ML19259B463

Ack Receipt of Re Concrete Strength at Facility. Applicant Initiated Addl Tests to Resolve Issues.Nrc Will Evaluate Results.Design of Plant Accounts for Earthquake Potential

ML19259B463
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	02/05/1979
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Simpson J KANSAS, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML19259B464	List: ML19259B463 ML19259B465
References
NUDOCS 7902130216
Download: ML19259B463 (4)

Text

M~

j

?

1 Distribution Docket File LWR #3 File E. Licitra IE (3)

NRC PDR H. Denton M. Rushbrook SECY Mail Facility (3) (#790031) local POR E. Case OELD R. Ryan, SP EDO Reading R. Boyd G. Ertter (#5189)

DCA NRR Reading

0. Parr M. Groff R. Mattson E. Hughes H. Thornburg, IE Docket I:o. 5TN 50-482 B. Moore J. Yore, ASLB M

ca-The !:onorable John it. Simpson 1;ansas State Senate 0o)A g

D

• D91' P. O. Cox 1403 aJ J-Salina, :ansas 07401 o

fear Senator Simpson:

Your letter of January 5,1979 to Chairnan Joseph it. Hendrie presents m

ycur cc:. rents and concerns regarding i.ork on the concrete base for the holf Crech Cencrating Station. Since this is a uatter that could be subject to review by the Comissien, it 1.ould not be appropriate for the Chain.:an to cor. cent at this time. Accordingly, your letter has been referred to r..e for a reply.

Le believe that the r.:atter you refer to concerns the concrete that was placed for the reactor building base rat for the Eolf Creek plant.

In your letter, you state that this concrete has teen fcund to be deficient and indicate your cencern that consideration v.ould be given to louering the standards fer the concrete base reat. You also indicate that there is a potential for earthquakes at the Folf Creek site.

Furthern. ore, ycu indicate that possible changes in plant size could have an impact on the ecene:.:ics cf the plant.

Eefore specifically addressing your corrents and concerns,1.c would first like to provide you uith a discussion of the rcatter and the status of the efforts to resolve the issue.

The matter relating to the concrete in the reactor building base Lat concerns the 90-day strength tests that teere perforced for the Kansas Gas ano Electric Coq any (applicant) on representative concrete test cylinders obtained from the same concrete batches that were placed into the base uat. The results of these tests indicated that for sc; e of the concrete cylinders, the 90-day strength of the concrete was belou 4

5000 pounds per square inch which uas the value specified by the architect - engineer (Pechtel) for this plant.

In addition, sore of g

e the 90-cay test results indicated an apparent drop in concrete strength when coupared to the results of 23-day tests performed with cylinders N

of the same concrete. Normally, concrete increases in strength uith tit..e within the first six months before the strength levels off.

~

This matter s;as reported by the applicant on March 15, 1978 shortly af ter the results of the 90-day' strength tests t:ere deternined.2 0 / 2

_) 7 2 f As a result of the above findings, the applicant perfonced investiga-tions, including additional tests, to deternine the cause of these o

eme s >

svan ais s >

D ATs >

N:.C FOR.M 318 (9-76) NECM 0244 v.s. m e = = u s a ma na. o-m a s u n - 8" - " *

,4 r

3.-

t l

' + '

~ f'<

'j.

Y.....,--,..

~

4

~

1 mo f M7'{

g g

D e AU) X m

~f

~

Senatcr Simpson.

anorcalies and to evaluate the iresitu strength of the reactor building base raat. The applicant issued an interin report on P.ay 25, 1978 regarding its investigations and a subsequent report on Octcber 26, 1978.

In its interim report, the applicant indicated that, if the strength of the concrete vere to be based on the 90-day test results, the 90-day strength of the reector building base nat would be approxinately 350 pcunds per square inch below the specified strength of 5000 pounds per square inch. In its October 26, 1978 report, the applicant concluded that the concrete strength in the reactor building base cat is considerably above 5000 pounds per square inch and that the apparent lou strength of a portion of the 90-day cylinders was due to testing conditions in ucasuring their actual strength.

lhe Comission's Office of Inspection and Enforcement has been performing its osa investigation on the r:atter. A report of the investigatien is in preparation and will be issued shortly.

k:e will send you a copy of this report then it is published. Preliminary findings of this investigation indicate that the applicant has not satisfactorily der.onstrated that the testing ccnditions were responsible for the lou strength obtained with the 90-day test cylinders.

