ML20011A494
| ML20011A494 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1978 |
| From: | Shewmaker R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011A456 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110130484 | |
| Download: ML20011A494 (21) | |
Text
.
ENCI.0SURI 1
" U!Si..JION RN 50-483/78-01
/
., g'*"e, uNetto starts E %.
- r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON i, y c.,pf,i usm~cros. o c. zosss
- [;.
'+.,,. ' '
January 20, 1978 Docket Nc. 50-483 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ncrr.an C. Moseley, Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, IE FROM:
R. E. Shee.aker, Division of Rehter Construction Inspection IE e
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF ITE".S IDENTIFIED BY REGION III DURIN3 SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AT CALLAW:Y, UNIT 1 RELATED TO CONCRETE CONTAINMENT TIME AND DATE:
10:30 a.m., Monday, January 23, 1978 LOCATION:
P-422, Phillips Building PURPOSE To disc.ss and resolve by the establishment of positions, the following concerns:
1.
Radial shear tie distribution and orientation and the relation to radial tension ties, including essociated documentation, 2.
Concrete cover requirements as related to crack and corrosion control, including the associated documentation, and 3.
The specifics on establ!shm/:ct of the controlling documents or various provisions of the documents, including such documents as BC-TOP-5A, ACI-318, construction specifications and drawings.
PARTICIPANTS:
NRC
- 0. Parr, E. Licitra, I. Sihweil, et. al, NRR R. Shewmaker, IE; R. Heishman, E. Schweibinz, G. Gallagher, RIII Union Electrit Comcany and Consultants J. Bryant s
JW6 J,I
. E. Shewmake-RCI, IE
/
811013C404 811007 PDR ADOCK 05000483 G
MINUTES OF MEETING ON JANUARY 23, 1978 The first item of discussion was to correct the subject title of the meeting notice.
It was noted by the licensee and verified by the Region III personnel th?.! the subject items had ber ouestioned as a result of a normal inspection being conducted at t c site and not as part of a special investigation underway at the time. Also, as introdactory naterial it was agreed trat the' meeting would proceed with Agenda Item 3 first, followed ty Items 1 and 2.
The licensee's consultant indi ated a desire to make a brief presentation on the c
develop;ent are history behind the Calliway and SNUPPS desian and construction criteria prior to the discussion on the three major items.
Individuals present and their affiliation are listed in Enclosure C.
Footnotes incicate those individuals who were not present durino the entire meeting and what portions of the meeting they were in attendance.
BACK3ROUND INFORMATION The presentation consisted of relating the criteria for the Callawaj concrete containment design and construction to the following documents:
a.
SNUPPS PSAR b.
Callaway PSAR c.
BC-TCP-5A, Revision 3, February 1975 d.
NRC Acceptance Letter on c above dated 3/28/75 (As stated by licensee BC-TOP-5 is actually now BC-TOP-5A,levision3) e.
ACI 318-71 f.
NRC Safety E <aluation Report, Section 3.8.1 and 3.8.3, for Callaway, 8/7/75 ITEM 3. ;CNTROLLING DOCUMENTS Bechtel referenced Items a and b as the bait. documents for the Callaway-SNUPPS units.
In referring to Item a., Sechtel briefly reviewed the various tebsections (3.8.1.1 through 3.8.1.7) and the commitments provided as part of the license application for these subsections.
During the presentations the main emphasis by Bechtel and the licensee was that there were very i
2 of 11
4
(
clear-cut and distinct dividing lines between design and construction criteria and that in their opinion it was the lack of undcrstanding of these dividing lines that had led to the accarent confusion by IE.
This apparent confusita had resulted in the needed for the meetino
)
since IE had perceived the need for clarifications and understancings prior to the placement of Wall Li#t #4 and tne licensee wishec to nave the uncertainties clarified prior to the placement also.
Summarized below are the relevant specifics for each PSAR subsection of Section 3.8.1 and the licensee's interpretation of the aoplication to design and cons.ruction, or to design an4 to construction as separate functions depencing on one's interpretation.
