ML20044B705
| ML20044B705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290F683 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-032, SECY-A-80-32, NUDOCS 9303030156 | |
| Download: ML20044B705 (65) | |
Text
.
UNtTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W AS MNGTON, D. C. 20555 SECY-A-80-32
_ March 7,1980 COMMISSIONER ACTION For:
The Commissioners From:
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel
Subject:
DIRECTOR'S DE!1IAL OF 2.206 RELIEF (IN THE MATTER OF EANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY)
Facility-Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1.
Furposa:
To ir. form the Commission of the denial of a request to suspend or revoke the construction f
permit for this facility, f f. J Review Time Expires:
April 4, 1960 (as extended).
Discussion:
On December 27, 1978, Mr. Richard P.
- Follock, on behalf of the Critical Mass Energy Project, requested the Ccemission to revoke the ccnstruc-tion permit for Wolf Creek "until the licensee clearly demonstrates that it has taken correc-tive and remedial action to update the quality assurance and quality control mechanists at the reactor site." 1/
[ Attachment 1].
This recuest was based on an NRC notice of deficiency in the strength of the concrete in the reactor base mat for this facility.
[ Attachment 2].
Early
-1/
Critical Mass also requested the Commission to take appropriate enforcement action for an alleged licensee delay in reporting deficiencies in the strength of the concrete, and to evaluate the capabilities of the Region IV inspection program.
The licensee made a timely report of 90-day tests which revealed that some of the concrete did not meet strength specifications.
Slip op. at 3 Regarding the Region IV inspection program, the Director's denial refers to many inspections and, thus, reasonably demonstrates appropriate NRC concern for possible problems at Wolf Creek.
Slip op. at 9-10.
Contact:
d Sheldon L. Trubatch, OQC l
'M h-3224 Information in this record was de'eied
.N d3OIo156921125 in accordance with the freedom cf information I
MF3.c OILINSK92-436 PDR pgg, - 4 tjyj__ __
wn-
t l
7 l
+
l in January 1979, several residents of Eansas in-dividually requested the Commission to halt con-struction of Wolf Creek Unit No. 1 because of alleged substandard concrete in the facility. 2/
On January 11, 1979, the Mid-America coalition for Energy Alternatives (MCEA) requested the C.ommission to suspend the construction permit for Wolf Creek because the licensee had not corrected serious deficiencies in the quality l
assurance and quality control programs as illu-strated by deficient concrete work.
[ Attach-ment 3].
Because of their similar nature, these petitions were consolidated by the Acting Direc-l tor, Inspection and Enforcement.
On June 29, 1979, MCEA supplemented its request for suspension of the Wolf Creek construction I
permit because the Kansas State Geological Survey had reported a higher intensity and different i
location for the epicenter of the 186" Manhattan earthquake, which MCEA alleges was used as the j
basis for the design of the non-standardized safety related pertions of the plant. - 1/
[ Attach-ment t].
Moreover, MCEA noted that the reximun j
horizontal acceleration associated with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake for Volf Creek (0.12g) is smaller than the correspondi'ng acceleration for j
Tyrone (0.2g) - another SNUPPS plant in the same l
tectonic province.
Finally, MCEA contended that even if the reactor base mat ~1s currently strong enough to withstand an earthquake induced accel -
-{
eraticn of 0.2g, there is no evidence that the concrete in the base mat will not continue to undergo the spontaneous deterioration in strength l
previously obserydd.
l 1
On July 12, 1979, the Director, I&E denied all the above petitions. $/
Subsequently, on Au-gust 11, 1979, Mr. Ward requested an explana-l tion of the Director's brief dismissal of the seismic issues.
[ Attachment 5].
On November 27,.
'1979, at OGC's suggestion,the Director, I&E l
i informed all petitioners that he would issue a supplement to his decision.
Accordingly, the-
.I 4
2/
See footnote 2 of the Director's denial for a list of these j
)
petitioner 3' name l
3/
Wolf Creek is a SNUPPS plant.
s i/
10 NRC 136 (1979).
J I
I i
3 s
Commission held in abeyance its decision on whether to review the Director's denial.
On January 31, 1980, the Director reissued his earlier denial essentially in its entirety with supplemental clarifications. 1/
[ Attachment 6).
/
Petitioners questioned the adequacy of quality assurance and quality control programs at Wolf Creek.
In his denial, the Director summarized NRC actions designed to encourage the licensee to improve those programs.
Although initial efforts by the licensee were not adequate, the Director now reports that there has been substan-tial increase in the quality assurance staff and a significant recrganization of the quality con-trol program at the construction site, f/
Several inspections indicate that the quality assurance program is now effective in correcting identi-fled problems. 1/
P.CEA's concern regarding the adequacy of the cen-crete base mat are based on the following inter-related seismic and construction facters: (1) new i
information developed by.the KSGS regarding the 1867 Manhattan earthquake implies that overall plant design based on a Safe Shutdown Earthquake r
producing an acceleration of 0.12g is no longer l
conservative; (2) the Tyrone reactor - which is another SNUPPS reactor in the same tectonic province - is designed for an acceleration of i
0.2g; (3) the concrete base mat, which as a standardized portion of all SNUPPS plants is built to withstand acceleration of-0.2g, has'an i
actual strength that is approximately 10% less than the design value; and (4) the unexplained i
decrease in concrete mat strength discovered by ccmparing 90-day test results with 28-day test i
results implies that concrete strength still may be decreasing.
1/
The supplements will be identified in the discussion.
6/
Slip op. at B-9 (Supplemental material).
1/
Slip op. at 9-10.
~
4 i
The Director's denial contains a detailed staff I
analysis of the seismic issues. 8/
Staff reviewed the KSGS report and found that the proposed increase in intensity of the 1867 Man-i hattan earthquake is based on an observation of liquefaction in a local iso-seismic area.
Staff prefers to rely on the lower intensity reported in the Earthquake History of the United States.
In addition, staff notes that its choice of Safe Shutdown Earthquake was based on an analysis which did not directly involve use of the 1867 Manhattan earthquake.
Thus, the choice of Safe Shutdown Earthquake for Wolf Creek is not affected by the KSGS j
report.
i Staff also reviewed the choice of Safe Shutdown i
Earthquake for Tyrone and concluded that the Iower value found for Wolf Creek might have been censidered adequate for Tyrone because of the low level of local seismicity there.
Staff l
notes that the Safe Shutdcwn Earthquake for Black Fox - which is located in _ a region of l'cw sels-micity level in the same tectonic province - is
[
the same intensity as for Wolf Creek.
Since Wolf Creek is also located in a region of Icw local seismicity, staff considers the chosen Safe Shutdown Earthquake to be adequately con-l servative.
Extensive investigations have been made of the i
strength of the concrete base cat and its adeq-quacy, o/
The Construction Technology Labora-tories of the Portland Cement Association con-l ducted strength tests on rcmnants of previously tested concrete; and the Structures Laboratory of the Corps of Engineers, USAE Waterways Experi-rent Station, conducted a petrographic examina-
[
tion of thin concrete sections of these remnants.
i Staff has reviewed the results of these tests and concluded that there is no evidence of con-l i
tinuing degradation of concrete strength nor is there any sign of substandard or faulty l
cement.
8/
Appendix ? (Supplemental material).
y 2/
Appendix E.
l e
t
5-i The applicant used two methods to reanalyze the effect of reduced concrete strength on the base mat's ability to meet original design commit-ments in the Wolf Creek PSAR.
Both methods indicate that the tensile stress of the steel reinforcing bars in the base mat control its load carrying capacity and that the 10% reduc-tion in concrete strength has very little effect.
Staff has reviewed the Applicant's reanalysis and concluded that the strength of the base mat meets the original desi n criteria based on 5
a Safe Shutdown Earthquake acceleration of of 0.20g, and that the mat will withstand the specified design loads and loading combinations without impairment of its structural integrity or its safety function. 10/
Because reanalysis showed that the concrete base l
mat could still accomodate design load criteria, staff concluded that a core boring program was not justified for determining the actual strength of the concrete mat.
The number of borings neces-sary would have resulted in the severing of steel reinforcing rods which control the load bearing capacity of the base mat and, as a result, the core boring program could reduce safety. 11/
{^ J'
-l l
l i
--10/
Slip op. at 5 11/
Slip op. at 6.
i L
1 6
$.b
?X. 6 i
Recommendation-
- 1
. lf,!..]//
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel Attachments as stated Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, March 21, 1980.
Commission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT March 14, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If l
the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review '
and coment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
j 4
DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Secretariat l
1 f
i l
i
e c.
s m
e s
-. a
.A r
~
~.
r, s_
s.
e
);
n
.e.
~,
s r
-.n.
s.
+
~
(
,r c..
~ -
- a..,.
~
.. y
- v...
- v..
g.
g.
.; +....._.
s.
i,
c
.c
. f..
