. .

o

.

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT, ALL UNITS

SPRAY POND CENTRAL AND SUPPORT EARTHFILL

MOISTURE CONTENT OUTSIDE OF LIMITS~

.

10 CFR PART 50.55(e) REPORT No. 2 (FINAL) .

NCR-HNP-B11 AND NCR-HNP-B12

On October 13, 1978, TVA notified NRC-0IE Region II Inspector, Tom Burdette,

of a potentially reportable condition regarding essential setvice water (ESW)

spray pond central and support earthfill being placed with moisture content

cutside of acceptable limits. TVA followed up this initial notification by

submitting a written interim report on this subject to NRC-0IE Region II

on November 13, 1978.

This is our final report to you on the subject NCR's.

Description of Condition,

.

From July 5 to September 15, 1978, approximately 58,000 cubic yards of

Category I earthfill was placed in an area between the four essential

service water (ESW) spray ponds (see Figure 1). Approximately 75 percent

of this earthfill was placed in the central fill area. The remaining

earthfill was placed southeast of the northwestern spray pond in a

70-foot-wide area designated to support the 5-foot-thick clay liner

(spray pond support fill). No part of the clay liner was constructed.

During this period of time, a portion of both the central fill and the

support fill was placed with moisture contents outside the specified

- limits of two percent above and two percent below optimum moisture content.

In addition, undisturbed block samples, shear strength tests on the

block samples, and Atterberg limit tests for the earthfills were not

taken as required in Hartsville Construction Specification N6C-875.

Construction control testing consisted of and-cone density tests and

7 007 090 3 9 5T d

. .

.

.

-2-

.

moisture content tests to d .armine the degree of fill compactica and

the deviation from optimum moisture content. A total of 39 sets of

control tests were performed on the 58,000 cubic yards of c{mpacted

earthfill as opposed to the minimum requirement of 29 tests-(one test

per 2,000 cubic yards).

Results from eight of the 39 moisture content tests were outside the

specified limits. Three of these tests were performed on samples of

the spray pond support fill and five were performed on samples of the

central fill. Moisture contents of the support fill samples were

between 2.4 and 2.9 percent below optiraum. Results of the tests

from the central fill were between 2.1 percent above optimum and

3.2 percent below optimum. The degree of compaction for these eight

samples ranged from 102.4 percent to 110.8 percent of the standard

maximum dry density. -

Initial construction control testing revealed the do t.e of compactions

of six samples of central fill was below the required 100 percent

standard maximum dry density. However, before construction proceeded

all of the earthiill in the area of the tests was reworked and rerolled.

Retests showed that the reworked earthfill was compacted adequately and

had acceptable moisture contents.

Cause of Deficiency

Mathematical errors made by three construction inspectors in computing

_moisture contents were the cause for earthfill being placed which did

not meet moisture content specifications. The mistakes were subsequently

discovered by Hartsville construction personnel during a review of the

construction control test reports. At this time, several layers of

earthfill had already been placed over the material in question.

310 0817

-3- .

.

.

.

Investigation of the above nonconformance revealed that undisturbed

block samples and Atterberg limit tests for all of the earthfill placed

in this construction period had not been taken due to a misinterpretation

^

of the construction specification requirements.,

Safety Implications

The results of the testing program just completed by TVA have revealed

that the as placed earthfill strengths exceed the required design strengths

for earthfill in these areas. Subsequently, there are no safety impli-

cations associated with the nonconforming earthfill discussed in this

report.

Testing Program

a. Scope.

TVA initiated a program to sample the in place earthfill and to

test the shear strengths of undisturbed earthfill samples. Earthfill,

samples were obtained by five undisturbed borings and five auger

borings taken within five feet of the undisturbed borings. The

potentially weakest layers of the sampled fill were de*. ermined, and

the shear strengths of those undisturbed samples were tested.

b. Field exploration

When sand-cone density tests were made during construction of the

fill, horizontal control of the test locations was not recorded

but the test elevations were documented. For this reason it was

not possible to sample the earthfill at the exact locations wherc

_

the nonconformances were recorded.

Because the area which was backfilled during the 1978 construction

season contained'a V-shaped valley, the natural ground contours

90310 002

.

.

-4-

.

provided lateral containment for the area where the nonconforming

earthfill was placed. This natural depression (see Figure 1) extended

north-south along the full length of the fill area. In the central

fill area, the five meisture content tests with nonconfbrming results

were taken between elevations 520 feet and 525 feet. The three noncon-

forming test results for the spray pond support fill came from between

elevations 528 feet and 530 feet. As shown by the contours on Figure 1,

the elevations for each respective fill area were confined to a band

which varied frem 100 to 200 feet in width.