3.8.1.1 Description of the Reactor Building - This section was noted to include, by reference, many of the physical details of BC-TOP-5 but also included figures within the PSAR (Figs. 3.8.1 threren 3.8.7 and 3.8.13). The licensee stated that BC-TOP-5A applied f te this settien only as referencec.
~
3.8.1.2 Applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications - The licensee addressed this by indicating design was in accordance with BC-TOP-5A and then briefly mentioned the job construction specifications prepared by Bechtel.
Bechtel described the three types of specifications they prepared: material specifications, febrication specifications and construction prccedure specifications. The following specifications were mentioned by Bechtel as these relating to the areas of concern under discussion et the meetilg:
C-101 Furnishing of Concrete C-103 Forming, Placing and Curining of Concrete C-111 Purchasing of Reinforcing Steel C-112 Placing of Reinforcing Steel C-191 Material Testing 3.8.1.3 Loads and Loading Combinstions - Bechtel indicated that the various criteria portions of this section refer to various apolicable sections of BC-TOP-5A except as noted in Document a where the loads are assigned numerical val: ss.
3.8.1.4 Design Analysis Procedures - Bechtel explained that BC-TCP-5A addresses, in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 as well as Appendices B&C, the ceneral design analysis methods. BC-TCP-7, BC-TOP-8 and 8C-TOP-1 are used for the design analysis procedures in areas such as the anchorage zones, buttrasses and liner details. Seismic analysis was noted as being addressed in Section 3.7 of Document a.
1 3 of 11
3.8.1.5 Structural Acceptance Criteria - Bechtel did not provide any details on this section other than a general reference to BC-TOP-5A.
3.8.1.6 Materials, Quality Control, and Special Construction Techniques - Bechtel indicated that the SNUPPS SAR. Document a, in Section 3.8.1.6 is the guidance in this area.
Bechtel and tne licensee indicated that this section deals only with what they term the construction aspects anc does not address design.
Bechtel noted that the design and con:truction of Other Category I structures as described in PSAR Section 3.6.3 was in accordance with ACI 318.
Withic the hierarchy of controlling documents prepared by the.icensee the following order could be ectablished as a result of the meeting.
L INUPPS and Callaway P:AR's Engineering calet' fons, drawings and job specification; Vendor shop /fabr.' cation drawings ITEM 1. R ADI AL B ARS, Bechtel explained that Section CC-3532.1 of Appendix C of BC-TOP-5A, Revision 3 allowed three configurations for radial shear reinforcement known as the transverse, simple-U and multiple-U (See Figure 1).
Bechtel is using the transverse tyce in the normal wall sections with the other types possible for use in areas of tendon anchorages such as buttresses, penetrrtions, and the construction opening. Bechtel indicated that there is no requirement that the bends of bar engage and enclose the inner and outer face vertical reinforcing since the requiremant is only a standard hook and 0.5 ld as an effective e.bedment.
In orden 10 assure proper e: bed 0ent in the outer face, Union Electric will place and verify that the radial shear reinforcement has the outer leg outside the plane of the vertical reinforcino steel.
Bechtel also explained that the legs of the bar could be oriented at any angle.
Upon discussion, NRR and IE agreed that these criteria were adequate for the anchorage of radial shear bars. This discussion then lead to the question of where in elevation the radial shear reinforcement was not needed and where the radial bars were then actually the radial tension reinforcement. Radial tension reinforcement is added voluntarily by Bechtel to preclude gross delamination within the shell thickness.
i l
t l
4 of 11
\\
=
r e
ge-v-
--yeg y..
y,.
-e.w-
,.-,c,
--.4-g
---,.,--e,. - -
-r-~
.-a---w
-w<.
Bechtel indicated that for the bottom portion of the shell, radial shear reinforcement was needed over aDout 25' upward from the top of the base slab and from there to the discontinuities caused by the dome the radial shear reinforcement (so called) was actually radial tension reinforcement. Becntel indicated that the same anchorage requirements would apply.
Questions were asked regarding why radial reinforcing placed in the lift resay for future concrete placement, lift =4 (Elevation 26'-36' above to; of Base Mat), had resulted in some placement differences.