' ATTACHMENT 1 T
A s
y 9
i t
6 "N
=
/
- -.O e
=="
~~
s
-e
/.
~
s, 4
- y a
p.
s w
g
. aft
- ^
.g.
p
,~
,a'
- c.,
- F. 3*,
y
\\
~
-,.c s
.n.'<
. - -. '. i<
n: t
.L w ' ' -
c, a
l-s,.*
.I
..r r.
s
.)
/
,F M
e g
=
a
-, -.s y,
+
.a*
h en.
- y.,
~
-*ee
..n e
=
4
)
- 4
- e,..
g, s
,.e
,.s
,, +
- k t
. ~ -
.r a
.i-. -,*
4
%4' ;_
g
,o, R.
a J. '
.m y
W
%e a.
g e
d g
g #
g
- 4M $
- p ag
- g 4
e
."l-f*'
,y u
6
,,g S
p.
. 3 4
se
.3 9
",~,. %e. ' #
gDF' d'
- . f
, La e
8*
,a d
s
.p 4
. k 4
4 J
4
% g, 4,.
- d'
'I
,9 4
y e *
,, ^
(*
s p
.s
- y *,
J.*
s O
k
/
a i
p ).
g e
- *, ',).
- 4, L'...*
.r*
.. *.. *. ? -
r
,Q*
f e.
..,y I#
r,*g
[
g"
'~
2 2,
g g
4 4
eso.
e
-e a # -
9 es,
S,
~
gy f%
g'.
- +
e 3
p 4
an f
s.
9' G
4, O..
e s*
m i
. h.
h~,
m d '
4 m
f
_O 9
e
- e i,
a g
9
CKET.iCEL MESS ENERGY PROJECT i
PO Btx1535. Viuv;;:7. D C. 20013 Phone:(202) 5'S-4790 December 27, 1978 i
Commissioner Joseph Bendrie, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Eegulatory Consission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dear Con =issioner Hendrie:
[
I On December 1,1978 the NRC issued a Preliminary Notification of Event or J
rnusual Occurrence for construction et the Wolf Creek Unit No. 1, licensed to the Kansas Gas & El.ectric Company.
The PNO in effect indicates that the NRC's Office of Inspection end Enforce-ment believes that there are deficiencies in the strength of the cement now being etilized for the reactor building. We are advised that a special hearing on the matter vill be convened on January 4 in Washington, D.C. to examine the matter.
According to the ch'ronology of events spelled out by I&E, the licensee first learned of deficiencies in the foundation strength as early as March 15, 1978 but f ailed to fully report the event until October 26, 1978.
A most recent PNO dated Dece=ber 15, 1978 also indicates that a " void" vas discovered in the reactor -
containment vall of the Wolf Creek Facility.
In our estimation, these two instances raise serio.us questions.about the j
quality essurance and quality cont'rol program at the Wolf Creek reactor and
~
i suggests that there are else significant sesknesses in NRC's' inspection program.
{
Clearly, several salient points need to be addressed and satisf actorily explained i
by both the licensee and NRC Region IV:
i 1.
Are there deficiencies in the Daniel Construction Company's (the subcontractor) QA and QC program which permitted understrength concrete t
to be installed' i
I 2.
Why did KG&E vait' over six months before notifying NRC that they believed the understrength concrete was a reportable event?
=!
3.
Why did KG&I continue construction at the site for six months while its manage =ent knew they might have deficient cement strength?
.i 4.
If KG&E believed that there vere no problems with continued construction-despite reportage of foundation strength problems, why did KG&E suspend construction in December, 19787 f
5.
Why did Region IV's Inspection and Enforcement personnel allov construction to continue in light of evidence that concrete in the reactor building might be understrength?
j l
l l
Richard P.
Follock to Cc==.
Jeseph Hendrie 2
December 27, 1978 As you know, the Critical Pass Energy Project is a consumer organization founded by Ralph Nader that is concerned about the safety and reliability of U.S.
energy technologies.
On the basis of the. Preliminary Notice, we believe there ere several basic safety and procedural problems plaguing the Wolf Creek nuclear facility which cust be fully aired and resolved before any further construction is territted.
The citizens of Kansas deserve no less.
Frankly, it appears that the quality of construction at Wolf Creek is voefully deficient and that neither the licensee nor Daniel Construction is at present capable of assuring that the workmanship at the site is satisfactory.
l It additionally appears thet the licensee has not been fully forthe'oming in promptly i
serious design problem and hoped it could cover up such notifying NRC about a
deficiencies.
This type of ettitude on the part of the licensee, if confir:ed, vould be unperdonable and should subject the licensee to NRC disciplinary action.
We therefore request that the Cc=rissionere revoke the construction permit for Wolf Cre,k until the licensee has clearly deconstrates that it has taken corrective a:.d remedial action to upgrade the quality assurance and quality control echanises at the reactor site.
We also believe that unless a fully satisfectory explanation has been issued by the licensee for the six nonth delay in reporting the event, the CP should be suspended.
An official deter-rination of whether the licensee should be subjected to disciplinary action should also com=ence.
We vould fine 11y hope that the Com ission would evaluate the ILE capabilities -
l for Eegion IV to determine if actien is necessary to improve the agency's inspection progra=.
CMIP vould be grateful for'any notification of ac_ tion taken with respect to the licensee or Region IV I&E activities.
4 Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
7 Sincerely,
/
Richard P. Pollock, Dir.
/
j Critical Mass Energy Project
{
ec: Kansas Gas & Electric Co==issioner Peter 3redford
^
Coc=issioner Victor Gilinsky Co=missioner Richard Kennedy q
Co==issioner John Aherne S. J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC Enrold Denton, NRR 4
/
RPP jt i
5
. - -- -. - _.. -. ~
s.
.s v.
u.
s.
s s.
c
. i
=
6
?
/~
t
/
t r
s N.
c.
...s.
../.
.N.
. s
- i
- s
. o
- ,K'
',.^
- y,,
~
t t
s..
3
.n r
e m
1e 4
~
t
- et h
s.
.c
~
e
'N ATTACHMENT 2
,N 1
7 g. \\ 6
.s s
J n.._
1 s,
... ~.
s
.p
-sa -.
t a
~
-t
.. m,.-
1
.y...=
z-t g.. =..
j.
r 3
y
).
,L 5-s g
.c
- m.,,. -
i
....,c a
- s....
.<s.
a
.s
. s.
. s
-t
.s.
e
,A.
.~
o.
.s.
.n...
~.
~..,
[
+
...c.
.s f.
1 s
=
4 "3
1
.e.
g s
q r-y I.
+
- s. w a'.
~.
e g
,,d.
.g
. g 4
8
-j.
e 4 26 4
og *
. *, e o
~
~.;;
,. t..
[
,=,~ %'
"',.m t
^
j,
..,,. i i
..a. -r i,.
a.
s a
n d"
e s'
a "p
g pp i
g 1
4 o
.,.00
' 9-
.s.
- ~,,
,9 4
a
- a. *,.
.s..
s pe
,t a
i
=,*
^
. t
. - i.,
, t g-
.a
, 7 a
. =
s s
c
+
+
9
+
3, g
g O
b
'k 1
b
....e,-
-n
--t
t i
h ev Decer.ber, 1, 1c78
~
FRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNU5UAL OCCURRE; ICE--P This oreliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of event of a
FC55Mt.E safety or oublic interest sienificance.
n ine inf ormation presentec is as initielly received without verification or evaluation anc is nasically all ina: 1s known dv IE staff on inis cate.
C' facility:
Wolf Creek, Unit No.1 (SNUPPS) s Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
F DN STN 50-482
Subject:
POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY - UNDER S'h J
IN REACTOR BUILDING BASE MAT On March 15, 1972, Kansas Gas 'and Electric Company notified RIY L
(Arlincton, TX) that c6ncrete test cylinders representine cencrete placed in the reactor building base met had failed to achieve the spe:ified strengths. The base met is a single, rcon: lithic place:ent cf
?
a?pmximately sixty-five hundred cubic yards, placed during the period December 12-13, 1977.
curing Deriod, approxi mately 507, cf sixty-six sets of concrete t$
cylindars exhibited strengths cieraging about 10': V J
design strength of 5000 pounds per square inch.
N the specified J.-
The licensee identified this tr.ter as prer.tially recortable in 2:c -dance > ith 1Q CFR 59 554);
5' Ey letter dated May 25 H73, tt,e licensee stated that this matter Was n:t ::nsidered to be reportable '.inder 10 CFE 59.55(e), but cid agree to N
scimi a re ;c rt, whicn the licensee repcrted thatThe final report w:-s received en 0;t:ber 25,1973, ij a.nd spe:ification requirements.
tne inpiace cen: ete sa:isfied coce W
~
A review of he litc7see's test data, ecuipser.t.
