ML20037A629

Final Deficiency Rept Re Low Strength Concrete Pour on Reactor Bldg Dome.Evaluation Resulted in Util Decision to Accept Concrete as Is.Cement Insp Increased.Supporting Lab & Engineering Data Encl

ML20037A629
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	07/11/1974
From:	Rodgers J FLORIDA POWER CORP.
To:	Knuth D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8003250638
Download: ML20037A629 (10)

Text

-

g-

_,e-3, g' 7 [' A

/-

ll'

' J$

,,,a.

v c..,s

,. -f 4

.D4 d 2,aa -

a Florida l3(yyyggy July 11, 1974 Componarios

[

Donald F. Knuth, Director The Directorate of Regulatory Operations U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545

Subject:

Crystal River Plant - Unit #3 Docket No. 50-302

Dear Mr. Knuth:

In accordance with Federal Regulation 10CFR50.55(e), we wish to submit the final report regarding the nonconformance reported on 4/24/74 by Florida Power Corporation. The final evaluation and recommendations have been made regarding this nonconformance. As a result of an extensive evaluation of the strength of the in-place concrete, it has been decided that the concrete be accepted as is.

To assist you in evaluating our decision, we wish to offer the following:

On April 4, 1974, cencrete pour L-9 of the reactor building dome was placed. This pour is a complete circular ring mid-way up the dome of the building, consisting of 129 cubic yards. This concrete had an intended design strength of 5000 psi at 28 days. Seven day test cylinder breaks indicated that the concrete would not achieve the design strength level. The 28 day cylinder test results averaged 4570 psi. Gilbert Associates, Inc. was requested to perform a review of the reactor building dome design to determine a minimum acceptable concrete strength for this particular area of the structure. The results of their review indicated that 4500 psi was an acceptable minimum design strength.

In evaluating the field cylinder test results, Gilbert Associates, Inc. has utilized provisions of the 1971 ACI-318 code to evaluate the structure. Strict interpretation of the 1963 code which was used in the original design calculations, would indicate that the 4500 psi requirement is not satisfied, since 107. of the tests lie below the 4500 psi. The applicability of the 1963 code to this limited number of samples is questionable. Since the 1971 code provided a clear basis of strength evaluation, it is being used in this case. The Crystal River Unit #3 FSAR is being so amended.

8008 250 f 3 f 3

Lonald F. Knuth U.S. AEC July 11, 1974 Page We have determined that this nonconformance was caused by the failure of the cement to meet specifications. The exact cause of the failure is not completely clear, since test results for this particular batch of cement submitted to Florida Power Corporation prior te its use indicated the cement was acceptable. Test results of samples taken from the silo at the site however, indicate that the cement was, in fact, unacceptable. In order to preclude a reoccurrence of this problem, Florida Power Corporation initiated the following corrective action:

~

Cement inspection during both the grinding of the cement at the manu-facturer and after its delivery to the site have been markedly increased.

This includes full time inspection at the manufacturer and during the grinding of cement for Florida Power Corporation.

In order to provide you with the necessary data to evaluate our actions e

regarding this nonconformance, we are enclosing copies of the following data:

1.

Gilbert Associates, Inc. letter, FPC #10373, dated 1/23/74.

2.

Chronological Log of sequence of events regarding the subject nonconfor=ance.

3.

Florida Power Corporation letter to G. B. Brown, Pittsburg Testing Laboratories, dated 5/14/74, regarding cement corrective action.

4.

Pittsburg Testing Laboratories letter, dated 5/15/74 to Paul Weigelt I

of the Tampa Office of PTL, regarding cement corrective action.

5.

Gilbert Associates, Inc. letter, FPC #10517, dated 5/22/74, including attachments.

A complete file of these and other supporting documents is available at l

the Crystal River Plant site for review by your inspectors at their conven-i ience. We hope that this information provides you with all the necessary data to close this item. Please advise us if you require any further information.

l i

Very truly yours, a

idh J.

Rodgerd Enclosures Assistant Vice President cc: Norman C. Moseley Director, Region II l

l

O g%

h I,

t,

. i t__

9 N

GILISEitT ASSOCI ATES INC.