A program of sampling which took advantage of this restricted fill

area was devised. Five undisturbed borings near the centerline of

the valley encountered most of the affected earthfill. Three

undisturbed bortngs, approximately 110 feet apart, were made in

the central fill. The average depth of sampling was 11.5 feet. The

elevation of the midpoint of the borings was between 520 feet and

522 feet. Two undisturbed borings were made in the spray pond support

fill. The average depth of sampling for these two borings was 9.0 feet,

and the midpoint elevation of each boring was 528 feet. The midpoint

elevation or the elevation of the center of the undisturbed borings was

selected to be near the median elevation of the range of elevations from

which the nonconforming data for each type of fill was obtained. By

selecting the midpoint elevation of each undisturbed boring near the

median elevation of the nonconforming construction control tests, a-

possible deviation from the documented elevation of the nonconformine

earthfill layer was taken into account.

310 0%f>

~.

-5- -*

.'c. Laboratory testing

Earthfill samples, both undisturbed and auger samples, were taken

to TVA's Singleton Materials Engineering Laboratory and tested in

a two-phase testing program. Phase 1 c,f the testing p'rogram was

used to examine the undisturbed samples to determine if earthfill

nonconformances similar to the ones observed in the construction

control tests were encountered in the fill sampled by corings. In

addition, most of the required documenting Atterberg limit tests

were performed, and unconfined compression tests were performed

as index strength tests. Phase 2 of the testing program was used

to test the shear strengths of the worst cases of earthfill

nonconformance. .

.

In phase 1 of the testing program, moisture content tests, dry density

(unit weight) tests, unconfined compression tests, one-point compaction

tests, and Atterberg limit tests were performed on each representative

layer of undisturbed earthfill. Results from the one-point compaction

tests were used to determine each layer's soil class from the fa ily

of compaction control curves. Information from moisture content and

dry density tests was then used to compute percent ccc:paction and

deviation from optimum moisture content for each earthfill layer.

Unconfined compression tests were performed on most undisturbed earth-

fill samples to allow a relatively quick check of shear strength.

Atterberg limit tests were performed on each representative layer to-

replace the Atterberg limit tests which were originally om;tted during

construction control testing (see Table 7 for a summary .)f the test data).

'

Data from phase l tests indicated that the undisturbed samples contained

310 Od to those in thesome material with moisture contents wl.ich were simila

_ ~

,

-6-

.

nonconforming construction control tests. Moisture contents ranged

between 2.9 percent and 2.2 percent below optimum as compared to the

nonconformingconstructioncontroltestdatawhichrang{dbetween

3.2 percent and 2.1 percent below optimum. Undisturbed borings US-1

and US-4 contained esrthfill with moisture contents which exceeded the

two percent above optimum specification limit. This data ranged from

3.2 percent to 2.7 percent above optimum as compared to a maximum

2.1 percent above optimum for the construction control tests.

Phase 1 testing also showed seven representative earthfill layers which

were compacted to less than 100 percent standard maximum dry density.

Percent compactions for these samples ranged from 96.5 percent to

99.6 percent. All of these layers were compacted in excess of Class A

requirements (95 percent) but below tne 100 percent required for.

Class (A-1) soil. '

Earthfill samples with less than 100 percent compaction were all

placed above optimum moisture content. Tests on four of the seven

undercompacted layers indicated moisture contents which exceeded

the specified moisture content limit of optimum +2 percent.

Results of the unconfined compression tests indicated that the shear

strengths of all the nonconforming samples were adequate or exceeded

requirements for the unconsolidated-undrained condition. Unconfined

compression test data which corresponds to the nonconforming layers

- ranged from 1.6 to 5.3 tons per square foot. This translated to approx-

imate cohesion strengths (c) between 0.8 and 2.65 tons per square foot

as compared to the 0.S-ton-per-square-foot design requirement.

Undisturbed samples from eight of the representative earthfill layers93

310 09 1

-7-.

were selected for phase 2 testing. The worst cases of compaction and

moisture content nonconformance were included in the samples selected

for phase 2 testing. Three of the samples selected were within specified.

degree of compaction limits but did not meet moisture content require-

ments. One sample conformed to moisture content requirements but did

not conform to the degree of compaction requirements. Three samples

did not conform to either the moisture content requirements or the

degree of compaction requirements. The remaining sample met the

specified degree of compaction and moisture content requirements.

Four samples were selected from both the central fill and the

spray pond support fill for phase 2 testing.