W a:ti:ns ar.d re:Ords by is a team cf ~" e~ ors and = consultant led M i+ conGusionJ;ht" Aha rebahh N
_ concrete tilt the scecified_mp r@renL
[
r
.e ilm:Tw > dnciusicn that the low s trength results were caused by r
the test prc.cedure or equipment probie:s could not bs supported by tne
. j$
inspection team.
Data analyzed by the team indicate that the tes:
resuits tay have been valid.
A meeting with licensee senior manacement is ienned for December 5, l%
1575, to discuss the basis for the IE p'esition.
Go press r+1 ease is planned at this tire; however, public interest has O
been indicated previously by the Mid-America Coa.lition for Energy A1:ernatives.
y"
. i, Centa ct :
RESheceker, IE xE7551 Gk'Reinmuth, IE 7.27551 HDThornburg,. IE x25154
.g' Distribution:
Transmitted H St 3 M d
Oneirc.an nendrie -
Comissioner Brafferd S. J. Chilt, SECY cc.tnissioner Kennedy Commissioner Ahearne C. C. Karrterer, CA k
Cornissioner Gilins v Transmitted:
MVSE
'96 P. Bldg.h.$,7 Jor Distribution)
E_
~
J. G. Oavis IE' L. V. Gossick, EDO H. R. Denton, NRR Eegion j
~~
I. H. Hanauer, EDD R. C. DeYoung, NRR
. O J. J. Fouchard, PA R. J. Mattson, NRR g j
?.:
H. M. Haller, M?A V. Stello NRR (MAIL}
P.. G. Ryan,'OSP R. S. Boyd, NRR J. J. Cumings, O! A M
H. K. Shapar, ELD SS Bld9 Rs Minocue SD C. V. Smi t n, NMSS sT'T'f7fl>W8.'b~
d'
. g.
cych w h-7 7,.9
--**+=
t
~
d
- N s.
s
.s
.. r v...
nI~
~
~..
.v
..t
~.
f'
.. s..
(
S 4
.s n
i
.f.
v.
r,
i,.
~
.c o _.
1
~
g b
,4 1
t A
4 y
8 ATTICHMENT 3
/.
r '.
t,,
~_
9
~
6 6
P A.,
1 s
1.
j*
, N
. l 7
, ~
. +. ;
\\
.~
\\.
L.,. *.
. ;% / *, J
!r-
-e* s r
e
'# 4 e
s
, _ l.
m: ~ ;
" +
.~
.\\j.
~
, ;.,,."f.,.f
. *. [.-. -. -,
V,.
\\
- i
- {
s,/
.4
". s g *,,.
s e.
.r.
~,
.S
'n
. F. 3,*._.'
. ~..
r m
t e
4 a6 6
3 s'
p.
y
~
t.
i, g,
t,
p ".
--g ','*
..g a
- a.
g 3,,
s r
b
L.'g
~{
.i t
e
~
s,
.s e.
4..,
.f.
+
h-
- 4 e
e
- g, I
'3
.'g
, g W g %
%F,
- a g
se s
g.
r s
e 4 e 4
..S
s g
._I
,,s,
e
- %.a,
,sv, 11 9 j
n -
.-s p.
s l
.g
.S.
..e e
e 1
g.
- w j
s d,*
., j
../
r
- 4
- e*
s,
- [.,
h
.%,.a Y
4
^
\\
Y 4
t*
/
9
=
f W'
g a
t J
e
,r
(
- a t
9
, l a
s-
,3e
.. d Ps 4
4 d
.g
.a g*
.m-e
=
1
)
1 s
\\
s s
- s
, f e
1 r
1 4
s
\\
a n
t.
o.
.#t.
f-4 j
--i%
- g 1
e 1
1 q
1 P
.]
g
^
q t
g.
.e o
q 1
9"'
d t
y e
ie
~
~-
4 4
e
.,b a.
f
- s.
6
.1
=
e
. q E...
4 e b 1
,e i
g
\\
}
e w
'/
~
Mg3
.,,, 1",
~
=-
,.+
=
=::
~
r n tll
' v{r -
iSTek3FMw
~
I
~
Mid-America Coalition For Energy Alternatives om tr
..-o.-
mou -o. o
, m o..u.
N00 & 1:i". Rc..b3_1_
January 11, 1979 I
c Joseph Hendrie, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.C. 20555 Peter Bradford, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N
Washington, D.C. 20555 8
t Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner
- og' W "\\)g }
9" 5
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cohmission R
0 Washington, D.C. 20555 T
N 4
k10 Richard Kennedy, Commissioner h
4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission k'e,d'*
4 Washington, D.C.
20555 g
3 John Aherne, Commissioner i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Corrnissioners:
On October 16, 1978, I wrote to you and the other Com-missioners on behalf of the Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives, an intervenor in the Wolf Creek Construction permit proceedings, regarding the apparently defective concrete in the base mat of the unit, under construction near Burlington, Kansas.
I write now, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, to request a i
formal suspension of the construction permit for the Wolf Creek facility.
l We attended a meeting addressed to the base mat concrete problem at your offices in Bethesda on' January 4, 1979, during which we learned that your Inspection and Enforcement Office has determined that serious deficiencies exist in the licensee's quality assurance and quality control. programs, or in its ability to carry those programs out.
For instance, it was agreed at the meeting that the licensee had not qualified its_hAse mat concrete mix design inlccordance witMpted industry pro -
cedure, and as required by the conMdidti~on pernIt.
- M5fEcver,
~
it"Became apparent that no concrete yet poured at the site had been so qualified, despite the advanced state of construction of safety related structures.
Your staff's conclusion was that Paper
~
NRC Commissioners -- 2 the utility seemed to place its reliance on luck instead of engineering.
We learned also at the meeting that your Region IV had written to the licensee on December 19, 1978, confirming their i
understanding that the licensee would._ignediAtely halt the placement of concrete in safety related structures until a large number of steps were taken to increase the~ chance that the facility will be built properly.
A copy of that letter is i
enclosed.
Your Inspection and Enforcement Of fice has given consid-erable attention to the licensee's performance, and on at least one occasion has made specific recommendations for overall qual-ity assurance and quality control improvement.
However, the failure of the licensee to build _the_ plant in the manner required by._the. construction permit, despite. repeated warnings, is a situ atibrilechT55 plate diby_yo_uugen cv ' s re gul ations.
10'~CFR~
50.100 authorizes you to revoke, suspend, or modify the con-struction permit, in whole or in part, and licensees should expect the application of official sanction with at least as much certainty as if they had violated a traffic ordinance.
Your inspection and enforcement program -- particularly in view of the incredibly few inspectors for which your agency is bud-geted -- requires no less to be effective.
We understand the natural inclination of your people to prefer informal procedures in many instances.
We believe that whatever merit there may be in informality, it is not appropriate here.
Your staff has stated that in its view the licensee pro-ceeds "at its own risk" and that any construction in violation of the terms of the understanding will cause the staff to seek at once a formal stop work order from you.
The fact, however, i
is that the licensee is now legally free to pursue construction on any portion of the power plant at any time.
It is also a f act that realistically the licensee does not proceed at its -
own risk -- that all expenditures made decrease the practical options available to you in dealing with the situation, and increase the practical likelihood that the operating license j
will simply have to be granted.
Moreover, there is no basis for the tacit assumption that ance iL_confiried to concrete work.
The the lack of quality assur%st the' opposite.
~~~
license 7 E fecord t dicat Yet, the informal understanding leaves the licensee free to perform all other construction activities, regardless of their significance for safety.
The licensee has agreed only to " discuss" its progress with regional personnel before it pours more concrete for safety related structures, and is not legally bound to do even that.
It is for these reasons that we request action pursuant to f
We believe that your staff would welcome additional j
d NRC Commissioners -- 3 f
guidance from you with respect to when it is appropriate to suspend a construction permit.
Ve y trul o
s, f
i i a'.
.' Ward Attorney for MAC
[
WHW:bw cc: H. D. Thornburg, I&E Stephen M. Lewis, Esq.
Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Harold Denton, NRR S. J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC enclosure r
r i
t 8
?
O
UNIT [0 $T AT E3
/ja a r e NUCLE AR RE GULATCRY COMMti$!CN w
Rtcicu iv f,(
j
$11 RYAN Pt.AZ A CRIVE, SUITE 1 COD
/f AR LIN GTON. T E XAS 76011
- '?,j'
- A.;
December 19, 1978 Cocket No. STN 50-482 gC I g 7W Kansas Gas and Electric Ccmpany S
,41AN 181973 > ;
r.
ATIN:
Mr. G. L. Koester Vice president' Operations mga,; W t
4 Post Office Box 20S Wichita, Kansas 67201 s
+
~
GentleT.en:
This refers to the meeting with you, Mr. H. W. McCall, President, Pcwer Group of Daniel Constructicn Ccc:any, Inc. and Mr. J. M. Evans, Manacer, Nuclear Projects of Kansas City Power and Light Ccepany and Messrs. K. V.