N EllCiUEIR3 MiD CUf43ULTANTS P.O. S07.14SB / fitADifiG. PA.19503 W

May 2,1974 Mr. W. A. S:ellstov::ki, Director FPC - fl0373 Cencration Eni;incering Ecpszt cnt Florida Power Corporation P. O. Sox 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Re:

Coscrete in Dome Peur L-9 Reacter Building T.tystal River - Tnit ?3

.PJnrlda Power Corpor_njon

Dear Mr. Szelistevski:

With reference to Telecopy Ns. 6028 frc Mr. J. Duren dated May-2,1974 giving the results of the cencrete 23 day test cylinders for pour L-9 of the Deze our findings are as follows:

We have evaluated the design at location I.-9 of the Dens cod find that the mini-r eenerete strength required to =cet the 1 cad esse giving the

• m stress is fe = 4500 psi.

1.

The previsic:s cf ACI-313-63 are difficult to apply in the evalu.ntien of concrete streogth for an individus1 pour with the nu ber of cylinder teste available in this case, however, ACI-318-71 provides a more def'initive rethr.d of evaluatien.

2.

Interpreting the test nnJ r.e.in accordcace with ACI-318-71 Sec, tion 4.3.3 the test results overall avera;;c oY 4710 psi is greater then the

~

4500 psi required, and no one set of results is icss than 500 psi belew 4300 psi, on this basis the concrete strent,th is acceptabic.

in conclusica, ve can accept the cencrete strength in accordstce with ACI-318-71, he cver, a devistion fren the FSAR will hate to be docu:ented

• and presented to the AEC.

Very truly yours, I [1 i

10{,fN 4l S. N. Dobreff Project Structursl Engineer JZL/SND/kf cc:

U. A. 5:eliste.mki (2)

C.

C. Jacks m J. R. Duren *(Telecepy to St. Prtersburg)

9 s

CRYSTAL RIVER UllII.1 W

REACTOR BUILDit!G DOME POUR l.-9 LOW STRENGTil C0flCRETE

. CllR0!!0 LOGICAL LOG 4/15/74 Low 7 dav cylinder breaks for isour L-9 (poured,4/4/74) reported to W.13uck 4/15/74 no data was available from construction.

4/17/74 WAS requested we expedite resolution'of los concrete 7trength question - telecopied request for information-to CEJ.

4/18/74 At C.R. gathered data on low strength conc. tests.

Requested S.!!. Dobreff,to look at design and report by Monday a minimum acceptable 28 day cylinder strength.

Average of 7 day breaks is 3030-psi. Concrete cores:

(12) are being removed from pour. The following data was collected:

a.

7 day and 5 day cylinder breaks b.

design mix curves c.

7 day cement tests.

d.

pour inspection slips 4/19/74 Received 6-14 day core (dry) breaks -fro'n B. Brown Sample !!o.1 - 3740 psi 3 - 3250 psi 5 - 2750 psi 7 - 3040 psi 9 - 2700 psi 11 - 3610 psi Avg. 3185 psi flormal expected 7 day strengths have been 73% of 28 day or 3650 psi min.

4/20/74 Received the following data from.J. Artuso via telephone:

a.

tiet core test results (15 dry)

'4120 pe,i 4140 psi 3440 psi 2PA0 pr.i 2820 psi 4010 psi Avg. 3560 psi me-I

b.

73 day couent tests - Silo il9 (ps

\\g 5370 5100 5200 g

S310 SID)

L200 g

5320 5230 E220 u

5330 5320 c.

Grab sauple of cement taken from C.R. 73 site sho.ed less than 20 min. set time.

d.

Mr. Artuso's evaluation thus far is that the concrete will evaluate at 4000 psi 23 day cylinder strength. To justify this, additional cores may be necessary and the 85': strength factor (from ACI) applied. He estimates reaching 4300 psi at 90 days again based upon a

~

core break analysis.

4/22/74 Mr. Dobreff's preliminary analysis of the dome design indicates -

a minimu:n, acceptable 28 day cylinder strength is 4250 psi.

He is proceeding to further refine this design investigation.

l'et with JTR, WAS RSB - briefed them on the above - Will wait for 28 day evaluation. Advised C.P. also.

Message frca J. Artue - results of grab sample of cement - 3 day break 1890 psi, sample failed false set requiremnt ( ASTM).

4/26/74 Mr. Dobreff said their preliminary analysis thus far indicates if we partially prestress the dome and con.plete the prestress 3 months later 4200 - 4300 would be acceptable. Work by GAI is continuing.

4/29/74 Advised JTR and CEJ of information in paragraph firmediately above - AM.

5/1/74 Mr. Dobreff and ftr. Cronberger advised by phone that a minimum acceptabic f'c is 4500 psi.

5/2/74 Advised JTR of above.

He requ'sted a letter frv d AI in e

con fi rma tion. Advised by B. Black of 23 day cylinder breaks - 4570 avg.

~

5/3/74 Received gal confinning letter;gave to WA; for approulu.