PHASE 2 TEST SAMPLES (TABLE 1.0)

Deviation from Optimum -

Moisture ContentSample No. (Percent) Degree of Compaction

(Percent)

I +2.9* 98.7*

II -1.4 104.4

III +0.7 98.5*

IV -2.9* 108.2

V +3.2* 96.5*

VI +2.7* 97.3*

~

VII -2.9* 105.0

VIII -2.5* 103.1

*Nonconfor=ing test data

310 09dy

.

-8- .,

.

Triaxial compression Q and R tests were performed on undisturbed'

Failure envelopessamples from each of the eight selected layers.

were constructed for the unconsolidated-undrained condition (Q) and

the consolidated-undrained condition (R). Excess pore water pressures

were monitored during the saturated R tests to measure the materials

effective (E) shear strength. (The E strength is comparable to the

consolidated-drained (S) strength as defined in the Hartsville

Preliminary Safety Analysis Report.) The failure envelopes were

plotted on a common graph for comparison with the assumed design

propertie_ for each respective consolidation / drainage conditions

(see Figures 2 through 4).

d. Discussion of test results.-

Results of the Q triaxial tests demonstrated that the unconsolidated-

undrained shear strength of this fill is acceptable. All samples

had angles of internal friction (9) C ich were two to five times greater

than the design requirement of eight degrees. S_ix of the eight samples_

had a greater cohesion strength (c) than required. Although the

cohesion strengths for sample III (c = 0.47 ton per square foot)

and sample V (c = 0.66 ton per square foot) are below the 0.8-ton

per-square-foot cohesion strength used in design, the high angles

of internal frictica (42.0 degrees and 25.5 degrees, respectively)

- show a substantial contribution in raising the shear strength of

these samples above the design shear strength for normal stresses

exceeding 0.5 ton per square foot. (It should also be noted that

'16

310 09ff

.. .

'

9_

,

end of construction cases of the stability analysis made during

design, based on the Q shear strength (c = 0.8 ton per square foot),

had safety factors of approximately 3 or greater.) This fill has*

also been consolidating for 10 months.

All shear strengths measured by the triaxial R tests exceeded the

design properties. Cohesions ranged from 0.40 to 1.90 tons per

square foot as compared to a 0.3-ton per-square-foot cohesion

design strength. The lowest angle of internal friction value was

17 degraes (the design friction angle is 15 degrees).

E triaxial test data showed that the earthfills exceeded the design

shear strengths through the range of normal stresses which will be

experienced in the fill. Seven of the eight samples had friction

angles and cohesions which were equal to or be:ter than the design .

properties. Sample IV's angle of internzi friction was 24.8 degrees

which is 4.2 degrees less than the design friction angle of 29 degrees.

However, the cohesion strength (c) of sample IV was 0.48 ton per square

foot which exceeds the design value of 0.0 ton per square foot. Because

of the combination of high cohesion strength and low angle of internal

friction, the failure envelope for sample IV intersected the design

failure envelope at a normal stress in excess of 5.0 tons per square

foot. Normal stresses in the spray pond fill will act exceed 3.5 tocs

per square foot; therefore, the shear strengths are adequate.

_ e. Conclusions

Although the nonconforming moisture conte nts recorded during

construction control testing were drier than the moisture contents

recorded in phase 1 testing, the triax;41 testing results indicate

310 09d$'

- -.

I

-10-

.

that the shear strength of slightly drier earthfill would be

acceptable. The lowest moisture content which was :ecorded during

construction control testing is 3.2 percent below the o'ptimum.

Moisture content for both sample IV and sample VII, as determined

during phase 1 testing, is 2.9 percent below the optimum, a 0.3 percent

difference f rom the lowest moisture content determined during

If the as placed moisture content of earthfill isconstruction.

lowered, the Q shear strengths would tend to increase and theSincesaturated R and 5 shear strengths would decrease slightly.

the tested Q shear strengths are adequate, the sbear strength at

3.2 percent belos the optimum would also be adequate. The R and

E shear strengths would be slightly lower but, based on TVA'r

engineering judgment and research studies, would still be adequate.

Therefore, the fill is adequate. .

Table 2 and Table 1 list the Atterberg limit c lace the

58 tests which were omitted during construction cesting.

Table 2 (phase 1) contains plasticity indexes fer 55 sampics all ofTable 1which exceed the minimum allowable plasticity index of 5.

(phase 2) contains plasticity index data for an additionai 13 tests.

All recorded PI's are adequate.