Scyfrit, W. C. Seidle and W. A. Crcssman of this office on December 18, 1978, and subsequent telephone conversations between Messrs. Koester and Seidle en December 19, with respect te safety related concrete placement, censolidation, testing and inspecticn at the Wolf Creek site.
With recard to this meeting and the subsdquen't telephone conversat cn's, we understand that you have or plan to:
1.
I=ediately halt further placement of concrete in safety related structures until the folicwing proposed reviews and corrective measures have been completed.
Completely review concrete placement and related work procedures 2.
to assure their adequacy for the placement and cor.solidation of concrete.
Completely review quality control, inspection and testing prccedures 3.
to confinn their adequacy.
Assure all persons in construction engineering, construction, and' 4.
quality control are fully cogni: ant of these procedures, or ary modificat. ions to these procedures and that Quality Assurance verifics thct the appropriate perscns are trained in these proc'edures.
Review the adequacy of the quality acsurance program for verifying 5.
the satisf actory placemant and consolidation of concrete to meet project requirements.
- b-.
s Kansas Gas and Electric 2-Company 6.
Review the adequacy of the quality control program for verifying satisfactory implementation of the procedures.
7.
Review the specific void in the concrete under the equipment hatch in the reactor containment wall to determine probable cause and corrective action.
B.
Review and confirm the independence of inspection and verification organizations.
9.
Establish a Daniel Construction Company ad hec ccmmittee cceprising David M. McAfee, Chairman; Leo R. Smith; Richard A. Bradshaw; and William E. Hitt to review, evaluate, and attest to the adequacy of the above acticn items prior to further placement of safety related concrete.
Kansas Gas and Electric Company will be represented at each coa.mittee aceting by at least one individual from its Cuality Assurance group.
10.
David McAfee, Ccmmittee Chairm.an, is to report to Mr. H. W. McCall, President Power Grcup, Daniel Constructicn Ccmpany, on t daily bcsis as to the progress being made on these acticas.
Mr. McCall, in turn, will keep you informed, daily, of the cc=:ittee's significant findings <
11.
Discuss with Regicn IV perscnnel the ccmpletion status of the reviews and corrective measures identified above, along with any significant findings, prior to resuming the placement of cencrete in safety related structures.
If our understanding of your plans is inconsistent with the hbove, please contact this office immediately.
5.incerely,
[ $ @vd' b-v K. V. Seyfrit Director 1
J n
-e I
S I
8 a.
., f 3,
- r
., A e
V
- s'
.,i. -;
=
i,
.s
.. :s a
t
. c..
- w...
T ts..
.y,.
. 3,..
t..
s,
~,
s.
i s.,
.g.
x.
a m
i s*
Q.
... i s_ 4.-
s
. 3
. i s
4 s
4
. ATTACHMENT s..
.t
, [
ee 8
~
r, g
a s h
'e 1
=
1 j s
- ,s g*
6
~d, a
-j.
. s s...
s 9.~
t o
O b
v g
.s g.
m.
+
s r
s.
s e
14
[ '
e i
A e
g 4
(
l 9,
- t 4
e=*
g 5
4' ea*
.\\. *. *
'g,
- e 4
=. +
-e e
- m 4-e
_s N
4 s
-+q a
o x
T : {
' g'
%se t
a 0
s
- e. g y
q -
^
a.
==
=,.1/
9 f ',
, '- {
.,.e-s,
. e 1 9
a.
.)..
s s
~
q c
r.
}
.'A
~1 i
k
~
1 p
c.
m e
=
.c.
s..
%~
s e
/, * *..
- s e'
9 '
';1
.v 4
,1,,
,g'
<a d
e..
j 4
=
/
i
. i 9,
j.,
\\.
s, m,.
g s
a v
s,,
e
- ,. g%
_,a" a
.+
- y.
.s e
.s y,
.,o
- *'. q.. c,, '
y, s.
s s..
4
..f 6
.,. o :
s.
% g,.,,-
i-
-e
'h r
M 4b, gp
.E a
y.,..,. - -:.
.e
- s
~
)
. +
- 4 % '.
- +
s, 4%i.F k...
,s*
m
,,8 4
g m
g
,, =
- v-8
/
- I g
e 1
a.
a.
. L.
_+-.
- g.,"
s,,
s w.
p.*
ft I
e'
/
h v
t D
=,'
7,,
l. *
'y
?
. =
a
'N#'
..* '*+
- / -
8
-[
s s
= *
a
' ~ * '..= s;,.
~t g*
r g
6 4
,r", *.,
e
.. 4-j g
,4
..e ps..
e 4 e g
u.
f e
g t w g.,., -
.-..e.
+
, a s,
g
., g*
Me,
e, 4
g l*
ene s
L
' *, j 7
A 8-e
,. i y
, (*
- e g
6 r
(
n.
g
,?
- 4 g
9.
a e S
' d
.1 p
j g
y
.9 is.
g, e
g 0
9 i
e A e go I
4,j e
g en*
L
~
s
/
I e
Nk[h5 i
-%.wm 9% =__
=
.5 D~
$E
$ k CNN Mid-America Coalition For Energy Alternatives
,,..... m o.
.......... u.....
,,,,,.....n June 29, 1979 Joseph Hendrie, Chairman Peter Bradford, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Richard Kennedy, Commissioner John Aherne, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dashington, D.C. 20555
Dear Com issioners:
I wrote you on January 19, 1979, on behalf of my client asking that you suspend the construction permit for the Wolf Creek project in view of doc,umented,ouality control problems specific _a_11y related to the base ma_t of the-reactor.
c o_nta inm ent building.
You responded by publishing a notice of our request in the Federal Register.
This letter is to advise of certain new determinations with respect to the teismic character of Ehe area and w renew our request for at least a partial suspension of the construG_Len permit in view oi tne signtitcance of those determinations in conjunction with existing unresolved issues regarding base mat integrity.
Your attention is directed to a report of the Kansas State Geological Survey (KSGS) prepared under contract to your Division of Reactor Safety Research, Office of Nuclear Regulatory R esearch, entitled "A Revised and Augmented List of Earthquake Intensities for Kansas, 1867-1977" NUREG/CR-0294, August, 1978.
The report details the conclusion of the KSGS_that the largest historical earthquake in KansEs
~
occurred at a dif fei~snt~~Tocarion and was of a different magnitude than 11sd been previous 1v bOi evod.
TIES, earthquake was used, as the basis for the. design of the non-standardized ~
Category I (safety related) portions of'the plant.
Commonly' known' as the 1867 Manhattan earthquake ~and thought to have been of the size Modified Mercalli VII, its epicenter was assumed to have been approximately 22 mi.lcs northwest of Manhattan, Kansas.
The applicants argued that the earthquake was related to a presumed " zone of weakness" associated with the contact of the Keweenawan mafic volcanic belt and the Nemaha Ridge (Nemaha Uplift).
The nearest
/"IA CO*4 De:.:'ed
i NRC Commissioners -- 2 approach of the zone, according to the SNUPPS PSAR Wolf Creek Addendum, is 75 miles from the Wolf Creek site.
On basis the ' applicants urged the adoption of a safe that shutdown earthquake (SSE) with a.30s horizontal acceleration.
Finding insuf ficient basis for the applicants' assumption that the earthquake was related to such a zone of weakness, your staff apparently insisted that the SSE be based on the assumption that the 1967 Manhattan earthquake could occur on the Nemaha Ridge at its closest approach to the Wolf Creek site, 50 miles.
Such an assumption would, concluded the staff, yield a safe shutdown earthquake of.12g, and the site was licensed accordingly.
In light of the new information developed by the KSGS concerning the size of the 1867 earthquake and the actual location of its epicenter, and recent microseismicity recorded along the long inactive Humbolt Fault, the postulated.32g hor +-ontal acceleration safe shutdown earthquake does~ not now The RSGS report concludes, on the appear role cons u c. t-ive.
basis of extensive review of historical records, that the 1867
" Manhattan" earthquake was at least a Modified Mercalli VII-VIII
-- stronger than the >N VII that both applicants and staff had nssumed.
It concluded also that its epicenter was in the Wameco vicinity, and was, accordingly, associated with the Humbolt Fault.
The Humbolt Fault defines the eastern boundary of the Nemaha Ridge and passes within SG miles of the Wolf Creek site.
In addition, since January, 1978, numerous micreearthquakes have occurred along the trace of. the Hucbolt Fault north of the Wolf Creek site and south in Oklahoma.
While the KSGS has not yet concluded that this means stress is building in the vicinity of the nearest approach of the fault to the plant site, they site success ful earthquake prediction ~ experience c1:ewhere in the country which indicates-that such is often the case.
The size of the appropriate safe shutdown earthquake for the Wolf Creek site can be determined by reference to your staff's Safety Evaluation Report for another of the SNUPPS units, Tyrone.
Both Tyrone, in Jisconsin, and Wolf Creek are located in the Central Stable Regi on Tectonic Province.