Bechtel indicated that an 8" recess in the two areas at9ut 20' hign for the penetration cancs causec e change in the radial steel dirensions.
The transition region had required some field adjustments which Becntel c: gineering had approved.
Questions i:ere asked regarding whether the radial shear reinforcement in lifts 1-3 would meet the anchorag y riterion and what assurances existed for lift #4 prior to its concrete placement. Bechtel, Daniel and Union Electric all indicated that they were not aware of any pr:blers in radial shear reinforcement placing in the first three lifts and tnat the problems arose in conjunction with the 8" recess areas. Daniel indicated that the forms for lif t #4 were in place and the verification on the placement of radial shuar reinforcement was being completed from the top, from f ronworkers' access inside the forms which in some cases required removal of reinforcing. The licensee indicated that the radial reinforcement placements would be verified as correct prior to the placerent of lift #4.
Region III inspectors indicated that an inspection would be made one day before the actual placement of Wall Lift #4.
A discussion was provided on the various chances Bechtel had issued t' construction as DCN's on the details of radial shear reinforcement placing. The technical basis f;r those changes were also discussed.
It was suggested by the staff that Bechtel Drawing C-0R2901 (0) be r3<ised in the detail entitled " Typical Wall Elevation Shear Test" (actually a secticnal view) so that a typical ra;e instead of a special case is shown. A clarified drawing including ah elevation would ma(e the intent clearer (See Figure 2).
Enclostre 1 5 of 11
m ITEM 2.
COVER REQUIREiiEhTS Bechtel explained that Section CC-3533.1 and CC-3534 of Appendix C of BC-TOP-5A, Revision 3 were only design requirements and tnat Section 3.8.1.6.6.1.C.1 of the PSAR provided the allowable values for cover for cce.ctructi9n. Two issues related to this were discussed.
The first dealing with minimum concrete covar for corrosio. protection and the second with maximum depth to face reinforcement for concrete crack control.
Bechtel and the licensee took the positio'n that the design cover of a minimum of 2 inches can ce recuted by 1/3 (cover of 1-1/3a) for constructio,.nder the provisions of PSAR Section J.B. I.6.6.1 1he staff including NRR and IE indicated that the 2-inen minimum was considered to be an absolute value and if the design was to allow, as an exa ole, a 1/2-inch outward tolerance, the design oculd have to use a value of 2-?/2-inches for design. Bechtel indicatec that in their opinien no one had ever made such an interpretation before and that the provisions of ACI 315 on tolerances were valid. The staff pointed out that tne ACI-ASME ( ACI-359) committee had an inquiry on the same provisions in the ASME B&FV Code,Section III, Division 2 in June 1976. The action on this item was noted as incomplete but the reply to the inquiry was that the 2 inch minimum cover v3s an absointe value. This was indicated by NRR to have been their interpretation of the topical report also.
Bechtel indicated that they could meet the t/5 reouirement (48/5=9.6") but that tolerances had ' een allcwed for this maximum value.
o Bechtel stated that they had not detailed on an engineering drawing any value greater than 10 inches. Bechtel indicated that at tne 8 inch recess transition the 10 inch and 2 inch requirements would allow no tolerance for placement. The staff suggested that since the provision of t/5 had not envisioned the recess it was possible for the local area that some relief might be available without permitting any def,c.2able decrease in safety margins.
Region III inspectors indicated that on one site inspection a dimension of 13 inches to face reinforcing was observed on a fabrication drawing. They indicated further effort would be requir2d to follow this up with regard to a 10 inch maximum value.
Enclosure t 6 of 11 y
w-g-
-r
,----.-f t--'-"--"" = '
- g-"+e
-F-7"-'9"'s'v'
--'C--"-Pem v'+t--w v'TM==f-'r**-f"**--*wv
-T Fv-i--9
T F'N'7-T N--'-"-*f'
f
+T1"'-
8""'"
CTHER A brief discussion was held on the provisions related to the resoacing of main reinforcing steel. This discussion related to Specification C*i!2, Placing of Reinforcing Steel, Section 7.3 entitled, "Respacing."
