ML19209B318

Provides Basis for Interpretation That Length of Time to Conduct User Test of Cement Samples Did Not Violate ASTM C-150.Ltrs Confirming Test Findings Encl

ML19209B318
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	06/12/1979
From:	Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML19209B313	List: ML19209B312 ML19209B318
References
NUDOCS 7910090500
Download: ML19209B318 (4)

Text

.

(

KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY THE ELEC7psC COhemeNY ac s s,otr_=

v cs

==Lt L**'

• • • ONS June 12, 1979 W.C.

Seidle, Chief h2 ter Construction and Engineering Support Branch U.S. Mu; lear Regulatory Commission Esgion IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000

.ulington, fexas 76012 Re:

(a) STN 50-482/npt. 78-13 (b) Koester letter to Seyfri.t 3/22/79 (c) Seidle letter to Koester 4/26/79

Dear Mr. Seidle:

your letter, Reference (c), you requested that, in addition to i

information which was provided in our initial response to Report 78-13, Reference (b), we provide the basis for our interpretation to finding No. 4 of Report 78-13.

Attached is a letter from Daniel's Mr. R.A. Bradshaw to Mr. Howard H. t;cwlon, who is the Chairman of ASTM Committee C-1 on Cement.

In this letter Mr. Bradshaw requested a written interpretation of the intent of ASTM C-150, section 9, wherein time periods for testing are listed.

Also attached is Mr. Newlon's reply to Mr. Bradshaw dated May 24, 1979.

We believe Mr. Newlon's reply with the interpretation previously provided by our A/E provides an adequate basis to conclude that the length of time used to conduct the user's test of cement sanoles did not violate ASTM C-150.

Yours very truly, l en yd bW GLK:bb Attach 1112 160 7 910090 F00 20! N. Market - Wrchsta, Kansas - k.%I Address: P,0. Box 208 / Wichita, Kansas 67201 - Telephone Area Code (316) 2631111

RECEIVED BY DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY b.9 b[h ca rnLL uustner.G GREENVILLE. SOUT H CAROLIN A 29600 C.A.*.'.T'. l!ITERH.\\Tlo,'y,r_

e eos s see seco May 21, 1979 Mh uun Uit din lM0 m re a renn nre n i

U.W g

• 10 fJ l

I Mr. H: ard H. Newlon i*

^

l.

b

_. b., b[

Vir:1r._a ~ransportation Research Council

) Di:_ I

. md U l'o c t ':ffice Sox 3817 University Station DANIEL COfMTRI!CllON KANSAS CITY OFHCE.

Charlottesville, Virginia 22903

Dear Mr. Newlan:

This '.ctter is in confirmation of our telephone conversation of this date concerning interpretation of Section 9 of ASTM C-150.

During a recent audit of Danici Construction ~ Company's construction activitics at Kanran Gas and Elcetric Company's k'olf Creek Nuclear Power Plant Project the NRC cited a nonconpitance with the requirementa of Section 9 of AST?! C-150 in that some tents were not completed within the number of days na stipulated in Section 9.

By this action the NRC han inter-preted the number of ' days au being the muimum time permitted f or completion of the tents.

Contrary to the above, Danici had interpreted the number of dayn to be the mini =um time which is to be allowed for a testing agency to sample the cement and complete the required tenting before which test renulto can be required to be reported.

In order that an appropriate renponse can be made to the NRC nudit finding a written interpretation of the intent of the time periodn as stated in Section 9 of ASn! C-150 la requented from committee C-1.

Your early ronponse will be appreciated.

Yours truly, 8

Al' R. A. Bradal.

nounna sue Manager Civ 1 Tc t olo g.,m.a r.4,.,,

I RAB:gop

' iN

~

--~

r a,. n..,,..,. i...

cc:

Leo Smith 5 "s" e ntr >.

7],

I..

Pardi

'M e ' '" * : "

i _.

File 1-7.1

. ic.i.. J e.

iii7

4. 6 i e'".".."......

'i.11* t E ngr.

{s,,t; h J.in g..,: n t Den..<.. r.... 4 D C

$.'s' L',e t y A Deve,,ow os pasestL entseMatsomat CoppomatioM

~

N e. t-Q : it' +

()

i d

g k

l l

1 COMMITTEE C.1 If I

d ON b

I<>I b

r ASTV 1st $ Peca $8. Naov rwa. PA 11103 (21812946*Cc e

l C h=. m.= = = =M 0=. it. s ep., > g

. p. m. (..

. se e li t ? w w, t w tw wa

.-a.. Ta 2WCJ A M M

'*.t**===

• 6 GC l* 3 6

. pe, t e.. c.

X33 =

.m... h.a n a *t++*. CW F.ClO isl W AJ2 sa..

-. > -..=.w. ~ t - c. m *os..se.

us es m tses n sasan r*~...~

a :< u 6..