The following Tyrone SER discussion elucidates the reason for setting the Tyrone SSE at.2g horizontal acceleration:
" Based on historical accounts, the area of the Central Stable Region in which the Tyrone site is located is seismically very quiet.
No historical earthquakes have been reported within 100 miles of the site, and only ten earthquakes of intensity MM IV or greater have been reported within 200 miles of the site.
The nearest historical earthquake in the vicinity of the Tyrone site, which occurred sometime between.1865 and 1870, had an estimated
NRC Commissioners -- 3 intensity MM VI-VII and occurred slightly more than 100 miles west of the site.
"The Midcontinent Geophysical Anomaly is located approximately 45 miles northwest of the Tyrone site.
This feature corresponds to a region characterized by gravity and magnetic anomalies, which over much-of its extent, coincide with mapped basement faulting.
The Midcontinent Geophysical Anomaly extends generally from the Lake Superior region south-west through Minnesota, across Iowa, and in' a Kansas where it trends into the Nemaha Uplift.
The largest historical earthquakes which have been located along this feature have had reported epicentral intensities of FBI VIII.
Hcwever, as has been noted above, the characteristics associated with at least one of these intensity >DI VIII events, the Keewenaw Peninsula earthquake of 1906, would indicate that the intensity level may s
have been influenced by local geology.
If it is assumed that an intensity FBI VIII earthquake could occur on structures associated with the Midcontinent Geophysical Anomaly at its closest approach to the site; i.e. 45 miles, the intensity at the site due to attenuation would be reduced to intensity FS1 l
VII-Y111.
1
/
i "In 1954 Neumann developed an empirical relationship i
between earthquake intensity and ground acceleration.
4 More recently Trifunac and Brady (1975) have published a relation between intensity and acceleration which s,
<'O i was developed using many additional observations.
l Trifunac and Brady's data essentially corroborate i
the relationship published by Neumann.
Utilizing either the Neumann or the Trifunac-Brady relation I
between intensity and acceleration, the mean acceleration corresponding to intensity FB1 VII-VIII is 0.2g.
Based on this analysis we consider 0.2g to be the appropriate 4
acceleration for the seismic design of the proposed plant at the Tyrone site."
pp. 2-16, 17, 18 With respect to the base mat of the Wolf Creek reactor building, the significance of setting the safe shutdown earthquake at.
2g horizontal acceleration is substantial.
Your staff has been unable to donclude that the 90-day concrete cylinder tests, which showed that the base mat concrete failed to meet the design specification of 5000 pounds per square inch, were in error.. Accordingly, it ordered the applicants, who carry the burden of proof on all
NRC Commissioners -- 4
[
such matters, to show that the concrete is of sufficient strength, on the basis that the 90-day tests are assumed l
to be accurate.
The Wolf Creek architect / engineer, the Bechtel Power Corporation, performed the reanalysis by "irst determining that actual concrete strength as shown by the 90-day tests was 4460 pounds per square inch (by working backward from the acceptance criteria) and then by performing computer simulations to show that the base mat i
was adequate at that strength to permit the safe shutdown of the plant even if it is subjected to a horizontal acceleration of.2g -- greater than the.12e earthquake for which, as noted above, the Wolf Creek site is licensed.
l t
The standardized portion of all SNUPPS plants must be built to be shut down safely after a.2g earthquake.
The Bechtel Report notes that this safe shutdown earthquake is t
" controlled by a site other than Wolf Creek", but does not specify which one.
The Report states that the use in the reanalysis of the greater than required.2g assumption "is consistent with the genoral methodology used for the project, is in accordance with the commitments made in PS AR Section 3.7 and provides additional conservatism." " Seismic loads l
were cor servatively determined at the SSUPPS envelope "g" level, which is considerably higher than that for which the site is licensed", states the Report in its conclusion.
We submit that the reanalysis was, for the reasons discussed above not conservative -- that. the. Bechtel Report shows, j
if it is valid, only that the base mat is not expected to crack during the largest probable earthquake, if the concrete l
6 underroes no deterioration.
l Ie However, no allowance is made in the Bechtel Report for
/
/
normal deterioration of the base mat due to routine plant j
oper at ier..
In addition, evidence exists that the base mat
.f,'I concrete is presently undergoing spontaneous deterioration due to some as yet unknown cause.
l t
As you are aware, some of the 90-day test results were
[
lower than the 28-day test results.
Unless the reason for i
this anomaly is explained, it constitutes evidence that deterioration is taking place -- evidence which, under your agency's rules, it is the responsibility of the applicants
[
to refute.
Yet, on June 7, 1979, your staff issued a summary of the public meeting held in Burlington, Kansas on May 15, l
1979, to review with the applicants the Bechtel Report and j
i the base mat problem generally, a principal conclusion of f
which was:
"1. There is no clear cut answer as to why some of l
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 t
~_
i I
I I
NRC Commissioners -- 5 are lower than those obtained with the 28-day j
cylinders."
j Ue understand that your staff has now enlisted the technical services of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in an effort to illuminate the deterioration issue, and that several factors
)
and combinations of. factors are being investigated.
I We are aware of one such possibility, which we communicated to your staff two months ago.
It involves the possible presence of opaline in the aggregate portion of the concrete mixture.
l Opaline has, after numerous investigations, been determined to be responsible for the unusual phenomenon attending concrete made with river sand aggregate taken from northern Kansas l
rivers, including the Kaw, or Kansas, River s the concrete tends to expand and weaken over time, although this effect is seemingly somewhat unpredictable.
It is our understanding that the source of the fine aggregate for the Wolf Creek base mat i
was originally to have been a limestone quarry near Ottawa, l
Kansas, operated by the Haworth Company, but that Daniels, the
~
Wolf Creek general contractor, with the assumed knowledge of the applicants, changed the source to Kaw River sand, to be j
supplied by Holida;. Sand and Gravel of Bonner Springs, Kansas.
i The change precipitated a lawsuit by Holiday, which is pending i
in Coffey County.
We do not know that your staf f has addressed this. l t
i I
Accordingly, we' inquire whether the ultimate source of the aggregate was properly approved by your staff and whether the presence of opaline aggregate has been determined and 9
evaluated for its significance to the deterioration issue.
In sum, (1) the largest historical earthquake in Kansas was bigger than your staff and the applicants were aware and j
took place on a fault which passes 50 miles-from the plant l
site, which is only now known to be active, and which may be l
developing a " seismic cap" in the vicinity of the nearest i
i approach to the plant (2) no evidence exists that the base mat could survive such an earthquake after a peried of wear j
and tear due to normal plant operations, or at any time if spontaneous deterioration is taking place, and (3) evidence.
that such deterioration is taking place exists.
It is therefore imperative that those making decisions about the Wolf Cre' k e
project know all that can possibly be known about the nature of-the concrete in the base mat.
We ask that you provide us a complete explanation of all the steps taken by you, other governmental agencies, the applicants or their agents to determine whether deterioration of the bas.e mat 'can be i
expected.
l Finally, we ask that you take action on our petition of January 19, 1979, concerning the Wolf Creek construction f
i e - --
1
I i
i NRC Commissioners -- 6 i
permit.
It is your staff's position, expressed repeatedly, l
that the applicants' decision, without staff authorization, to remove the voluntary " hold" placed on construction of the containment building, would cause the staff to seek an immediate order from you, which they expect would be granted, requiring that such work be stopped.
In fact, a vice-president i
bf applicant KG&E advised your staff in writing at the time of the May 15, 1979 Burlington meeting that they indended to
[
resume concrete placement in the reactor containment building within a few days.
It is our understanding that " jawboning" by your staff dissuaded them.
It remains our position that i
a partial construction permit suspension is the only effective way for your agency to protect the public interest in this I
situation, and we hereby renew our request that you act accordingly.
j r,
L V
y sinecret'e
- urs, f
'i l
/l/wi t-G L's
{
.iilliam H. L'ard Attorney 4
- for MACEA i
l iiii.i: bw l
l cc: Domenic Vassallo, NRC R oger Boyd, NR C 1
Olin Parr, NRC i
Carl Seyfrit, NRC l
H.
D. Thornburg, SRC 1
i Stephen H. Lewis, Esq., NRC S. J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC i
Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Kansas Congressional Delegation t
i
)
1 J
4 i
1 l
I 1
1
t
. =
y
..s
.s
...s p,4
.~
+
.y ~.
s.'
t f
8.~
su e,
s
~
ATTACHMENT 5 1
~.
.3 s
~
~
..u-
.-q.
c.
r
.o 4
..s
_.a..
1 -
s
- s..
~
s r
s
~
p.
m e
~
e 4
e p
er *,. '
4 lg
- Me s.
y.
ghr*
h
,0
/
I
'h
.' ; - -~
y s
O 8
t G
9 8
g r
I
+
.?.
g*
.i '
e,. e
?
i 8'
g,
+
a e
r y
e -,
e' s.
l a
b i
g
,a
- 's
.e *...'