Corrective Action

Because of the satisfactory results of the testing program, TVA will proceedNowith construction as planned in the area of the ESW spray ponds.

_

corrective action is needed.

-

.

t _11_

.

Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence

To prevent recurrence of this type of nonconformance, the CONST QCI

Manual is being revised where not previously indicated to include the

type of test to be conducted, frequency of inspection and acceptance

crfteria as re , ired by the Hartsville Construction Specification N6C-875,

" Earth and Rock Foundation and Fills," and thereby prevent future

misinterpretations. The CONST QA Staff will continue to update the

QCI Manual as necessary to reflect construction specification revisions.

Site QC inspectors will then be retrained to the revised QCI's to

establish their cognizance of applicable requirements including proper

recording of test data.

In order to prevent mathematical errors in test results on earthfill

from going undetected for a long time such that major corrective acti,ons

are necessary, the site QC unit will review test documentation in a

timely canner to enable errors to be caught before extensive additional

work is acce=plished and a " checked by" block was added to compaction

test forms to record this review,

_

310 0916

.

.

,__. . _ . , ,

.. -~

.. - o-. . ~ . .

.-. .~ _.,,b

- ..n

.

Z-

1 S. *S., .

II * * . ~ *~ *

,|d1* a a::

.

-

* q2,7 *j:i ,_ * -y .

3 * "3 <

M:*d :aI u * :: ..

** t :8I o;

I- O 4** a e M *

.0 a

?__

. -

~$'" )

.l ...-....$ $$_ b b 5 $_5._......:

$$$5.b$hb w_ -. - -

g .-. -. . DTk '~,

. .. ... Y**iiiiin[ *i*ii di $ '~.

5........

... .b_ _ E b b. b b 5_ b.q&i. | 5 1

,

. . .

e $ $, N_ A . t.o . 5 L.

C A'' w_

p 1 - _ . .

= 2:1 sii.iiis s_i_si_s_i_.s_s_ p.,.. .,. .-3 .

<.. ____

y 3 .......~ QR. .* *

III 555dd5_$d. 5_E_d_555_5_d_.55_5 w.....

a ...-~~.. '

g _-.

#h.f/;j __ -- .Y**"v ja,

**#99999 |!, . g* *I * *! *I 9. *. *.I ! *. * *g*d E. ... W_ -- __-..g E 2 .%. 3 ._ . ~ ._-- - . pg * 's,-

w. g e , j __ .... -- ---::::= (Tp"4g

~~=====a.....'r_ .

. .;~ v c,

.

c:F.~M.:: ****

3 s J OI *'

0 07 4a 6 * -

I h 'j !|*.I.* .j t. a *: p--* 2 t g

-. yc li.F.': j ~ .t 9. . *.!..

.W"TJ"n- :"A.

F. j c e,**g t 1 .y ,t , I._.. -.. S ,s_.ow..

$ . ul= I,

.E*J.3 4 3 1 3 % Gv

(d44 ....._o.2 s 2~|f. * 2. - . % 3 3. . M-

---- -.e

"f' 3. 'j.; e,

Y " ". *. * ". * *3-

-

* =.**

E. 1.11-a******* k 1. __.-.. "'::: 2S :

7, * ~

....g **:::::2 : f.

.5 y -.. *-... ....__... 44U *I *i .......go 44 4 .d.44

4444 &:4 g

_.4 4 4 0 4 a.4 Je. s

J* : 'I a Ie.a4 a . e

4 | ....... _.. f.e.

U. -~a....iaa.f fi4d m.A.4.a.a. f a a.f a.J.....e f..-53'* 8

.i a. a...M

,". ..r r . . 3* -.~~ ..E .... . ' '

s1,.44 4 4.JJ.4 3:~~...... !***:* . ..

8 ; e.4 4 4. :* z' 41* .

3 . .3 ',3 .,

e4 .

E55555$$d d* |N ......-

.1; L.-... . ***. ....

~U * Edddi5idi * .

2-Aj e.

me.& .4 d .A d W W W d ed*.2.44 V

.45 WW u ;J a .4 J .4 ed .4 WWwwwwwww t .

g ,.

.. . -

.. ... 2

9........ =... 1 _... . =w..3 ,--; wu=u.x,1 a _..au x w== -======== :==

_

us .aa. aa. ;======== ==y ,24 4a..d4-

2 h $2~222~3~ J422EE $222223%~ 522fGa 4 4 #,a d d ea.44 Qudussa...: aa...

. 310 OcR>*

= -

Al.

-

.

.

.

..

-.. . . . . . . .

.. . - . . . -.

.. ... -. . .