In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated that the 90-day concrete strength reets the acceptance criteria of the concrete specification nor has it adequately explained why there is an apparent drop in strength betteen the 20-day and 90-day test results for some of the ccncrete

~

cylinders.

The prelir..inary findings of the investigation performed by the

~

Cffice of Inspection and Enfcrcement were discussed with the applicant in a uceting held on Eccember 5,1978 in Arlington, Texas. Further

~

discussions regarding these findings were held with the applicant in a meeting on January 4,1979 in Lethesda, Maryland. As a result,

the applicant has initiated additional tests to help resolve the issues regarding the cencrete strength of the reactor building base mat.

te will evaluate the results of these additional tests when they are available.

The concrete specification used for the Wolf Creek reactor building base cat was based on the design criteria, presented in the Volf Creek Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, thich we had reviewd and found

' ' ', ~

acceptable.

Thse design criteria specify that the concrete base mat be designed to resist various combinations of dead loads, live loads and t nviront.. ental loads, including those due to wind, tornados and carthquakes, and loads generated by postulated accidents. In addition to evaluating the causes of the apparent lou strength of the concrete, 20/2 273

.,,m.-

NECFORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 u***ve"a"*""*'****''8'**'**

W I

-r y.,.

'5 $

e _-

+

c

~

~

D*[D "D

T senator simison %

a

. A.<

a as cco. pared to the specificaticn, ne will also evaluate whether the resultant strength of the concrete still r.eets the design criteria slecified in ti.e L'olf Crech Preliminary Safety /nalysis Peport.

The above oiscussion describes the matter of concrete strength in the reactor building base raat and provides a status of the ongoing efforts to resolve the issue. The following discussion presents our responses to the cor:rcents and concerns expressed in your letter of January 5,1979.

t'ith re.,ard to your statecent about deficient concrete, we have not n ade e deten;.inotion for the concrete in the reactor building base net regarding its adequecy fcr perfonaing its intended safety function.

hhat te have detenained is that there is a deficiency in that the dpplicdnt has not uemonstrated that the 90-cay strength of the concrcte nects the acceptance criteria defined by the concrete specification.

If this saatter cannot be resolved with the auditional tests that are being perfon.:ed, then s.e will require that the resultant concrete y

strength be evaluateo to detenaine if it can teet the design criteria specified in the i.olf Creek Preliuinary Safety Analysis report.

You state your concern that consideration may Le given to lotering the stardards f or. the concrete.

In this regard, the applicant has not pro; used, nor are we considering, a change in the design criteria (i.e. a los ering of the standards) for the concrete.

Our current efforts are directed tos.ard assuring that the design criteria specit ed in the Lolf Creeh Preliminary Safety Analysis heport are net. In the event that the applicant Lere to propose a change in the design criteria for the concrete, re would reouire that the applicant provide a basis and justification for such a request. Then ne s.ould evaluate the requested change to assure that the change would not result in any undue risk to the health and safety of the public before any consideration vould be given to granting such a request.

Uith regard to your coment relating to potential earthquakes at the kolf Creek site, this is a catter that is considered in our revicu of a proposed site for a nuclear poter plant. The purpose of our review with regard to potential earthquahes is to dctennine (1) the maximuu vibratory grounc r~otion that can reasonably be postulated to occur at the site and (2) that a nuclear pos er plant to be located at that site is designed to safely withstand the forces associated with the detenainea value of vibratory ground rootion. The investigations requirec of an applicant to cetenaine the ecrthquake potential for a site ere contained in Appendix A to 10 CFP Part 100 of the Comission's regul ations.

e a

/

omea r nats p.

NRC loRM 31s (9-76) NRCM 0240 W u....ove = = u-v raiar.== o rice : s e s e - s e e - s e e m _

^'?

g

.s

,-c,

~. 1 N

q A; P sp g._.

4

,,, r

,p

~

- r

- -,

• x

~

,~

.t' s

s a

y Senator Sinp on ' [

For the Wolf Creek site, we have determined that a vibratory ground motion of 0.129 is an acceptable design basis for potential earthquakes at this site. Since the Wolf Creek plant is one of four standard (duplicate) plants to be constructed at four different sites, the carthquake design basis for the standard portions of these plants, which includes the reactor building base nat, is based on a 0.29 vibratory ground i. notion in order to envelope the earthquake potential at all four sites.

Therefore, the design of the Wolf Creek plant s

conservatively accounts for earthquake potential at the Wolf Creek site.