+
- /
e 4
. k e
e WO O
_g s
j
~...
s y
e p
d' O
s g*.
a y
I h
- U 4
I e e.
Y i
a.
t /Pc.V.
W.WG@ gi~ #s' v
li
~
WILLIAM H. WARD k
2horney b
5130 MISSION ROAO fp SH &.'JEE MSSION KANSAS 66205 d
4 93 3E2-5332 J
c d]
August 11, 1979-L Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Suc1 car Reguictcry Co=issicn WashinEten. D.C. 20555
Dear.ir. Stello:
Your order of July 12, 1979, Director 's Denial of Eequests under 10 CFR 2.206, states at footnote 6:
is based on the 0.12 e safe The evaluaticn report shutdown earthquake and the 0.06 g operating basis
\\
The earthquake approved for the Wolf Creek site.
information concerning seismic forces contained in the June 29, 3 979 letter from Mr. Kard has been pre-the staff and it dces not alter j
viously considered by the vibratory ground motion values for the Wolf Creek
-l site.
based on the The 1e_ter to which you refer explains that, nethodology which appears to have been used by your staff the vibratory ground motion values for the
,4 in arriving at conserva-Other SNUPPS units, the Wolf Creek values are not q
tive.
Please explain your footnote's conclusion at once.
Ve j sipcerely(, '
'/
'ilh..
('
hliiam H. Ward Attorney for the Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives WEd:bw cc: NRC Commissioners l
[c...lmh,s s
s
'. i.
9 a
. e..,.
a.
. n.
s
~
c
.s
.g
... r.
n
~
a.
. s 2
.. - s
.v.
. ~.
- y
/
.ATTACBENT 6 t
6 s
g a~
9 1-
,e., ^,
1 4
m s*
~.
,e e
..*t
==
f s
e s
g
- U M
.g 4 g "p-g
=
., g
,6 h*
.W y., p t
6
.e.
e
'e
~~
'+ -
~ a N w.
- a 3
. }. x g
1' Oe W*,*
- 9 s.
44, g*
d e
=
g.
. g
.. 4,-
- r
- e.
~
\\
s1 s
e
- e 4
e.
g w
S
.p e
s 9"me e.-.
9
+
g.
i
- 0 4
.m.
- 4.,
J m... p
%-o n'
r.
. j '. s -
.a
- +
p J
g.
==
r*
o g
Q A*
. =.
g.
4 g
. g 4
e-s.
t'
=
a f.
p b
9-a.
- y. -* r
,~o o
e gi
?,
- ....e.
9=,
h k
9.
9e -.
g e
.. a a
e j nk'g
- *.a 9
j d
e 4
Y....
J.
- s
,i a
4 L 4'
e
- h e e e,
- 9.
9
- ^"
- 3 9
e 3
e.
- g j
A p
y 6
p t
a e
e e
g 4,
s a
- 'O
..c
% ch+
p aE.
4 e
.e p
p e
~
e
+
. ~*
g 4
f.
4 e
f
. J.*
g.
- s-q.
m*
4' I"
F*
I and
,g.
. f l
l.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT r
r VICTOR STELLO, JR., DIRECTOR In the Matter of
)
)
KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. STN 50-482
[
(Wolf Creek Generating Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
i 1#
REVISED DIRECTOR'S DENI AL OF REQUESTS UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 i
I I
i Willia H. Ward, by petitions cated January 11 anc June 29, 1979, on j
t behalf of the Mid-America Coalition for Energy Alternatives (MCEA), Richard P.
b P:lle:k, by petition cate: December 27, 1975, on behalf of the Critical Mass Ene rC/ Project, and other persons 2/ have requested that the Ccemission suspend l
or re cke Cor-3tre: tion Pe mit No. CPPE-147 which authorizes construction of
+
l l
-1/
This decision was initially issueo as DD 79-11 on July 12, 1979 (10 NRC 135) and noticed in the Federal Reaister on July 19, 1979 (44 FR 42347).
Mr. Ward by letter dated August 11, 1979 requested further explanation of l
footnote 5 of the July decision concerning the ground motion values fer the Wolf Creek site. The Commission has extended the review date to
- ermit the staff to revise the decisicn in response to Mr. Ward's concern and to clarify other aspects of it.
See, Order Extending Time to Deter-rine Whetner to Eeview Director's Decision, July 27, 1979, August 13, i
1979, Septe. iter 13, 1979 and hovember 25, 1879.
In order to improve the i
record fer review, the July 12, 1979 decision is reissued in its entire y with the clarificatiens incorporated.
I
-2/
Vanda Christy of Burlington, Kansas; Max McDowell of Elmdale, Kansas; David McCullough of Emporia, Kansas; Tony White of Garnett, Kansas; Kaye Yoder of McPherson, Kansas; Ferdinand and Ivonne Eurmeister of Otis, Kansas; Marvin Dawson, James Ma, son on behalf of Kansans for j
i Sensible Energy, Janet Skiles, and Tom Wheeler of Wichita, Kansas.
Steve A. J. Bukaty, by petition dated May 15, 1979, on behalf of the Kansas Building and Construction Trades Council, also requested that the Volf Creek construction permit be revoked.
l
I
- (
i l
. i Notices of receipt of MCEA's the Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No.1.
il and Critical Mass' petitions were published in the Fecural Reaister, 44 Fed 20, 1979) and all petitioners have f
Reg. 6535,10445 (February I and February been advised by letter that their petitions were being treated as requests for At issue in the i
action under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
t I
petitions is the acceptability of the concrete at the Volf Creek facility.
Spe'cifically, the issues of concern are whether the base mat concrete suf ficient strength for its intended function and whether the cuality I
assurar.ce system at the facility is adequate to assure acceptable concrete 1
l work.
These matters have been reviewed and for the reasons given below I have 3/ as modified determined that the December 19, 1978, Immediate Action Letter -
by the March 5,1979, Intediate Action Letter / halting placerent of conc 4
i l
in the reactor ccntainment building may be lif ted and that suspension of construction at the Wolf Creek f acility is-not_ warranted in the interest of Accordingly, the above petitions are denied.2 f
public health and safety.
II
- Briefly, The f acts surrcunding this matter are detailed in Appencix C.
the Wolf Creek building base mat was placed as a en December 12 and 13, 1977 Test cylinders single monolithic pour of about 6600 cubic yards of concrete.
2#
The December 19, 1978 letter is enclosed for Appendix A.
4/
The March 5,1979 letter is enclosed in Appendix B.
basis of the facts contained in his petition, Mr. Bukaty's
'l petition on_ behalf of the Kansas Building and Constructio On th 2
is denied by this decision.
Mr. Bukaty has been thst further f actual information may be available.
contacted and has not offered any additional information.
m-
h
'I 1 i f
On j
were concurrently made from representative samples of the concrete.
the licensee notified NRC Region IV that some of the concrete March 14, 1978 c
cylinders which were tested (as specified) 90 days after the original placement i
The j
did not meet the specified strength of 5000 pounds per square inch.
f licensee initiated various efforts to identify the reasons for the low strength of some of the test cylinders, and on October 26, 1978 filed a final report which described the work perforced.
The report concluded that the low strength l
cylir. der tests were not truly representative of the concrete in place and that the concrete in place in the containment building base mat dic in f act satisfy specification requirements.
l In December,1972 the licensee reported that some problems had been l
As a experience: placing concrete uncer steel inserts for access hatches.
l result, voids existed where there was no concrete or poorly consolidatec In licht cf this occurrence, and the continuing delay in resolution l
1 i
c:nt ate.
cf c_estions on the base rat corcrete,.NRC Region IV representatives met with 5
s T
tne licensee, and exp essed the opinicn that further concrete work on the i
containment building shculd be suspended until concrete placing and consolida-l tien procedures were improved, concrete placing crews were further trained, i
i
]
concrete inspectors and inspection procedures were upgraded, and questions on e
l I
base mat quality were resolved.
Tne licensee agreed, and the agreement was l
1 cocumented in a letter from Region IV dated December 19, 1978.
This agreement l
1
?
was rodified by the March 5,1979 Ir. mediate Action Letter from NRC Region 7
i IV.6/
A special NRC investigation was conducted under NRC Region IV direction
[
i curirg the period from November 13 through 16, 1978, and December 6 through 8, i
6/
Sas note 4, above.
l 0
l s
~
.z.
1973.2 The investigation team was co= posed of inspectors from NRC Regions III a,d IV and Para:~e:er, Inc., a consultant on concrete engaged specifically The team conclutec that it could not agree with the for tnis purpose.
licensee's opinio-anc that the test data cust be considered to accurately On the basis of the test data, reflect the stren;th cf the concrete in place.
it was cetermined that a caxitam strength of 4250 psi could be justified.
Tnis as apprcxiettely 10% unc'erstrer.gth from tne design strength of 5000 psi.
