ML14358A361

Email Response from s Gavutis C-10 Foundation to Region-I, NRC, Regarding NRC Responses to Their Previous Emails Referencing Seabrook Station ASR Testing

ML14358A361
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/12/2014
From:	Gavutis S C-10 Research & Education Foundation
To:	Mel Gray Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
Gray M
References
Download: ML14358A361 (2)

Text

From: sgavutis@ on behalf of Sandra Gavutis <sandra@ >

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:14 AM To: Gray, Mel Cc: Cook, William; Glenn.Dental@

Subject:

Comments regarding Seabrook nuclear power plant

Subject:

Comments on response to e-mails dated 9/3, 9/8, and 9/23, 2014, regarding Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Gray, Thank you for your detailed response to Deborah Grinnells questions. Debbie is right now on medical lea We have several questions for you on your email response dated October 16, 2014:

First, referencing your paragraph 6, was the test done in 2010 the same test procedure that was used in 1 (That is not clear from your message.) Second, given that the average reduction in the concretes compres strength was 22%, what was the range of the reduction? (by that we mean, did the reductions range from 20%-24%, or 2% to 80%, for example).

Referencing paragraph 8: Your message states that contractors for NextEra in 2010 performed the requir five-year interval IWL examination of the outer reinforced concrete surface of the containment. Given tha the NRC staff did not agree with NextEras initial view that this examination would satisfy their commitme to complete a comprehensive ASR walk down of all reinforced concrete structures potentially affected by ASR, how will re-performing in 2015 the same test satisfy the NRCs requirement? Do you mean NextEras contractors will be performing a different type of or a more extensive surface area test? C you help us by explicating this, please?

Further, still on paragraph 8, your last sentence states that no additional ASR-related inspections or test of containment have been recommended or imposed by the NRC. Does that mean that the NRC is NOT requiring or recommending core sampling be done? And if not, why not? It would seem clear that if there crazing/cracking on the surface, there could well be changes in the interior of the concrete that should be investigated. Does that presumption seem correct and reasonable?

1

If as you say in paragraph 9, ACI 349.3R does not require drilled cores to evaluate the condition of reinforced concrete, would it not be advisable to rewrite ACI 349.3R to take into account the new reality ASR? Please comment.

Yes, the ASR/compressive strength decline does indeed need to be monitored for further adverse impact o structural performance. Whether that can be done by simply looking at the surface of the concrete seems continue to be at issue.

Thank you for your continued help on these vital public safety questions!

Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director C-10 Research & Education Foundation 44 Merrimac Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 Click here to Reply or Forward Ri he do pi he yo O

pr au do th fro In 1.29 GB (8%) of 15 GB used Manage

©2014 Google - Terms & Privacy Last account activity: 13 minutes ago Details 2

From: sgavutis@ on behalf of Sandra Gavutis <sandra@ >

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:14 AM To: Gray, Mel Cc: Cook, William; Glenn.Dental@

Subject:

Comments regarding Seabrook nuclear power plant

Subject:

Comments on response to e-mails dated 9/3, 9/8, and 9/23, 2014, regarding Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant Mr. Gray, Thank you for your detailed response to Deborah Grinnells questions. Debbie is right now on medical lea We have several questions for you on your email response dated October 16, 2014:

First, referencing your paragraph 6, was the test done in 2010 the same test procedure that was used in 1 (That is not clear from your message.) Second, given that the average reduction in the concretes compres strength was 22%, what was the range of the reduction? (by that we mean, did the reductions range from 20%-24%, or 2% to 80%, for example).

Referencing paragraph 8: Your message states that contractors for NextEra in 2010 performed the requir five-year interval IWL examination of the outer reinforced concrete surface of the containment. Given tha the NRC staff did not agree with NextEras initial view that this examination would satisfy their commitme to complete a comprehensive ASR walk down of all reinforced concrete structures potentially affected by ASR, how will re-performing in 2015 the same test satisfy the NRCs requirement? Do you mean NextEras contractors will be performing a different type of or a more extensive surface area test? C you help us by explicating this, please?

Further, still on paragraph 8, your last sentence states that no additional ASR-related inspections or test of containment have been recommended or imposed by the NRC. Does that mean that the NRC is NOT requiring or recommending core sampling be done? And if not, why not? It would seem clear that if there crazing/cracking on the surface, there could well be changes in the interior of the concrete that should be investigated. Does that presumption seem correct and reasonable?

1

If as you say in paragraph 9, ACI 349.3R does not require drilled cores to evaluate the condition of reinforced concrete, would it not be advisable to rewrite ACI 349.3R to take into account the new reality ASR? Please comment.

Yes, the ASR/compressive strength decline does indeed need to be monitored for further adverse impact o structural performance. Whether that can be done by simply looking at the surface of the concrete seems continue to be at issue.

Thank you for your continued help on these vital public safety questions!

Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director C-10 Research & Education Foundation 44 Merrimac Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 Click here to Reply or Forward Ri he do pi he yo O

pr au do th fro In 1.29 GB (8%) of 15 GB used Manage

©2014 Google - Terms & Privacy Last account activity: 13 minutes ago Details 2