You carment that possible changes in plant size ( scaled doun" plant) could have an irpact on the economics of the plant. We are not aware of any proposed changes in plant size for Wolf Creek. We are also not evare of any other proposed changes to the plant relating to 4,

the base mat situation.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information in response to your co:anents and concerns.

If you would like further infornation on the Wolf Creek plant, please let me know.

Sincerely

~ _,y

......:n d

Harold P. Denton, Director Office of t;uclear Reactor Regulation 20/2 175 9

d 4

• SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCE

• LWR #3:BC

• LWR: A/D OParr 0Vassallo

[)jr[

l/26 /79 1/ 26 /79

-V

. LWR #3: LPM.DS S..

?,TE,

• DPM:D

• 0 ELD N

D er rie.

• ELicitra:ch Rig,t t_s_o_n _

HThornburg,

.,RBoyd

.Slewis.

_HD.

on__,,

.u o..,

,,,h,[cy,,,f/f9/79 1/29/79 1/29/7 1/30/79

,g p,

6c mu m,,.,., y.cu 24.

J w

^s s..,

ys

~

~'

7, s l, s.

__ _ _ _. - s w s

n e

o Senator Sirpson For the Wolf Creek site, ue have deterr,ined that a vibratory ground rotion of 0.129 is an acceptable design basis for potential earthquakes at this site.

Since the Ucif Creek plant is one of four standard (duplicate) plants to be constructed at four different sites, the earthquake design basis for the standard portions of these plants, which includes the reactor building base nat, is based on a 0.29 vibratory ground notion in order to envelope the earthquake potential at all four sites. Therefore, the design of the Wolf Creek plant conservatively accounts for earthquake potential at the Wolf Creek site.

a.

You comment that possible changes in plant size (" scaled down" plant) could have an inpact on the econcmics of the.,lant.

He are not aware of any proposed changes in plant size for Wolf Creek. '/e are also not aware of any other proposed changes to the plant relating to the base mat situation.

In sumary, we have provided you with a discussion of the matters relating to the Uolf Creek concrete base mat. We have also addressed your corrents and concerns expressed in your letter of January 5, 1979. He trust that our reply has been responsive to your request.

Sincerely v

f D

1. }D 9D

~

D

~

a o Ju Jd J,,

liarold R. Denton, Director 6

Office of fluclear Reactor Regulati A-20/2 276 c

s y

y

<E y

y

\\

u k h [#.

hY]

s M'7$',s $/ b!

L g,y DSS OE

/1 ' hR:

LWRbbPM.

EL"idfi.ra :ch R

t"tso IE Og.

o,,,,,,

H h)urg Ro 3.

(j HDenton,,,

I/ 4 /79 1/.{p/79 1/.9S./79

.11.2 7119..

_113.01.79..

..)),.,jl9, ou.*

NE C f0"P t S t S (9-76) NRCM 0240 D u.s. eov a.= u e =,.ne= vins car ec e e e s e - no s v os

~

.n'r '., 1 Tf

~

'7 N'

'4

~,

y T'

J CONTHOL NO. 0 518 9 ACTION CONTROL

, D ATES^

1 FECM:

coMPL oE AouNt

.tas#r,

/

, dQh'n M..SimpsOn Ack"owccocut"7 // -

CATE OF DOCUMENT l

State Senator, Kansas 7 +g p/

1/5/79 l

iN1 ERiu Roety PHEPARE FOR SIGNATURE

_TO:

FIN AL RLPLYf f

,h Chairran Hendrie FILE LOCATl6N' ~

O cxEcutive otRtcToR k / 7 OT s E R, Cm SPECit,L INSTRUCTION $ OR REMARKS L/f OESCRIPTION O LLT T E R OMEMO O REPORT O OTHER M4.,C Coments and concerns re concrete deficiencies at the Wolf Creek plant o m g-mm D

D D

WW C

- L M

~

CLASSIFIE D DATA

-)o CUV ENT/CC pY NO.

C LA55 t FIC AT ION NUVEER0 PI-G E S C AT EGORY SECY 79-0031 2C ST A L H E 315T R Y N O.

O NSI O Ro O rRo ASSIGN y? TO:

DATE INFCRMATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW O r:NAL O copy Assm NE N DATE NO LEG AL OBJECTIONS

__De.on 1/10/79 Shapar /&P NOTIF Y:

O EDO ADMIN & COR REE GR

\\

/

EXT.

t

%1_

/(a/79

[

CCMMr NTS, NOTIFY:

7 E XT.

M

/[ [ f '

pfIM F~~l

• (( [W

,f j JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:

O vEs O NO j s 1 1

, 1-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY o

NRCFOR 73 8 jf 64 O F h)89PRINCIFAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

), ;} l} }q =-.