I The evaluati:n of actual 90-dty molded cylincer test cata was the first l
steo in the sec_ertial prccess cal'ec for in tre ccdes applicable 10 the Wolf
\\
Creek f acilit;. for the resolut c- :f ite atestion of concrete strength.
te ncted that scre cf :te 90-cay cylinders showed loser strengtns It shcul:
tia cor.pEnten cy'inde s f co -he sare batch Of concrete testec af ter 28 cays.
As i'.h all :ss tita :hars is s;ms rar.demr.ess expe:ted in test results, but i,cicate that the concrete strength has cae generally expe:ts Be tran:s Inere a e, of cearse, a.va-iety of problems which coule increased witn agt.
contracic this expectstion.
In this pecct:e an affect.nic, '.ccic seem ::
-hic 7 co;1d Pave caused sucn an par-i:uiar case tre cest p'ausib'e Or:ble.
c:r:ani:n cylinters as that 50:e river gravel in the vicinity ef f ec; cn scat of tha site is kn: n to cer.tair. an ingredient w,ich can cause loss of strength Tne h?.C consultant suggested that in cercrete urdar :ertiin circumstances.
this rign; explair. tne a:paren:1y a.c alous behavier of some of the test Tc test the va'.ici;y of t7is hypothesis, and to independently cyli ncers.
correlate the restits cf scme cf the tests perferced by the licensee's consul-the tenstruc:i:n Tecnnolc;y Lat:ratories cf the Portland Cement Associa-
- tant, Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment tier., NRC arrangec for the U.S. Arr/
15, 1979).
2/
See. s:ectic; Es:crt STN 5C-Li2 '78-13 (Fa:ruary
~ - - - _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f i
1 i
i 3
I Station to pe-fctn incapendent petrograp.'.ic exaninations of samples of concrete n
l from the :est cylincers.
The July 5,1579 :orps of Engineer's report is made
-i par: of tr.is cecisica as Appendix 0.
a examination of the Corps of Engineers ccrrelate
?.esuits cf the indepencer.:
Both j
closely v'th the results of the licensee cc sultant's examination.
resul s 5 ow that there is no evidence of c:ntarination with adverse ingredients whihh may have cause; E icss in strer.g h of the cen: rete over time and that 1
the sas;iss are re:resentative of soun:, re:2:ise.y high strength concrete.
H:wevir, :;e to tre ru'titude cf parEmeters tr.a: can af fect strength, a cicar i
t e <p. a.5:i;,
f 19e exact c2ese of :ne insta tes of the los 90-day strengths i
i Cinno. be r,ade.
Use the determinec l
~"E rixt step d f f ned in.he 03:e re qu#reme,;s was 1 Siren;;
.1150 ;si ic ev aluati cr rearily:t 10Eds while testing all stress, s.rait. E*d t'le:.i:n criteriE.
Ine licenies cc-ducted such a reanalysis by i
two a'ter stist re:h:d; to cettrtire
.'e ner tne ::wered strength concrete P
i mig" te t: e;15:it #c tse at tre Wclf C et< s -::e.
Ths licensee's rearelysis was s :ri:.ed :n J n2 f,1575 incicatirg thit :ta structure was acceptable.
i
}
Tne "ceries's -eE,alysis ar.d ;be e o Of tne Corps of Engineers have 1
1 bE ar. re. iewe d.
The cot:1usicn of cur rsvies is that the concrete base mat I
will wit s a.d t*e srecified desigr leads a-d Eli icading ccmbinations without it:2irme,; c' 'ta structural irtegrity or its safety functions.E/
if the l
t
-8/
Esaicatic. Ee;or: ?.egarcir; tre Cc.1c ete Strength of the Reactor Buildir.;
Eis e M2: a': f Cree'< 5enera:ia; 5:2-i:n, wnich is nade part of this cecision l
asc is at: ached as Apper. dix E.
Tr.e evaluatica repcrt is based on the 0.12 g !
safe sh;t::en eart",cuake and tne C.C5 ; coerating basis earthquake approved The information c:nretning seismic forces contained l for - a W:if Oriek site.
i-tre.'r e 2E, 2575 le ter fr:t Mr. Vi-d has been previously.consioered by t,s s aff a-d it dses not alter One vit a: cry ground motion values f or the a:I' ;raec si:a.
"r. evaivatic, of tne seisri: issues contained in Mr. Vard's Of tnis ce:ision a-d is attached as Appendix :.
The
.5 :e
's 1:2 par:
155.55 -1'sid i-P. Ward's is lir.tv6 als: :een brought to the attention-e.,.
c..t.......s.
{
,,... s..a..,.. ;.
,._e.....
a n
.. - ~
~
t reanalysis had shawn that the design loads could not be accommodated and still j
f meet the stress, strain, and deflection criteria, under the codes, the next i
step would require that ccre borings be taken from the structure and tested.
Even though tnis next step was not necessary, a core boring program has been f
considered early in the evaluation of the strength problem.
However, such a program under the circu= stances here would not have resolved the question of con' crete strencth and was not reccr. mended by the staff for the following (1) As e.any as 200 borings would have been necessary under the appli-l reascas:
i cable ccdes.
This nu ber of torings taken from the cat interior resulting in severir:; reinforcin; 2:ael wculd raise additional and perhaps more sericus cuestions since Ine 1:ac tearinc capacity of the base mat is primarily governed ty tre reinforcir; steel.
(2) A core tcring program would have cuestionable value sir.ce it -culd ce ur.likely inat the cores would sample the icw strength cor. crete which migh; te ar.y.here in the 6600 cubic yarcs cf the base mat.
L (3) Core borings from the actcal base cat due to their age (more than a year old) -ould show larger values than cylinders taken af ter 90 days.
Tha accep-
)
tance criteria for na base mat were based on 50 cay cylinders and no correla-tior. exists for relating the core strengths of c:ncrete more than a year old to ccncrete test cylinders 90 days old.
III In response to car ccncerns about quality assurance resulting from the findings of the inspection conducted during Nove ber 13-16,1978, and
- /
Dece ber 5-8, 1973,1 NRC Region IV representatives met with senior 4
- /
The findings are repcrted in Inspection Report No. STN 50-462/78-13.
A Notice of Violation was issued on February 16, 1979, on the basis of this inspection.
"w
l 1
-7 t
i representatives of the licensee and its construction contractor.10/
l Agreements achieved during the meeting including the licensee's commitment to l
suspend placement of safety-related concrete are documented in an Immediate i
Action Letter to the licensee dated December 19, 1978.11/ Based on information l
t, obtained during follo<-up inspections that were conducted to examine the licensee's irplementation of these agreements,12/ NRC Region IV concluded that l
tne' licensee had been responsive to the NRC's concerns and that modification i
of the December 39th immediate Action Letter to permit placement of safety-l related cencrete except in containment appearec appropriate.
Inspecticn Report No. STN 50 'S2/79-04 describes action taken by the l
licensee and findings af an inspection conducted nn March 5-8, 1979, at the i
4 resumption of placecent of concrete at Wolf Creek.
During the inspection on i
March E.1979, $ht licensee nctified the NRC that it had again terminated I
This action was consistent with NRC Region 'IV's.medifi-placenent of ccnc ete.
cation of the December 19th Immediate Action Letter and demonstrated the
-l lice see's adre-e ce to its quality assurance program.
I Cespite the licensee's ef fort to establish an effective quality assurance l
\\
program, l RC Regicn IV found weaknesses in the program as indicated in Inspec-tion Repert Nc. SIN SC-432/79-04 and as discussed in the related enforcement i
l letter dated April 11, 1979.
NRC Regicn IV, in the enforcement letter accom-f i
panying the reper, a'.so expressed the view that the licensee had not assigned
}
a sufficient personnel :o the project to implement an effective preventive l
s i
The cesting is reported in Inspection Report No. STN 50-?S2/79-1.
_1_0/
11/
See note 3, above.
The inspectica findings are contained in Inspection Report Nos. STN l
~~22/ 50-422/75-02 and STN 50-482/79-03.
l
quality assurance ef fort.
As a result, a nanagement meeting was conducted in Region IV's effices on April 28, 1979, which is reported in Inspection Report No. STN 50-422/79-10.
Since January 1979, the licer.see has increasec the on-site QA staff fro:
three full time to seven full time and two part time engineers of variocs disciplires.
Recruit:ent of additional QA staff cembers is continuing.
As a res' ult of the increase in staffin;, the licensee's QA surveillance of constru:-
l tion acti.ities his increased sigr.ificantly.
During ine period January 1, 1979 tc July 11, '.979, an average of eignt surveillance reports per month were issued es cor:ared to an average cf three reports for a fif teen-renth pericd ending Dece-tir 1975 The staf f cf the licensee's Nuclear Develcorent Cecart-rent nas een recrganized.
A ne "onstruc-ion Manager has been hired.
Aodi-tional re:rui:in; fer several staff er.ginesrs is being conducted.