Region III inspectors had noted that vertical outside face reinforcing in scie regions was as large At 27 inches yet the respacing of suen reinforcing would be limited to 18 inches under the specifications.
This seemed to be somewhat illogical. Becntel explained that they would desire close control on resoacing. This would in effect rule out respacing of any bars originally spaced at greater than IS-incn centers.
The -taff held a caucus and the positions were then presented to the licensee. The licensee made no commitment to these positions except as noted.
SUMMARY
AND PCSITIONS 1.
Criteria fce Radial Shear Reinforcement (incieding radial tension reinforcement) - The staff (NRR and IE) agreec that the anchorage of the radial shear reinforcement should be such that the outer leg bend of the bars be outside the vertical plane of the outside face vertical steel and that the inner leg end of the bar meet the recuirements of a standard hook plus an effective enbedment of 0.5fo.
It was also agreed that tre radial shear bars do not need to be located so as to engage any other specific reinforcing and that the outstanding legs from the standard hooks can be rotated into any 360* position. The licensee indicated that these criteria would ce followed.
2.
Union Electric agreed that prior 's the placement of containment wall lift #4 all radial shear bars nill meet the criteria of 6.
above. Quality control documentation will be available to support any conclusions related to this item.
3.
Union Electric will provide information and a statement regarding the location of all radial shear bars in lifts 1 througn 3 already completed.
4.
The staff considers that the commitment of a 2-inch minimum concrete cover for the concrete containment as made in Section CC-3533.1 of Appendix C to BC-TOP-5 for *6 through #18 reinforcing steel to control design and construction. The value is a minimum, meaning the absolute minimum cover to assure corroc. ion control in the actual construction shall not be less than 2 incnes. The sta#+ excects that by wall lif t #6 all reinforcing in sizes 76 tnrough r18 will meet this requirement.
7 of 11 e
+ --
v-
.~ ~
w
l 1.
5.
The staff considers that the commitment of a depth of not more than t/5 to reinforcing steel that is considered face reinforcement y
as made in Section CC-3534 of Appendix C to BC-TOP-5 to control design and construction. The value is a maximum as rounded to the next wnole inch, meaning the absolute maximum depth in order to provide surface crack control for the concrete containment. The staff expects that by wall lift es all face reinforcing will meet this recuirement.
The staff will consider sptcial cases on this requirenent where necessary wall blockouts may require local variations to the maximum depth to face reinforcing.
6.
The staff considers items 4 and 5 to apply only to the concrete containment is indir.ated by tne licensee's commitments. A:: 318-71 b
provisions as committed to by the licensee will govern requirements similar to these for the other Category I structures.
1.
The P'.aff undersiands th:t the licensee and the SN"PPS organizations may wish to submit adoitiondi information, SAR amendments or otner items to the staff for consideration in relation to the abovt subjects.
0 8 of 11
j tw a
--w
= n=~m m m m -r w m e
\\..._'~we.. - - - -
..\\
t l
1
.. a,
.\\
.A
~
m ^A
_ _ - -J s-
\\..
...)
\\
\\
koneods/ Ma'// Ghoir WlB musease 7~pe fada/ Shear-Eers y
~ ' i[.'-:%'
r~
l.;
l_: -...... :.i -
. 1 3,
r t
a
._ e
...l.-
g :. -
..a.
.t-......
,s
,-- a s
~ ~ '
. '?o:
Ver-/ca/ k/all fecdon n'ere SAe s
~
"' ' b N~
gh; U-8n 9e fada/Dec.
dars 4
i-
\\
e...
..,....n.
./. 4 :
..... m....i
\\
\\
A.sor,fo/ k/a// Sechon k4f%
Mucrin.e U-Bae Tpe A3d>/ Here bis y
[/4 UB4.[.
9 of 11
\\
er a--.