.- .. - -- _ , - ___---

- - . , , _ , __ _ _ 8. 8 82- -

- de- t J. x ee

: I: de .oo = dd1

;., - ce d a an@ J J.

* a a

SE. .. l , ..3 $

I !5 .,\ S3 dd.*d 4I J! 3|" JJ ooo o* 44 -er ** W . mo 4 E ==

44 a* *. 4 a-,

*:h 02 2 Ra

- ==,

. 1. o= Oao -

.; ** ** dd* - eo* 44 d.

A A*e *

e. ,

maan-o. e~eneo- f- ; ; 8 ;. .: a a5 eenen-oe. -

a $. a a a 8. a. .:5e.u.e.a8e. .o.o. ooo-

-

e.- ---Ju'o .

3 d e. . .o. c. .o. .. . -

. D r*~a. m a O .* .. e. . , e. . n Ju,

. o ,,= .se > e. n o m o We. a e.ee, -: . -o w .g m# . - .ooo . .

o. . o. .a.= .- .o M V*.p, ,a

.

g 7o. o. o. *. *. *. a. e. c. a n. . . . y;;y'4-se . i - ...

d *3 1 . . . . . w e. e. e. . n r e. o o o to . o. o. o. o. o p.

. =. - .--~~~ ....e1 .s m.e=nm=....-- .---4 . . . . e Wi m

o. o. o. e. e. e. e. . . ..=-= &**4e~'~+&

.j o. o. o. o. e. e. d. e. d..g M"E 3 :. *. 3 8. 8 3 8 2

:::: S S S.= 3333333= */u

1 --- .

.ad --. . . - .g7 ,y

2 2 JJ ooooooa .e e mee~ *g %,-aJ. ; n

>

e e eee a ~* 38a;;83I' e d A .; a de e e e e e e. e. e * * * *a5. ;; a ; 8 8 o.: a Sog *J ---o.--o. ,-- .o.oooooe oo .

g N M.oooo -g og --------Do.vui gn4eb .,d CA"e en *.| eeeaenee e eme '

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.e. ' d. e 4444444 44444,.......eeooea .a .* * . ..,s s

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - E*1M2 - , ,e. .

,R. _

E .I.I

... nn

fr m-72222222 2:222 :

%w W.*

r 2 .*.2 2 2 : 2 2 2 """:::: ~~===~~'.

p y *q .j. ~~~~**===p 7e. QO3 -

e.,. .a. . L .-- -4-

= [.2 =..t. . E,g, .

I.f2. o. . o. F, o. . on.ee. . W, e= e ,. Np

"5*

-. o. m. . . =30 ..

T. E.a 1 - ~g .-...,i~. .t.

-

W.=. 1,, ~,.S . , * '-

t *guy . :**"' 2 e,E u* * E 2 2 .

.

%

7.$ ....5 n Ene. ene~ *

*% ~3"*~ j ig-h y gg

*" - 2 oe 3 we ee oo7-.a.e%330%2 - - -

7 3333s;E;- - - -

IML du

o.o- m. e. n e. .I.

---.--

" D

2 . m o w e =. =. . e.=a e. - m. e n. a

*z

q III e.= ,= =

I=

- -

-- = . aea ~ ~ a *** .* * * * *. . *

o .IIao-- ------.!$ 2,1 *""** ~-------.g"'"'""*--------- nI, )n

e oa e. m. e. e. v. , = =

8 o m e . . e. e. a. c> c

4. - e n n n. e n e o e. sw ; =. . . - o ..e.ee.,,===~e.o ..- , ,a

.s = - -e. - e e . .= --- . e a. n .-----.a..s == n . .

.

a. I ], a f"oa a me...o n

.

oome, womeaam.E .-f

a;;AJ .146o 444 4 a. s a :s s w w%q, qe-one.oe..: a a N a ; 4.: 6neaea .,a w e e e a v t,, n e e e te e en, *: ,

3 ..m e c e e c a .e .. .., ~ ..

'I.

. L L. .1.

o. e. n. n e.o ..

e o e e.~ n. eee3 <en n- e. e. e. e. e. .e 2 8 .=

.

8..enma .J= i,.:o.- ~ Ws- ee

. .- .. emme ~..

. ,e . ..em.m. .. a ;

=E

,- .. . .

= , e. e. . e o. ., .,.- o

.o. e = m. .

.,. . W. . e Wo. e.

W. e. e. e. .. .

.oo e .m o .e. ~]. . . m......- .. ., ~ -e~eeaee. ee M--M-MM M wn-n--

----.B W ---- M--- .