-~.

tv -

y# ' f

• 4#,

g

~..,

. i _ +,. n

~4" aw

~.

^

l

-, c,

'q ~

a;'

~

+

w

,e a

r

~

a[

s s L.a.,,s p

4, 3%,. ',

, ',

• G; 's f w a,

\\ ~,

n-

~

,g r

1 y

1-

,p,-

s

• w a

I2 q

y

+

- <c o

<r l

-h

, + = *,

, ~-

1 g.

',,l

~

N

,~g ?

.Y s

+

e

,s

)

3 r

=

a s

+

e

' - ;Ek 6

'"A m

4

's

~ '

'A'

,l 3I

~

t

• i..

a s

)

W 1:.

a<..

./

~

~

~,

• ?

e.,

.,, -"3,, s.

s w vy 3's ;j

'8,

' g,

-8?,/ +

.e.

o -

s

, n ?.

t s

s 3 ^

,4 y,.

... c.

u*

~ %

,, y

',;~;

-y sc l,

q-

• ..j s

.s!

L

+

,[ ' [

o s.

,,7 w

cr ~ -

' 5}' ~

fr

+'

s

~

v, a.

9 p-;

4 f

~

kJ ~

.ap

- y y.

a.

3 s1 4-

• ",y ac w.,:a:

1,.,

s g '

',tg'1 4

., ^, *'..

S

.e%

t g

s

,a

- N,

'- ^

'A d,

m.

(A S.,

3

~

\\

([

T.

i j i ha

')

f 4

.3, 7

u..

u,

~,,

+

g

[

-s

,,.f 1

g 4

L I

p,d#

\\,.

s

! u.

~ '+.. W

, y'

.9 7 ".,f (,

_s,_

~,

m

.. x 7.*

W ' 4. g.,

,, ~

+ *.

.,.-%5#

3, 7 y

.m

[,.,

^ - ## 1 I,

. '^'

'~ 'l i

h

- ^^

~,.,

- s..' ' ',

3,

, {.).

e t-

.*3 v

n l*'

'g i.m n

4

'~ ' +,

,,. y..

-; p.

y

' i

+

.- r.

'#)

p 3.

Y

' f.

1 P

"s 4 s 8'

),

At

,s r*

h.}

r,,

a

+

'i

\\

u,

~

6 g

CONTHOL NO. 0 518 9 ACTION CONT ROL

, D ATESN 1

couPt oc AouNu psfM-FROM;$ M Simpson Joh C ATE OF DOCUMENT State Senator, Kansas

^ck"o^too""" fyg

]/ Jg IN T E RIM R LPLY PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE TO:

FIN AL REPLY [ f

_ g Chairman Hendrie FILE LOCAlldN' ~

O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

/7

)

I oT seR2. Dea **Jn I

SPECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS gg '

DEScnlPTION O LETToR OMcMo O RteoRT O OTHER w

M C' Comments and concerns re concrete deficiencies at the Wolf Creek plant kI d 9'

D D

D b

Q,/

b L, d D

u CLASSIFIE D DATA DOCUM ENT / COPY NO.

CLALSIFICATION NUMBER OF PAGES CATEGORY SECY 79-0031 O N$l O Ro O rRo POST AL REGIST RY NO.

ASSIGN yr TO:

DATE INFORM ATION ROUTING LEG AL REVIEW O FjNAL 0 COPY NO LEG AL OBJECTIONS ASSIGNED m D AT E Shapar [O W dt~M D tYo$owNa CoRRt: eR 1/10/79

. De on 4

/

8#

1 s

exi.

L" i

COMMENT S, NOTIFY:

1 yC ext.

g/ j '

M W'[EED,, s 'I l'l/ 71 (j@/f J

/

JCAE NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDED:

O vts O rwo

^

NRC FORM 73ThfIly a 9 -

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY 1

1

[)n.7,). g.

ggh PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL j

j m.m Jt g

q N M0 S

P m

- - ' - ~

+

,.- ~

7

.\\.

'1 3

.~N7 s,

gg[

7

~

/

y',

4 ab 8

- N -

m t

- )*

s

(

p

~

~

f.

)

e.

4 t

4 y w --

s

• m t

u

~

a s.

1 9

j g

s 4

, 4 '.

...u 1

..;V g

6 i L.-

s a

4,

' f-p, vs.