.n.,
_n
- ....s,
'..,,.,' =
'9-f* 4 $
- a a
. g'
'T
- ..;,;..;....,.y g
t
,s....'4*
g ' *.. s. -3'...S.,
,'...,,,'T'
~.. e -
N
,,g
\\
w e,,/a/ War % M r
l l
7 p
er Y
Y 1,.
1 w
i n
l me -
n-n-
---sama
(
f f, l
ll. q -.
4 y
A,
\\
M C. -
I r
m se -
.m W"4 e
+ - -
Rafahns/
p l
/ocedon is s J yeededJXear Aar Le i, A, /ed' War E/evahir my / ear ok'er-16 e Acn or odrAvekons.
,_ 1 1
10 of 11
.o LIST OF ATTENDEES Union Electric Comoany D. F. SchneM, Manager Nuclear Engineering,
F. D. Field, Manager, Quality Assurance W. H. Zvanut, Supervisory Engineer Nucler" Engineering R. L. Pe.ers, Site Qua;ity Assurance, Grow Leader T. H. McFar16nd, Construction SNUPPS E. F. Beckett, Licensing Manager Bechtel B. L. Meyers, A,sistant Project Manager P. H. Divjak, Project Engineer Jim Whitcrr.ft, Civil Engineer A. G. Pecora, Civil Engineer Marwan Daye, Civil Engineer E. Thomas, Civil Engineer Kenneth Lee, Civil Engineer Joe R. Cunningham, Civil Site Liaison 1
Dan'el Internatior3,
Ed E. Nelson, Construction l
Ward Malisch, Construction, Quality Assurance Nuclear Reculatory Comission l
- 0. Parr*, Chief, LWR Branch E. A. Licitre, LPM Isa Sibweil **, Chief, SEB Charles Hofmayer**, Section Leade", aEB Franz Schauer**, Senior Structural Engineer P
F. Hei s hma..',# Chief, Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch, RIII
- 2. 2. Schweibinz, Reactor Inspector, RIII E. J. Gallagher, Reactor Inspector (Civil), RIII C. R. Oberg, Reacto.- Inspector, RIV R. E. Shewmaker, Senior Structural Engineer, RCI l
- Present only at closure meeting l
- Absent at closure meeting 11 of 11
._--__m- -, - _ _._
,y.
r
,r
-,n--
-A W:
.-.J A
n 4
w-l 0
0 8
1 1
l I
l k
ATTACHMENT 3 4
1 i
nw~,.,,,..m,.....,-,..
,,,ne--,-
.,-,.n..
..--.nn,
,,,,n
..e-
,,w-,--.n,--..------
,'~
~
y.
~
cr; a.,t),*.*tl1..E. L
/
T
/NQ CONF 0h\\1BCE REORT(NCR)
, ow. cca t. m rate s of 8 f r,y,,e t.s n,ei.s um mer f{g g g )
s Act.on n a ars Q
h A C K ^ "'* b'8 e
catts n 17 M O~MN~
V 2/14/78 foF8 X
se,ntir,esuon of sies ane siem Contr01 Building 4'# S 5 *~d 3,,,,,,,,
gjg Wall pours 2C351W01, 2C361WO1, 2C361WOS, fC351WO3, 2C361WO3, 2C361WO2, 2C361V0s *
- and 2C361WO4:
Cracks in concrete valls.
{sntro*:;nt Doe 'menta: -
Iechtel Drawings C-oC3901, revision 8; C-0C3902, revision 8; C-0C3903 revision 6 and C-0C3904, revision ";
Descrict on of Nonconformance!
i
~
I4" N,_c-e-78 See Sheet Nu=ber 2 (VISUAL)
'9 5 N [ [l AAr 9/A/7A 0 8 ""* '
U riue Date Recomroended Diroomtson & Basis for Retornmendsshaa:
- ,Gechtel d reco==end dispositior nd basis for O R****
reco=nendation.
O Repen dele O u.e 4. i.
Cause of Nonconforrriamee and Action to Prevent Recurrencer Bechtel to provide cause of nonconformance and action to Rel"t No furthe-Daniel action required. ;.us 2,F.ig prevent recurrence.
Action raken to Conttel Nonconformanee!
p Place hold tags.