.o .. . e

a o ** e. .

&&&Od& O

t'v o u w o o d- OOOONON O*

.u -

OOOOOOOOd dOOOd wwwwwww u:wwwwww v uuw*

.Jj2 1 .-WMMMMM

h.,- - - M N N N 2aO4O. ,,----MH .' . W

Jm J 5 aa . ca ... W,,.-.,.. .W..a.ao v

** .N5o a .e f,.r. - e e e - o e ,, . h b . . ,

e... b .o,. e

m **e. c. c o,ay

h .$ h,,,. bo.b.eF .. y

** W'4 e e 59 W4 es .s e We e We e e.q eg.

, , , ~oe . ...h. h

,.

h e. d h_ d d dtWeWeWeW%Wg

** e e Ws We e vs W6 We

..b. e. d. e. b d. h. e h.d. e. N. b = Ge . . = - .. .g-

~g. n an seg e e. .. . , . -. e. e. n. e.= Jo

-

p p. 3 4 ,

. ot3 ..~.. .= .e..pe p. c. p. c. M - s#d%

=.~.,e.= . P. c e P c 37%. Wge e 1

W9 W% W9 W9 e W% 89 de gWg vg Wg .4 Wg Wg gg OW% #9 W9 W% W%

i

$W% .i W% W4 W% W% W% W4 99P

e.p

.,''' . M

55 5 '

IT kk $~ 55

- .

.

. .-

*.

*Table 3-

.. ,

.' '

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLA'ITS A A'.D B. . -

..

- IN-PLACE EARTHFILL TESTI':C-

'

-.

.

. . .- .

.

.- .t. .

(Phase 2)". .

. e -ADDITIONAL ArrERBET.C LIMIT TESTS - -- -

.,. . ... > .

*:- ^ s.: . >%.

;. ^. . . ....a . .. ..

- -. - : . . _ .

' '

. . . - . - . . .

.I. ''1.. Boring Soil Approximate IIquid Pla::ticity~'

''

*#~I'

'

, '.i'' I'.7 ', ; No. Layer Elevation Limit Index*-

-

?; . .a|-it % % . . . . '* -:.. . .. ..

. .. w.=,.

.

.. .. -. . . .

-

. .:. - ; :~. .. . = .. . .

.. . .

.-. . .- ... ..,. . . .-. .. ~. . ..

. f. . . ' US-1 1 524 ~37.0 17.6 . . " ' . . . J. . . . "x~ ,',. f. '..

-

.. ...

. . ,

.

! US-1 4 518 38.6 19.5- -

.

US-2 1 526 35.9 19.2 . .-~~

US-2 2 520 39.6 19.1*

.~

US-3 1 527 37.1 17.8- - - - US-3 1 526 34.9 15.2.

4 US-3 3 519 37.5 18.8-.

'*

US--4 2 527.5 42.2 18.1 - ~-... .

~ ~ ~ - -. s-

US-4 2 527 39.2 17.1.

- ', . US-4 2 526 - 41.3 18.6. .

.

:'

.

,-

1. 532 38.0 19.4-US-5* ' '

,,

. US-5 2 529.5 42.3 19.1-

- '. '

US-5 2 529 40.2 18.0~

-

.. .,

-. .

-- .

.. . ,

. _ _

. , .c. -. . . -

.. .

. ..

. .. . . _ _.w. . . . , 5 ,.. .

, ., ..

. ..'

. -:-

.. , . . . . . , . . . . .... .

. -..

,-.., . ..--

. ., , , r ,:9 i. . .< * ;... *-.

...... .

... . . . . . ,. ...

., --

. . . . . - _ . . ..-

, , ._- ,. .e. .. .. . , - . < . -

-

.s . > .;. .x- -

1:-

. .. . . . -..

. ., ... . .

-. . - - .. -

. , . , . .- ,.

.... ., . . , . .. -

.. ... , S. ; ;.,... ...

- -.,

. ... . . , < .s. -

..,,

- -.

. . ., .'- .7..:

'_ ,.-

. _ ,_.

. . ... _ _ _ .s. .. ..

. .,., . .

- , '. .. ..- . , , ' . -. . . : . . > ..

- : -

.. , , .

. s -- - s

. ,-.

i -

...

.. .

*. .

.

.

.

. .

. .

m .

S

.

). .

.

'.

'.

3 1 0 2 0 11

~

--

. . ..

. .

'. .

- -.

101 ole.

..f

,g Ob. _

-_.

_

- '_ - - ' 7b ~ 7_ -L__. _ e#k NW

h. .h,, (Oib p d f/k 'gb- a

|._

. ,

. . . .

t 'I .! L. ,. .