6,. w.... w...w o c sc2x sm.*2:44su t--*-=-

i. >< m ~ asti si.-n Box 3817. University Station 4

Charlottesville. Virginia 2".903 File: 11.9.12 i

Kay 24. 1979 g(

L

.t.

1.A. Bradshav, Jr.

."x.a p; Ci.-11 Te c hno le ry l

Daniel Censtnction Cc pany l

OAnie1 Puildin; G r e envilla, south Carolina 29602 r

L L

raear Mr. 3radahaw:

s j

l This i s in r e s pe ci e t o y cu r l e t t er c f May 21 s ak.in g f o r.in interpretatian of Sectico 9 of A5ni C-130.

This se c tic a

t a n t in g

[

tirm requirraents" is secticn 11 in the current versien. Ac c or din g

[

te :re books it was Section 9 in the 1975 cenpilation. The wordin;

)^

is the **m.

The confusion arises clearly because of the state:vnt E

I "th e f ollevina pe ricd s" wit hcut as f e.fic at ien a s to vbo t her the s e w e r e M -

• m o r n.a rines t ic t s. This question is being addressed i

by Comittee C-1 as indicated later in this letter.

E.ased en nr understanding of the history of this arction and the actic s currc=tly bei::; t ak e n by Cemit t e e C-1 I will of f er the f olievin3 ee:sen t,

The tina s we r e includad by Cdttee C-1 a s guidelina s to pre-clude a testing laboratory f ren taking sanples, ar.d then not i

Frec e edi.e4 expedit iously to init iate testing. In that sense they D

ceuld be considered as cirtinus tin 4% althwah I can see where they cocid 11karis e b e interpreted as nxiten tinas.

In fact they vote

_r:tilher. but tacher guide 11r es. Dr:; yhf ch a ;isynt p.g3qqv and 1E I

client creid negotiat e.

My own j ud g. e nt is that they are closer to G J D 'ff.' M '.*. M.Y..'. dis.% [S' M lQfh*W'5.T M/.3*/dA G Ed^d5I,.',M fs D ?Y{G.'<*Td.'$'.

• OI.b N M NI' '

J 1112

!62

v

);

- -i=2s times than t e e.s riws tire s, and tha t tha nAxicus t i=e is a 2 tJ e r.JLe tw e en t.. e test.n w e c n nd_tba client. Wie e.atter is ce i

anaes.att'y cla:ified as a result of acticus currently in letter h a.12 t :! C :r:1ttee C-1, the deadline dats of which is Juca 1.

khila i

e

• it est:ene cf this lettet ballet is not applicable to ycur situatica, artainly clatifies the original intent of the sponsoring subco=11 stas.

't t

S.

fi:st action is to re ove this section f res C-150, and to place u a Tm* :t.* t in C-15 3 "Caspling ih 6su11c Ca= ant", sicce it is c

'^

1:::17 s ratts; of sanP11ns and testing rather than the propertf as cf he p cposed s.xseding in C-IA! will appaar as Section 3

• • c em.t.

s La fellowss

.d 5.

Testint Tire Fa q u i r e: en_t s g-Ce:d nt Sanple s s hall t o ic:va rded to the t e s t ing a g a ec y wi thin 4 8 hou rs of the ceepletien c.f the earpling of a kI Ict of cesent. All teste require:f by the purchaser shall 8j k

te in process with.in seven days of receipt of the samples

,h by the testing agency.

Itis vill clearly establish that the cecont s a:pl e =us t be sect testing asancy within AS hours and th.st all tests sust be in to th e prpgress within 7 days of receipt of the saepla.

1 This clearly is a minicus tine r e qu ir e pe a ta nd t he ne xt_cu=_t, e f or f urc1.sh11ths teet_ result 9 vould_be a os t t e r_t o_t e, d e t e r:1r,e d _ b e-p

_tlasy tt._etsstitRJgency sed the client. This is what I believe v2a y

'1 j

casst all alor_;.

U is chair:Las of By ecpy o f th i s le E t e r to ?*r. 1.U. Sp ell::.a=, who the aubco:mittee re s pca s it i e f er C-150, and to ?tr. J.R. Dica, chair =.sn f

of the subet-rsitte e respe s ibis f or C-133. I as advising thss of ycur in:iviry, sad abould they wish to add any additional inf orma tion, I wald c:secur a g e chas t o d o s o.

I trust that this fulfils yror cceds and if I can add f ur z be r clarifications, pleas e le t me knc-e.

I Sincer 7.

6 x

y H srd M on, INjr/aa C.a iru.as, Cc=:n.1 e t ee C-1 cc:

1.R. 014e p

1..t. 5;e112sa E;.C. tear seo I

i i

i 1112 163

. e.w :... w., w s c.z w.: x.:. m ;..

w..,.

.,..o... a.w, w w.. m u.,.e.,.

.