Work may proceed on adjacent lif ts to the poi *nt of concrete y
placement.
h 2 8 70 A I4. 0 A*n t.e.,r.
I (se A ortn kf 72't #---dw. 4.Jc'frM,2 -P-7P
-~
TatJe ~
Da:e D4spesition:
Ir, pact Statersent included O r..
O w.
D app-owaas secorn.rnended O Disposa!on Revised as Fonowe:
I
~
1 Documents to be Redsed:
A/E Apprirval raue Date SNUPFS or Utibty Approval Tatie Da te stater, ens of Cornpleted Act;on:
A*1mn Compneted Tatle Date Actiori versta" ^
ratle Date D'""*""
J. L. Turdera N. A. Petrick I
W. H. Weber
- n. v_ c:r h, n11 W.
T-Pnue, =
v_ n r< ni rte l[}
A. S. Martin C. J. Plows Steve Mills l T.4i 3.
A.
Wel l tmd Wol f Creek I
l l
g.
v
[
.'h.n..A..x..t..r..L 8
s 4
c..-w...u.n ss.
e.. 1.: __6_ _
.NONCONIOR.\\1ANCE REPORT (NCR) r. cr.si.i o.m Freiert Narne/ Number Acuon Requered 3rt ggp g Q
N N C R.N umber l~
O
~
~
Callaway / 7186 2/14178 X
DESCRIPTION OF NONC0hTOR.MNCE:
Cracks have been observed in the referenced wall pours with size and location -
cs shown on the attached sketches.
In the judgecent of Daniel Engineering only cracks 11,13 and 15 are considered to b; a reportable condition.
Other crr,Fs are shown for information and to indicate a recurring problem.
5.T., :-
no*
.l s
~
t.
~
e e
~
e e 1
4
/
4
. g.1.).A. N..I..C..L-3 e
con ev.u n sdei r.ee.6__ r._I
.NONCONFOR\\ LANCE REPORY (NCR) r.. m c r.ss a o.isi On Frosect b ame/ Number Acuon Requi,ed By:
Q N
NCR Number SCAL.E' W:/'0" 2 20 M #*A cattmy / 7186 C5
_ EL. 2 0 6 9 ' '6 C.J
\\
/
<\\
ic ui wo+
e s s
Cucn -nc ru cos.'
2 l~
~
A;J r EX CEE D '/JS (Tw: :.cE o.*s.y) 1 I
\\
\\ E L. 2047,- 6 C.C
_e_
l 1
- '- v 03
- . -
CONTPQL EU/L CING
_[
E A S T WALL (L OOKING El(T_).
CJ C3
~
~
EL. 2 0 53 '- 6 C ti 2C36/WO3
.'..g*
(@ @
'.s:.
^
~
/fAIRL./NE CRACK 5 f
~
I
\\
e
& G'NACK WICfH
'D OES NOT EXCELD
'/32,"
orn.y)
(Tms sics
/
s.
/
EL. 2 04 7 '- G C.L I
l
~
L_
n t
C Of! T= '3.'-
25 U IL D ! N G T
fLODXIN5 E.43 T.
O::,-
EAS T HALL I
l l
(
l l
o, c r. u...x.:..r.:. L -
s
, d,...
.J' ~
SONCONFOR.\\l ANCE REPORT (N CR) 7 c.aiinw.u. ash..ir.. 4
.r.8 rarm er ss o tsi recei n.m.m.m.,,
4,s..a si......a a r:
JcAz I e'
x w en u.
6.,
%"' / '-O" y
p.pogg,c.A Caffaway / 7186
~
(f,NO, CC CB EL. 2 OS 9 '- 6" C. G" O-OO )
O j@-
c CPAcK. WIOTH cors
/,
wo7
.ex t:st.1 % a. "
(00fH S;CE3)
.\\
o n.
t
'=
EC36lWC2 \\
i as l
i EL. E O47-G C.G
- I I <
l 1
--5 '- 10
3,-7 "
_ CONTR OL E U/L C/NG NOR TH k/ALL $.O_Olf.l-)5 NORTHf
~
C5 -
-< - C3
_r 6 '- O" ltQ,
EL.2 07/ '- 6"C.uT x
1 I
i 2C36l'dOO C.v.c:: WIcTH C5c:
~
CRs,cn,. nc71, cor:
1 Noi-Excrsa % ". I
@ k.
i noT ExcsCD /' 12-1 C R ac o< ex7 suca
}
'l.