' '3 2 tis i am mesiismimia i sm

'\\

l'..

.., r, i :e..LC..

..2, l.i. i.i

+

6. :.

n. '.

< > r In ns o. s v.,n 1:,

\\J 9

.s thy 14, 1974 C. b. lir: :.9 Pi ttsbuc:

l'.; ting Lab.

Pe:

Cew nt Cei rective Action

~

Pernett, f.s i.er voor irc.rc.::r n !. acas, the fol1<ning currective action'.

rir euthori: d to be poi into ef fed as of thie, date for closer cc'itrol fo 0:c:nt used c: this pro.iect:

1.

PTL to provid: full tiro instr ction at Crneral Port 1cnd v.d d.n ir.g the grinding of cer..:;nt for Florida Peuer Corp.

2.

FTl to provide cypre.".iuctcly 50Y coveran. dt ring tiw 1:.:s fer ci ccunit f ro..i the produc. Lion cilo to the stcrage silo.

3.

P TL f e seal both im cnd bot' tem of si.orac silo after transfer ir, co:aplete.

4.

PTL in break hollc:ii scais prior to fis si r.liip-meiit to Pcd Level.

5.

PTI. ducirr. rw <:r th:. s,ilo io periodici:lly veri fy t h;.

icp cr.11s an c intact.

6.

P fl si. perform rwtiv setting time on the ce:. ml 9: livered to !:ed trycl.

t <..

l }' - !.

r.,

r.

,1:

9.

-l,

' ~.

11 11 bl ch

.J,'i h r

s

• r. r.

.}>.If,,.,

. ; ' D

i.. g i

• f

.l,er. t... s t -

3,.

. i.i n s.

:I I d,,. ',.,.,, g f l., '.,,

+.i-

...,,i..

..4., s i.:,,,s...i......

g

. t lc

.') ;,-

I N. H e l: GT I.'.' t ; I;.".'G I.N 1;

• i: S.'.N i n C 61 h?! 1 NTS

"'e c

(t.. fi f *f)S*L f f f * :ffff7

..?'

D.f ?-'

I* i'."1 Slit 'lH ;II, I *.i. I.~i '2 ' ' O

..t,.,.

..... u.

.. o,,,,,...

,,nir.

...m.

s av v smo.a,' a w i: me

,..c, i.

.......s 9

c i.... ~

....s,...

...,,,;..........o.

e%

gv I:ay 16 ly D'

es To:

lhul. ' i i e3 t Ta m.oa From:

G. B.1:rcuio Crystal Rivcr Subjwt:

Ccncnt incpec'.,ien Tlecida Feucr Corp.

Florj-ia Teucr las requested uc increar.e car cement inupcetien per the at.taclmd inti.cr. Itcu 1 t.' rough $ will lave to ho perfo'r.cd by the 'R:mpn e:Tice.

Itc., 6 uG1 he done here. J r you are unabic to cover these incpections c~ tact r.c as cocn ac p:essible.

G. 1:. 1.ro.. i..

1. t. t..c !

nt: 1 C:.'u d, c., : Jo.

f.-

} i : -Lte, li

. c.

c.~ :

cc: l'O:

~

'e e

g g

,g 4

1

.I

rus en.y r.:

D D

<? ? %:

1.n t it r A n o c t A T ts. :is-f.'s

'N s

i g

(

t ( ~,

u

..,r, t

(.,y..,

i- -

!!ay 22,1974 A

4 D>)/h _ "1.Q-/

1..

N

)

!!r.

'I. !.

5::.:llete"..hi. P.irector TTC - f 3'.152 7,6g '

Cancre.tfoa. T::.a'.nat:r ing D? pert rat Pie rio..a. Peer Gn. n ratic.-.

E'3F# ~1 :

t?q*>v',,I 5.:

O L.','

1. s P. C. S o.. it.042 C:

n..id.

is a v s.*. c St. Pttersbur3, Flerida 33733

- - s...

,4,9..

r.

fg o s

.. VQ v.:

e

}

Ree:torretidfN:"t!

! '2.; *:. J j.! -

no: De s rcer L-9 a -

r.' 1 1

~

^"N e-D J -

Crp t:1 Rive: - Unit O rinri;!c Tc;c; Cerrore.tica Dn.a.r I;e. f=7110t m -hi.

)

7 As requested by ywr l'r. J.

P.. Ihren encicced is a copy of the :tructurs!.

f en3 acering ir.p t fer the prorosed report to.*CC in r:::ard to Do s Fc,::

1 d

L-9.

g t

Ple:,e. reriev

..a cc--ent.

c,i,

+..

