ML19221A695
| ML19221A695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1979 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907030097 | |
| Download: ML19221A695 (5) | |
Text
_
tlNil t Lt $1 A1 t 5
[
' c,(
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9, '
a g%
j
+...+
JUN 0 71979 Docket No. STN 50-482 APPLICANTS: Kansas Gas & Electric Company Kansas City Power & Light Company FACILITY:
Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 SWJECT:
StfdMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD WITH THE APPLICANTS REGARDING THE MATTER OF CONCRETE STRENGTH OF THE REACTOR BUILDING BASE MAT A meeting was held on May 15, 1979 with the applicants in Burlington, Kansas to discuss the matter of concrete strength of the reactor building ba e mat.
The meeting was held at our request to discuss the results of the receri:
tests performed by the applicants on remnants of the original concrete test cylinders ar.d to discuss tne results of the reanalysis of the base mat performed by using the 90-day strength test results.
The meeting was announced as a public meeting, in accordance with the recomendations of NUREG-0292, " Nuclear Power Plant Licensing: Opportunities for Improvement",
and was attended by about 250-300 members of the public and by representatives of the news media.
The NRC attendees and the representatives of the applicants and Bechtel who made presentations are listed in the Enclosure. The meeting is stnmarized as follows.
S ummary Mr. Domenic Vassallo, Assistant Cirector for Light Water Reactors in the Division of Project Panagement of NRC, made some introductory remarks about the meeting. Mr. Vassallo stated that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a technical discussion between the NRC staff and the applicants to discuss matters relating to the strength of the concrete in the Wolf Creek reactor building base mat.
He stated that the meeting was being held in Burlington, Kansas in line with the current (over the past year) NRC policy to hold some of our public meetings in the vicinity of a plant site so that more menbers of the public could attend. Mr. Vassallo presented backgrcund information about the base mat issue and briefly discussed the previous meeting which was held on the issue in Bethesda, Maryland on January 4,1979.
He added that we did not anticipate reaching any final conclusions regarding the matter at this Burlington meeting.
273 108 790703009/ "
. AN 0 71979 Representatives of the applicants and Bechtel (the architect / engineer for the standard portion of the Wolf Creek plant) then made a technical pre-These incl uded sentation regarding the various aspects of the base mat issue.
a discussion of (1) the concrete specification used for the base mat, (2) the results of the original cylinders tests performed for the base mat concrete by Daniel (the constructor), (3 ) tne results of the subsequent tests performed by the Portland Cement Association (Ft.A) on remnants of the test cylinders, and (4) the results of the reanalysis performed by Bechtel for the base mat by using the calculated strength obtained with the results of the original 90-day cylinder tests. The presentation included the information previously discussed at the January 4,1979 meeting.
The new information presented at this Burlington meeting involved the additional PCA tests and the Bechtel reanalysis, all of which were performed subsequent to the January 4,1979 meeting.
The applicants concluded that the results of all the additional tests performed demonstrate that the concrete in the base ma* is sound and that the concrete strer.gth exceeds the specified strength of 5000 pounds per square inch. The applicants also concluded that, even if the strength of the concrete is 4460 pounds per square inch (calculated value based on the results of the original 90-day cylinder tests), the results of the reanalysis demonstrate that the base mat can still safely withstand the various loadings and loading combinations specified in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report design criteria.
Following the presentation, NRC staff menbers raised several questions relating to the original cylinder tests, the PCA tests, and the Bechtel reanalysis. The responses to these questions provided the following information:
(1) There is no clear cut answer as to why some of the 90-day cylinder test results are lower than 5000 pounds per square inch. Neither is there a clear cut answer as to why some of the 90-day strength results are lower than those obtained with the 28-day cylinders.
(2 ) The PCA representative stated that the 0.8 reduction factor which was applied to the results obtained from the strength tests performed on the two inch cubes (to correlate the results with those that would be obtained from tests performed on cylinders) is an internationa ly l
accepted factor that is applied to tests performed on molded cubes.