I (Thio ZIOC ONI.Y) l rn on 202 7 '-O 70 i EC*Gl.Yv'05 i
(
. 54. 205% 6,C.0-i 10 7/ -6 "ov tw:!OC FACE,
\\'
}
(( g, Q$['-Q" Ouy.we fscc LencTH UN?w.' ow!!-
ff Y'
HA!Ru.vr CRAcn
\\
i l2,b2SiWOf
) ECE5;&OE l
35, g,94 7 'S h,(
l l
t jl
' o,.
L
!l.
I I
~
7'-6" q' l '- 6 ',.
. cssiwo;[ L i-i' C OA' TRC.'.
.S U!L DING t
S
?
WEST TBL'L fLOD.VI!!1 b/E2 T YN.T2.
}
.e i
.. m 3
1r a
~..
..a,.i.n...N..r..::.n.
.p >
4
.NONCONFORil.\\NCE REl' ORT (NCR) ro.- crss.:i4ics e.aii o.i...sh,, r.r, 1.: I
-y,1 a re.,,ci u.m
..w, 4,i... n,.... e n,.
o x
wex u 5,,.
SCALE causwsy / 7156 3/Ss/'-O" X
c2.'lO81 C 4 N
C A j ! <_
cc "A '- G- ~ zg-o '-8 "
I l,
s,,
E L. 2 c S g,- s c.< x s
cuce wicp.' ca.:
g noT cxcc. c % "
J' Q Tim 2.ce ern.y)
HAIR:~WE CMCK i
~
g g
j d Cov7vvv.r:
o EL. 2 0 5.* '- o '
.1 l
/
\\
l I
i Hasp. in.c C.oAcn
~.
l
\\
!(
i-
\\
\\, ;l
~ f
\\
2 : 3 G ! v.1 0 3 EC.3Sl>J03
\\
i
(
t 9
j i I LJ EL. 2 0< 7 -6 c. I e
r Ecaf/wo2l!
l :/i ii L__.
l o '.g.
R,s" 3 '- o * -
i C04/ 7~ = DL. E utt. Dit/G vDUTH)
NOR TH W.* i L fL QO v0!3 o
CA
_.0-8
. EL. L OE3 - 6 "C.<Z o
i-j ORACM W)D7H C 3...
l rJoT EX CE CD N" f
(THis -sicc. o.uty) 2.CMlWO3 l
i e
l l
.E L. 2 04 7 i 6 C.tT 1
l C_ _O ^/. ~._.C. O '. **'#
s_J 't. -. :!.!>*
NOR T. H.... '..'.'L. L fL. 0..o?i!.' ; !../o_C TH )
j s
g 8
a a
e 3
_h.
I I
i ATTACHMENT 4 i
l l
\\
l l
t i
l
.. - ~
f
.= e n x-f.2$.O'l s.<-'-~~
SOSCOSTOIO*i_NCI RI?ORTF3) r.r = cri:o m
~
2 N. s.,
1,,,....w...s c o u 4c:.. AJ~J li o c h M G'
'X' e
.4
.s ca.s =
2/28/78 -
~2'-2173'-C-A c::xanyl'126 2 ep 2, s c. e _ es u s or 4:. 4.s :..c=
Control Building 373 Vall Pours: 2C361WO3 and 2C351WO3 - -- - - '-----
Cracks in concrete valls This NCR supercedes NCR 2-2081-C-A c.- m er.ne e=,c=ents
~ :3 Bechtel Drawing t-0C3901 Rev. 8 ORIG Ix As,s. y UW'%
e,x-.re...r s ne.e re: o :
~#
E4-78 Cracks have been observed in tie reference d
~"Y wall pour with size and locatien as shown en attached sketch. Crack depths cannot
(-p;j fv/._ //,
gpf f
- 7. g..py
- .e detertined at this time. /m,,4g) otr.
