tom on 1/13/76).
AGH:vh 0
9
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
' e,c, 1-10-76 mm/^
'~
ro te cztam*:
( ) No FROM cEif TO
/
DL Renberger,.5D Strand, i, uduchins, CB~Ofgan name_
W. Albert Company or Dept.
h7PSS company or Dept. _ NR.,C Reg 3 o_n_ V __. _.. _ _
u SUBJECT (S) DISCUSSED TELEPH3NE REPORT 'IO NRC REGION V REGARDING SOIL RE REMARKS 1 and 4 was contacted at his hane on Saturday, January of reporting the status of the recompaction situation at the hNP-1 an 10, 1976 for de purpose.
Mr. Albert was infomed that the hNP-1 and 4 PSAR comnited to ments of soil densities, utilizing the ASDI Standard No. D2049-69, between.005 and.025 inches (actual minimum and that this Tne Standard further says that for determining maximu:n density, that th control should be set at maximum amolitude.
Mr. Albert was infomed that the density measurecents taken by Pacif'c Testing La i
'Ihe maximum densities were mnning 1cwer with the Pacific Test Lab machine.
Albert was informed that the shaker tables were calibrated Mr.!
late with the ASD! Standard.
Tne variability.of maximum density with amplitude of the tabic was described to Mr. Albert with the point being made that a compliance with the ASDI Standard would mean operating the table at.025 amplitude, whereas the maxima amplitude.
density could be down in the range of.007 inches We have thus pretty well concluded t dard was not desirable or necessary. hat the literal compliance to the ASIM Stan-Mr. Albert was infomed that at the Supply System's request, Pacific T replaced the shaker table that did not correlate with the original Shannon and Wilson table with a new one and that data from the new table ever, samples were taken and tested on the Shannon and Wilson table, the new How-machine and a machine at Berkeley, which had a variable amplitude whi running the entire density curve as a function of amplitude.
machine and indicated that the maximum density wa Tnese correlation measured on a Berkeley machine than as shown on each of the other two machin Tne Supply System indicated that work on recompaction had been o this time of investigation of calibration of the machines, but that plans wer being made to proceed with further reccmpaction in the hNP-1 Spray Pond area starting ?bnday, January 12, 1976.
lation new known between the machines, the fact that compaction is eight-inch lift and six passes and it is known that maximum densities are
- e. n.w..
,- cc: rn
' 'Telecon to W. Alb
,.WC, P.egion V
- 2, Januuy 10, 1976 af ter about the second pass. %erefore, the Supply System has good confidence in the actual density of the material being compacted.
It was indicated that the machine at the site was being certified today as to the actual amplitude on the machine, so that all data will be traceable to a given amplitude.
It was also indicated that the Supply System would have NCR control over the activities and won't put in any grounding grids or mud mats on top of the recompacted areas until such time as further definition of the testing technique to be actually used is obtained.
WPPSS indicated that we were attempting to purchase a variable amplitude machine similar to that at Berkeley in order to pemit a full cune of density versus amplitude to be developed, and then rechecked at about two-week intenals during the compaction process. This would allow us to continusculy insure that compaction' densities are. measured against the peak density that would be reached at optimum amplitude.
Mr. Albert asked if we had placed any mud-mats on compacted material that was ques tionable. We indicated "No, the only mud-mats that had been installed, or were under installation, were in the Containment Building, and there was only a two to three inch leveling layerof sand which was proof-roled over the Ringold."
He Supply ' System emphasi::ed that this was not a reportable deficiency under 10CFR50.
since at this time, we have no evidence that material of inadequate density has been actually placed.
Mr. Albert requested -that the Supply-System communicate the ' situation to the Bether,
office of Division of Reactor Licensing on Monday, January 12, to secure a more technical review of the situation associated with the ASTM Standard and our existing measurement techniques and plans.
Following that contact, we will get back in touch with Mr. Albert to discuss possib]c Ictter report to Region V.
DLR:ho cc:
WD Blair NO Strand RE Dellon JP R omas AG llosler OE Trapp TJ Houchins DH Nalker CE Love JE Noolsey CB Organ hNP-1/1 Eng. Services DL Renberger
- ritrom, ER Rybarski e
a m.
.