' ~' '

K a

~,~

t

~ ;~~

~

~ >

~ ~

• J s'

s 7

3-

%~

s'

, +

• g

.. t u, '

' 7+

e s

t, y-

• +i,

r

' %, v n

A

• a' e

1 s q.

,z '

c

.-}A g

)

y A ?

v.

t.,

t a**,

-)

?

'.A.'

re a

-f 1F

~

+

m

e. -

,t y,,

s A

9 i

4 4

4

• $4 V

y

,o r s L~

..[-

,d J, - - -

6L t 4 *N e * - +

a1 7A

],t.- '

[

' ' t I d i' -

,r

• 4.

+-

6 ;

+

s l

b

1. 3 ma 4

'{.*

q f,1 t '

^

i

^ '

J

,3 j'

,'[,

s

~

\\

t.

,s

p,i, s

i

}*

1.

. ; 5,; s,.-

s n

~

i ut a -

er Y#N'

,y '

m m.

E y

' ' f d

y 4

,,g n

e.

N '

g E,

"t"

. 6,

,s.

_y>

',.~.

,. s

',t

?

m..,

. ~ ~ )? ~

g

.ry-i

\\

• ., % J,e _

t f

s U

, _, ~

y 4

s A

g 1,b g &

A

• - 1

• g--

4 1'

,5

't,

}

a t ef g

4

,p,,

i u

1

.m w

s+

w.,

Y PI-

' sof 5 s.

r

~M'

'. m. >

~

3 4

o..

• s s

_ s

-,.:~,

a w

+

• 1 Y7

W

(

t -

< c 3,f

.. y f*

L%n i,>

-m w

• . 79-0031

[* So.Sk$b to w,oa,e_1/9))9-.

~

NRC SECRETARIAT s

TO O commisuoee, oate X@ E me - Der ' Ope, O cen counsei O cong o.,mn O son <iior O evi,i.c A: a.r.

secretarv 0-o incoming _ John _SkpsonmState_ Senator

~

,,om ansas Chairman IllidWe oat, M S/1 9

~

To 9* %

suh,et _Coments_on_concre_te_ deficiencies at i

Wolf Creek

" v,~

r s.G*$

s O e,ep,e,epiy f o, sig,atu,e of

.y Cha;rman 4.

y, a2 2-O comm,suoner O E oo. cc. ct. sot. rA. sr ev 1

/t.

Signatu'e block omitted s

, s

_p

'y V.

~

3

,?_'

Return original of incoming with response 1

-w N

i g

)CO( For direct reply

• Suspense:

Jan. 19

i -

LJ For appropriate action s,

-m F or information w-

)

g '

For recommendatiori s

t nemark s _.Cpys to:

REX OGC. Oriqiaal to Do_cket

)

a-Logged _Ex_ Parte T

j

'Q 4

,e

~ '

For the Commission.. C0mbS

..ew'

-4 e

. v_.

'~

Send three,'3) copies of reply to Secy Mail Facihty Ie

.i. ><

-O Nacs2 NWW ACTION StlP N

o..,_ J z,,e - ? ?

r.. r

^

D,, c\\ D-w c o

D d, ue s'

4<,,Je a

, 1[N] " o

~'

~

2 x

s f

e' j,

,fi );

s

. - f.

. ^ Jl ira wt - ';

\\

" ['

'.-. s /.

, -Q +"

(

M i.m,s

,,<s,.

4,

..c.

/

6 p.-

'*l.'

Y f 1['

- V

,y A.

- 'p k#

/

p

,3

\\ r,#_

w s

y~5,

~ <

hM,

~.

'.h,,

t p

4 t' 3

,. R,~17 ' ~*-

,a i

j.

. rg

~

8 9

.. W.

9-

, ",+

?'-

.\\-

~ 7 g

4 s

t p.

s s

b m

s s

'f

• g^%'.

b

[

s s..,

e e'

, h.'" '

g-4

,,,i p

g.-

r-y- '

y

~

[

., t s.

v; -

>n<

,a

-3'-.

,' r

-G, [ h',

3:

-s s,;

s y

e

~

u...

g<,..

• e y

.f4 a

4-1,.

• ^ p*,s

)..

. 3

+3

1. 1 s e

'e a+

s

• +

e (p.

-, p)' $#a [-

3 g

5 1

~

,\\

C j, 4

8, s 9,5 t

A e

'w a

.t

'0..

+

,s b'

a s

3

{g

• J.

• A I

4 "y;

• (

},-9

)F g

w 3..

M