- usee -
-.n.
a..
g R e s :.= ess e s D;.roo c = =n (. 22.r:a 8,r Recorm-e:canos:
s Use as is.
Cracks will not impair the structural O a... =
integrity of the valls. --
O z.m C4 ne of Netteefersasee ud Acco. to P.rwent Recu.cresce
~
Cracks apparently due to concre:e shrinkage.
No
' O s ei.es O
further Daniel action recuired. W 2.- 2 +-M Q,
.,;.1
-fon rahes se esserol Nescer.for..a. nee - -
8 A
j,c Place hold tags (1 of 2 through 2 of 2'.
This NCR 1.1 not to eff ect any Gdjacent I
pours.
4 N A lk. 0_E 906 1-14,s l
l t a:r--...n an a s a
a
(_
mi -. u - n -.
..,o ac.
Otraes:ree
!=e a rs' f t.- + --.=t !:c. e,.4% Yes, f,'C.No
,,,,,.,. - C 4.,,3=,,,ca,3,,,.,,,:..eded 3, '
C : i e.: = xe.ns u re::=.
Saw cut cracks to'1/L" vidth and 1" depth.
Repair vith.
an approved evoxy ' grout. ' The repaired structure vill serve.its intended funct' ion.'
c.cu= est, := s. x.<.see:
E. 7. Beckett CSE 3/14/78 P. Divjak P.E.
3/13/78 Robt. White (for SNUPPS) Nuc. & Fuel Eng.3/1,/78 A,a Ants u r:u.
- e s3 ens =rr;w s::::vu r.e.
=..
l.syt,e.si er e.e-inee 5,2
/
%g p -
~/c..m. Ab 7*
&&D Y dx k datsAdL C. / / r /7 4 sL "M m Mr 6 h rny G. WAJ t es i1 ( 12. M a-s; n l i
u:en car....wr r:ue c.w<
a c _ o.~.. a s r:c.
.w i
t E 15sma:
.). L.
it.r o e ra I
- . A. retricA l
W.
H. Web _er l
D. F. Schnell I
- c. Plows i
,r, L, pouc o A. 5..MAfr.in g
s.
A.
noAAaac 1
wolt creen 1
I S. Mills
+
e ed
,_v-.
g.
y
V
. ". c. n..A..R.;.. c t g..
../ --
/
'.NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) ro, cr43.s o.ts, e..it,.u.a sw. r.. A
.r._A_._
r,.,.ci u...,u -mv.,
- 4.... n,..,, e s y:
x 3 ca y,,,,,,
l 8CALE e
2 ~ E 2 ~.7 9
%~=l'-O"
/
g_p/ 73.GA C211:way / 7186 er -
4 '-6N, A ll 9
~O
. L y-o '-8 "
- - - - -4+
E1. 2.Qs?'-6" 47*
@T CR A ct< W/CJH ~ G.".*
U NOf EXCECO V4 IHf.5.?lCEO?/-f) l
<3 C " T * *=
T*
EL. & O43 -O'.'
l'l
~
\\
lOIRL lNs CRACK n,
l l lf
\\
5 EC.36/WO3
'h EL. 2 C*t?
- G ' c.. X On lEC35/WE_l l ll/l
<~
d'.S Rj '. S "
~
C047~ROL BU/L DING NORT.u %.= L.L. (L Ook/N3 SOUTH)
( c ',
.O's.
~.
=
5.
P.
~ k~L. 2,OE9 - 6 C.tT.
o
..s l
CPACK WJCfH DOE:
l 2.C2Sitv03 t00,- Exccco &*'
[ ?s sict o.v:y) s l
I I
l i
.i EL. BOG-6,. C.G I
s.-
\\
NOR 7.~.H...Y..b. 'L..L.,(L 90.W!ll 2 NOR TH).
1
W O
i ATTACHMENT 5 i
)
.-