(3 ) The Bechtel reanalysis was performed by using Wolf Creek site specific soil properties and a SNUPPS envelope value of 0.2g.
The original analysis was based on an envelope value of the soil properties at all fcur SNUPPS sites and a value of 0.25g (which is more conservative than the SNUPPS envelope val ue of C. 29).
273 107
. JUN 0 7 lys (4 ) A reanalysis of the Wolf Creek base mat, which uses the Wolf Creek site specific value of 0.12 9, had been started, but was discontinued when the applicants felt that the more conservative analysis based on the SNUPPS envelope value of 0.2g would yield acceptable results.
We then stated that the staff would need additional time to review the infnrmation provided in order to determine what, if any, additional information was required to complete our evaluation. At this point, the members of the public were invited to ask questions.
Ntsnerous questions were re.ised by the public regarding the base mat matter; for example:
(1)
Was the concrets in the base mat the same as the concrete in the test cylinders?
(Yes);
(2 ) Are standard deviations of 10 percent in the concrete strength test results normal?
(Yes, according to Merican Concrete Institute standards);
(3 ) Did the tRC perform independent tests? (No, but we watched the tests being performed and hired an outside consultant to help evaluate the results); and (4 ) Will the tRC require additional tests? (We stated that in our evaluation of the matter we would rely on the results of the reanalysis rather than request additional tests).
Other questions raised by the public concerning Wolf Creek included the matter of concrete voids in the containment wall and the use of a full time inspector at Wolf Creek.
There were other matters raised by the public which were more general in nature. These included concerns and coments about nuclear safety and risks, the use of alternative energy sources, and the need to reevaluate design basis accidents.
We believe that the meeting was well received by the public and a few comments were made expressing appreciation that the fRC scheduled the meeting in Burlington, Kansas rather than in Bethesda, Verylan<1.
b f
C Emanuel A. Licitra, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
Meeting Attendees cc w/ enclosure: See next page 273 110
Mr. Glenn L. Koester Vice President - Operations JUN O 713/g Kansos Gas & Electric Compcny 201 North Mark. + Street Wichita, Kansas 67201 cc:
Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick John Hal zer, Esq.
Executive Director, SNUPPS Law Offices of Ralph Foster 5 Choke Cherry P,oad Kansas Gas & Eltctric Company Rockville, Maryland 20850 P. O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pi ttman, Pote:,
Wi l l i am H. Wa rd, Es q.
Trowbridge & Madden MACEA 1800 M St reet, N. W.
5130 Mission Road Washington, D. C.
20036 Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66205 Mr. Donald T. McPhee Al an S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chai rman Vice President Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Kansas City Power & Light Company V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1330 Baltimore Avenue Washington, D. C.
20555 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
James T. Wiglesworth, Esq<
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 9800 Metcal f U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 400 Washington, D. C.
20555 General Square Center Overland Park, Kansas 66212 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. William H. Griffin, Esq.
V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C.
20555 State of Kansas State House Ms. Treva Laska, Assistant General Counsel Topeka, Kansas 66612 Public Service Comaission P. O. Box 360 Mr. John M. Wylie II Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Energy Reporter Kansas City Star 1729 Grand Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Fr. Gary Haden Wichita Eagle & Beacon Cox A-20 Wichita, Kansas 67201 n,,
ENCLOSURE fEETING ATTENDEES FAY 15, 1979, WDLF CREEK GENERATING STATION j
N_RC K. Seyfrit D. Vassallo E. Licitra F. Schauer H. Lee C. Tan R. Shewaaker C. Cberg S. Lewis KG E G. Koester i
J. Arterburn W. Eales et al.
t t
EECHTEL E. Meyers F. Divj ak M, Daye K. L ee J. Ivany et al.
Al so attended by representatives of the applicants' contractors, representatives of the news media and mer.ters of the public.
i 273 112 4
t i
\\
e 4
e e a s e..ae se
%,emagepuum.'.4%e as, e s gu ay %a m apua pis% s gye%Mg ag