. . . ,

Uls(. .

ii g g 3 5

'

^;!i| fg||| mim!

i!F g4 h *=~..|iiiiiiiiiii

, ri"] a

(7- | >D- - ! gwi. .d iu,

' li i'i i i I!, ~.

, f"! 8!' -j,

| . 4:'|ji!!!!!'!!5$ !

d!!!!?!!ii!: N| I; ino

h';lii|tiliI ill iI-"

1.li!

-

l:l, w:C.:..U . . *a. vas .

-

c's.

5%- .

*

-

I I i i i I 'I-

i [' * i''

I .

lf ;

| ~

.,|

*

!!'|i-

I ! i,

;

/ { d 'll.

!-

I ..

=. ._ ' -

| ' ' \_- \ ._

'3 | \/ , ;-

.- - , .,-

! ;- '

s' b ;i

J~ s- .

~. Ie

*

1 / -; ::x,

g ,, _| L; | !/

/ 1N N / -

; 4 ,!i'k !!

_,.4

Ii! V'

i._

!, |ll' s { - ..- '

a'

!.

|$1-

-.

.

-.

| | | | | | | | |'

.

' ! ! ! ! :! ! I ,

'I % I:

.i . .. .

. .. ..l<\ . . . .

. . . . .

p.

._..__ ...___- _ . . . !. f

_

f

!,

*t

NOTES t

LSEE TADLE 2 FOR COMPLETE StMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA.'

6 .,

O. . . . ._

' ;'

t'l ! !!!| !' !!:8-! |||

. /" 6

H i '.i!' !F ' '

j: i r: : O-

r:L ....;: :t !:. , (.t

[.r:r _

.m| 1 MM||'. . ~r-

.. | . :ii M-

Th 28:'l*M: !ili!!iI!!| Ni .v~ g- -~ ,,

' - }i-.. '. ,

)1SO

= E.d ,!.}! f!- | f!. !.f ,.,

7. . .

: / y:|T~

Ti] jj |. /'.:. .. [-iP [ u, |g }. . _. -

k h, . .

7

f || ! Y4.0|E!!

g x[ }MtN Af[+}- ,tF d 4-- .L .. . . = ,-

i+

;!

[N[YJ2N| |I" @$ i!I I:. *

DESCN Pft0PERTIES tbi -[ i.

[..I M ~!! !.! # s=e'.C 0 8TsF MEI|:~

1I

SAMPLE C FILL'

g| 6 I I,.m

HO (TSF) TYPE 3,j 3j.c' DN ,,

c .t yI- ,*

- i.t I ts o 663 ~

cb 20 [ b*;. _ g;;

--

F 7'

, 'T_

. {Y l' II:'

G47 ' h" ...-

! l. |l' _' U 23D ZD0

~

c[l'I I '' kr . '

M # .

7 1J -- T : || BI 42D

- to cm leo$ ,- i" ~ ".~

'

{/3 0--

i : i _1 as __a __

s.,

,

' T u "! 'l i YI 23.5 13 s ,b,?.

.

.

t~ ~ ~ [Yn] ~ 30 0 _ s.so s'

:C I l~ ~

; ;1' ;

'' YIH nS L25 s'

i|i li . _ _t| I ) * |

$ C. CENTRAL FILL

O to 20 3JD 40 SO EO S* SUPPORT FILL'

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT-

NORMAL STRESS (TSF)INPLACE EARTHFILL TESTING

. . . ../

Uf& CONSOLIDATED- UNDRAINED (Q).

'

FOURE 2 TRIAXlAL COMPRESSlotJ TESTRESULTS

..k

'e. 4 . p e = .

. . _ . k_ _ . . _ . . - . . . . .

|

P

e*l;FOTESL OESIGN PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE G8tAPH CORRESPote To CATEGORY I, !

CL ASS (A.1) TRIAklAL R TEST STRENGTHS FOR THE SLFPORT FILL.TRIAXtAL R 1EST DES 60N PROPERilES FOR THE CEN1H AL FtLL,CAIEF/NT( I, I6

Q. ASS (A), ARE LOWER W * 15*, C+0 liSF.

2.SEE TABLE 2 FM COWLETE SUWARY OF LABORAimY TEST CATA. ;l* ' ' *v .

t +t!>i- '

t. -

Iao ! :' | 6E i i 11 a O

E 1I *! .', i ",5..

{ ,.i J, ' i

i-

f, - *.+

.

{' p: j

,: - ,n " i,c- :i.i ' ,..