.N

'! cry tiv3.7 ycsin.

t1 n

s

- fv',jb M d !!'

S. N. Debreff 3

Proje.ct Structural Pa.:incer O

g s:.w.!

g Inc.

~

/

cc:

'4. l.. P:?liatenki U)

(fr.c.)

~.

C. f:. J.90kcon l

I t

h 7

p 3

iiii

iii,

Con. r.

c S t rene. t h i n.Di :n.c..l'.o_n.r..I.. 9 T i 4

]p,,3 W ~

n 0

._.r t. r.?

g y,,

F.S.A.It. : ection 5.2.2.1 recotdn thnt the s t rear,t h of t ht i oncret e nelected for the I:etetoi r,iti ld ing. prer:t ressed conci et e in 5000 F. i at 23 dayn and lii 5.2.3.1 thi. 1.o i l d i n : d en i;in i:. to be in nerot. lance w i t h M: t -118-(.3.

The folle in,c test result evaluat ion of the actual concrete st ren:,,th relative to the na x ion:i 1 i c:

Irvel: c:.pected in p oo r 1.- '1 ' o f :no ih m.e conc l u de:.

that the concretc strength it. less than 5000 psi, hwever, the concrete doe:. nee t the requi s ed strene.t h of 4500 for the cri.tical otr<n. at t h in locatien including t he safety factors deacuded by /.CJ-310 63.

Evninntion of Concrete Strenydjl Tent Punults The cor.erete cylindors representing the subject concrete consisted of'3 sets. The averige 2F day strength of each set was 4890 psi, 4550 psi and 4280 psi.

ACI-318-53 states that the running average of all rer:ults be cqual to,or greater than,f ' and that not nore than 10% of the resultt: r.hould fall c

belou f This muirc'rient can be usefully applied for strength control c

throughout conntruction but is not applicable for evaJuatin:; th.: concretc strength in a loca]; zed pour area such as the one in questien.

IInced on /.CT-318-71 para:;ra;*h 4.3 "Evaluationand Accelitnace of Concreto" the concrete reprenented by these cylindc ra would nect a requ ir.r ent for 4570 psi

rength at 2d days..

The ACI-3fi--71 r et hod of evaluation la directly applicabic to the circe.u-

o...... _,. n :. r... i :n, b.. s, d.3.r t p.,; r. m t h.. m..,

r..:.n i.. n... i.,a c.

~

k

),

Jcvicu cf

.t h.

.~ r i i e s u i. i !.i n. i t '. : i -

. h t inine :he it + i.roi 3

a~

h.

a ne s.... : : i..o i. 't

%4

-.e n e rt:1 C

All load c:e:er were reviewed to

.tahlinh the e : li a r.a ulo ;.r. tennion and comprenuive stresses at Pour L-9 uhich is located appro::inately nid-way between the Ihme croun and the ring p,trder anchorap,e.:ane.

Tensile ::nd Shenr St resscr.

To resist bendinp. tenr.ile stresses in the concrete during po' iring, rein-forcement in provided, and the ceapressive and shear

<t resses in he cen-crete are insignifice.nt. For all test, operating and accident loading conditions the shears and no cats approach zero in location 1.-9 of the Dome,seefikures5-6to5-8intheF.S.A.R. No contribution from the tensile capacity of the concrete was relied upon when the required raar.-

irtun prestress force was determined.

It is concluded that since the tensile cnd shear stresses in the location of peur L-9 are leu, their evaluation is not critical ior establishing the ninimun concrete strength required.

CenpressIve S t re r,"en ACI-310-63 Section 2005 divides the c.llowable compressive stress levels into two requi renents: a) The allevable cc.:'pressive stress Junediately following transfer before prestress losses due to creep and shrlo!..r;c is liuited to 0.6 f '

b) ' The aliceable comprenr.1ve r. tress after c11 prectress Josses c

0.4. f,.'.

is l imi t ed to 9

On thi: h:o i: the erifical It.nl condi t inn ( reepi i r i n;; t he ria.-:ir.u.n l' c "I"")

va.4 f c.und to b.. du ri n;- operation at wh ic h the *:.ut it...:r

<;t ress v 43 202C p.,i uit hin the are of pou r 1.- 9.

hpsat in;- the.n t upIs l :t. s of 2 0.' P. p s i in t tre strea :th f '

0.45 f requ:n,or Irternitei that t 'ie +.: n i r:.., 'co n z"..

e retpl i ~e'd i.

4 tt M) 7.

L.