. W Ono ".. -

.

l|* :: :: |: [ - n^- |! - y

-T

* , g.

.

! 1:-

".j(;,% ,p4%[A.; < p ,.

1

-.

m-, -

z: :::li T i lij: y- M

*

li lpe''

f.! <''

43 _ ; { |1 j '. ''':C a

k '._

bn $I 7-

M -- . 1-

| l /py 4

m til :.. : ID, / .I f y'v ..j.

oEsa moeERTits r

,

-||- ,' 7

- ,r ,f,

g.. b' p!:-'g/ f. yh,ry 10 r,-- - .-,

' - j-A ? -Y[J

# 85*. C*o.3 75F nr,eSAMPLE' O C FILL

. .'~

l y ,*) h 1)7'

d'

,m _ _ * .g'

i 87 0 092 C #

p f'I hp- lj- . -

f' M' .1t, 20

I - Il ~~ zes s.is c 7<

I ,-

fx , jj , . -rM 4 :: 2a2 eso c p,M i :y.

~}TT f%E ~ ~ , <f .:, iv iso ica, c-.-

-d i g i.. _*Mgr f u. .

v 250 044 s#

# #,, M ;- , ..g ;: ;

2 vi soo ost s-

|1dj M ] _| _

| :Ivil 87 0 040 s

|in u

f]5i i | I '*: || Viin 240 ass si [ j , ,,

, ; ,.

8 C.CE g,,_

0 to 2D 30 40 10 6.0 ,

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANTNORMAL STRESS (TSF)

INPLACE EARTHFILL TESTING/

CONSOLIDATED -Ut40R Alt 4E 0 (R)-

"D TRIAX1AL COMPRESSIOtt TESTRESULTS i

.$~A

'

4 i,g 3 .

,!t :

ik| ! .I ,! - kl ,

|

'|'

i

'

)

Co* '

N,

Ajf ' - LA. G P GTA N N Td R SD 4

g.bhIS

T U A T ES S T

Y I

%,L,hD EE E EN LT )

C T i(i

R AT U (- NO y6T g a, N L OA 0

I IIR, *^ h E F SEO SB R L H EA E

L W f L T RR PI

F W c V A MO O , SR E T E OY L C

E C C C C 8 5 S S R E LA BM D LP A C At TSM E LY H AIU T FT X LS S L AUE IL ~ ~T . ~ P SI

SS N REUET , . TRI

MI S )R E Ff 5 08 0003 '

F T4 00 0 0

C S~o 0 5To0000000O E TC P S (R OO R RF P A .

42 H E ' ) LL EE G H S LLL S I I t RI S

A DC 6R 0 5. S. 6 7 9. 0 FF UB ET E G8

3 2 s 4 3 7 8 5 LT I ,

E O 3 3 2 3 3 3 AH 4 '-FTS E

E itR E R0E t J TPETO S TO NPNI 2 E EU

C S.L . I E II I I -PO EII II I I CSI

MN ~YTA _ e' 'S SEIfTRsTE OP

%O.'

o

P C.N0 '9

n S2E*u On- 0#-

-! I . E /:

-| . i s

!

5 .

g)4; $. |1e.

,

:!: i.

,gp 'yi- |

,f .

. . 4[ . :.i O[ 1t. 5.f ,f S:|.

:t

i,,.!

h [,[::.|i . | .

- -

!-.,,

-|

| . ;, h: . | . k ):

g; '! -!

l ' ' F.- :

,

i

0 S.

1r t1 .| 1 |

- 4 T1 |

~

|

[. ;(

- 11. -| '

S* . ^ - /

, Si

. - ,

g/' '

E- p. rt .f .i g

|

R0*- I 3 T* :

! - tI ;| ; I-. I <

}.S.f i. l - .

.j

!-. '

,!

L!- : . * i. I t

,

i,>

MA

^ i. I!

|7| |I 7,| D R|: yI.. .f,

1 g. !,

j;t

|. !-

..|7 , '

- 2|.

|. ,t, !O

|3.'|-| ,

8' g# [[1N'I

n |it4t

|*

h.. !=!M|. :' . kM W :e '

. 1 :

0'..

. :

!h - . : 1'

l' ||t!U-!

l

ai%l.,k 'T ,|}. it:.g . i . i ' . k l.il ;{, |

|:

, fI 'k! j

k

N.... .n .U [ ["h. ..

.

.-. .

| P|. !,

. : . .- ,T.

':: |. . I

I O0 0O 0 3 2" 5

[@ $y g g L.

t.

-.,

..