Currently, the res;i:s cf a st.d,. cf the licensee's ( A pr0gran by an outside C:r.su'. tant are being revie-e: and implemente: by the (GiE Quality Assurance Commit:ee.
Janiel Irterr.ational (the crimary cen:ractor at ine site) has ir.:rtased tne c,-site CA staf f ty ore mEncer to a to:a1 of six.
In additien, tne l
ass ignren: cf a rev QA r.anacer his visibly increased the quality of the
)
1 Caniel Internatier,ai's QA audit program.
The Daniel International corpcrate QA staff also cor.fucts cuarterly en-site audits.
Daniel International r.as made organi:t-icnal cnanges to streamline the lines of authority ar.d responsi-bility of ine site mar.agement.
The following chan;es have been made.
a.
The At inistrative Assistant to the Project Manager has been coved fr:. a staff positica to a line ;osition of responsibility with the Services Mana;er, Personnel Administrator, Training Cocrdinat:r and Security *drinist.ator reperting to this position.
g t
i c.
b.
Two positions of Assistant to the Construction Manager have been created and filled, both of whom report to the Construction Manager.
I This was done to permit more management attention to quality of i
construction work.
l t
The position of General Concrete Superintendent has been created and l
c.
?
filled with the follcwing positions reporting to him:
Paint Superintendent; 1ron Vork Superintendent; Concrete Superintencent; l
and Batch Plant Superintendent.
-f The positior, of QC Civil Coordinator has been created and filled.
l c.
l The position of Technical Superintendent, Concrete, has been l
e.
f established and filled.
3 Pcrsonnel changes ha.e been made in the follcwing positions:
Con: rete Superin.encent; Personnel Administrator, Project Pac-/.
Welcing QC Engineer; Project Services QC Engineer; construc-icn j
Manager; anc Constre: tion Engineering Manager.
5pecific trainin; for con: rete placement crews uncer the directica of the j
Tecnnical Superintendent, Concrete, is being done for tech difficult piacement.
1 Daniei internatior.a1 has also contracted Management Analysis Consultar.ts, San Diego, California, to review the site organization including the QA structure and make recommendaticas for i:provement.
j Adcitional inspections were conducted specifically to observe ccncrete work in progress en P, arch 26-29, 1979,13/ April 9-12, 1979,14/ April 15-19, -
i i
13/ Inspection Report No. STN SC-482/79-05.
14/ Jnspection Report No. STN 50-482/79-07.
1 1
- ~,
.t i
l 22-25, 1979.17/ Cther inspections 1979,15-/ April 25-25,157;15/ and October conducted during May 14-17, 197ESS and Septecter 17-20, 19791S addressed thel resoluticn of various open items from earlier inspections.
The results of these inspections indicate that Vcif Creek's quality assurance program 1's effective in correctir,g icentified problems.
Accordingly, I finc reasonable assurance that the licensee's quality ass'urance program is adaquate to permit resumed placement of containment
)
Thus, for the reascas stated in this decision, the petitions to concrete.
suspend or rescke the Wclf Creek construction permit are denied.20/
Nonethe-less, the N?,C will cc-tinue its irspection ef fert at the Wolf Creek f acility to assure that th5 iitensee ccrre::ly places concrete and properly maintains its c;ali:y assurance program.
A ce;y of th's dsterair.atic, siil be placea in the Commission's Fublic 1
Ecc. rent Ro:m at '7;7 M Street,
.'LV., Washington, D.C. 20555, and tne local
[
t Psciic Cetument E ot for tne Kaif : reek Generating Station at the Coffey Coc,ty Courth:ese, Suriincten, Kansas 55529.
A ccpy of this dccur.ent will 4
_1._5 / Inspection Esper: No. STN 50-182/79-08.
i 15/ Inspection Ripert No. STN 50-422/79-09.
J
_1_7 / Inspecticn Esper No. STN 50-452/79-18.
}}/ Inspection Repcrt No. STN 50-482/79-12.
_lo/ Incpection Espert No. STN 52-452/79-17.
Critical Mass has also sugcested, without elaboration, that the
~~20/ circumstances surrounding construction problems at Wolf C sek indicate Since "significant weaknesses" in Region IV's inspection cacabi ities.
potential pr:biecs with containment concrete were first ioentified in March 1978, Ee;ica IV has, i n c:njunction with ILE Headquarters, been continuously a'.are of the liter.see's actions, has guidec and required tarious acti:ns ty the licansse, and has obtained specialized assistance j
frc: cther N:.C cffices and oc site parties.
Thus, I find no basis for i
- ne expressec cor.cern accut tne adequacy of Region IV's inspection effort.
I i
c also te filed sith tne Sscretary of tne Cor.ission for its revies in accordance I
i t
sith 20 CFR 2.205(:) cf the Co.=issicn's re;uiaticts.
I r
Jn acccrcance wit,10 CFR 2.2C5(c) cf the Commission's Rules of Practice, this cecisica vill c:nnite.e the fir.al action of tne Ccemission twenty (20) e days af ter the diti cf is si.ance, unless the Com.ission on its own motion institutes review :f t..1s cecisicn wi.r.in t.at ti.me.
/
[
,J
'/ -
i
\\ c!C-5:el:c, Jr.
i
( 1.. c. e.o Offics cf Irs:ection
- f..e en.
. s c.,. w L
t e
[
i i,.i..,
i t,..,
.. *..,e.s.,
. C g,.
C.
tC e.
w.
6 *:
I v. t. 3. r v,
- 1. 9..:7 12 s,.
..C e*
s wC g,
P n.
...evs. ::
..c.~.)
. C. ~.....:.,. /:.
e 3.ic #6.E ActiOr lette-t l1. : r...s.
M:
- .-.c.
4% *. -.
1: EC'e;2 Actior: Lette' ~
~
~g
- p C C. *.....* ',V C '. C'.t.r *.* *. O '. *. ~ e.s t
p.
.o.. s. c c z -
c....ra.,
L,. e e A t.
I c...
-;.- c... i 3 r.
R. :.r,,,. r. c f gc-.c ".'..".'.'5 I.X'.s.-i E.t r
5.a.i:n, l'.5. Army Coros cf
- o".Citts
,.nenca : - 5:a.f :.va.. sat:en repor:
Tecar:ir.o Ccacrete Strengt, o the.-..u: tor Eu11cir; - Ese
- Mst, 0.f Creek Generati.o 5.ati:n 5.a.f. s;sns e to.,.1..na aarc's 3
.e a
.,. ;;e nta r -
t Lette cn 3eis. ic isnes at WM Creet f-T I
I B
i 6
a
+
x. u A,. 9.. t m s. m n.3
.:.o.,.s.:.>...s.....
- 7.. t.
.,....-..~. u.. n
...._. m -
c,.
.,( c~
~.5
~
s) 1o, 10,78 9
%.a.
D=. e 5=s.
k n.-
r.=
do. STh. :n.-r52 r
Kar.sas Gas aM dect-iC Cc s. an.v ATi7h M. E. L. Kast=--
. ~
Vic.e tresice s-voe-atic.ns Da rs,s u.
D:.,=:s Ca-w-n k'iChita, Kar.5as 67201 g,...., 2=..
s.
l
->.y-->
y~
u-r y; p -s e :' g e a n
- r. n..... = -
..: = u aw,
=.. a.: e v.
and Mr. J.' >M. Evans, F.inacar,
- ..s rii t-s.
= ' ": n
- =
~?
Gfrup of C.ar.iel Cor.st c: tion C:- Eny, Ir.t.
^ r ' '.v C' " ' '= *c s * *
- Y" V
- L. "* * . ':*. e " " =e n ' =:
,... b b :8 d. T # ~- *
..O *. O
.',.' " 1 61 "' rT"32'O. O :e C"-
s c
6ca nana...'.s a;
lg
- . s.e. e. =.
- .eCq =.
..a V.8
~~
..
- Ve
.c,,. :,. = :,,.:
r..
n-.5'.c..
c n.#.
.. 2. g
- 8..
s.
Ne
.a/c.."n I'.#. 5 5 s 5.
- 5..s-. e c.. L. n.. e.' n
~~w~l'.
C ". V'.. E ~. i ^ ^..t J" :
.a,
...O
.r.
s
..V
.-:.r.N
- c. E *.--ec*c t :. - :... :... ~,
- c-E *
- -a e =.= - -.. -
.C 3
.C. J J '.,, C.s
. s... ~k : =.. ) O., G s 6.
n~*
y
. ~ -
C,s.. *K S :s *s.o.
- -7 s
.s 1 f * *:
e k..
- e. r -. J e
.J
==
-.4*,.
s n-.s ss s-.s c.
C. S g 1 : C :. e t.,
-;> s e
=...
.s..
- *. *q.
g ( :
.J.
a L.. :. e,.:,.. :. p e ge.. J.4 e.. 'm. f,...,. :.?.. c. }
- - e., a
- +.n-
.e.. s v. 5,
ggpagJ y.1
.4-m.
. s
.b. O / o C.y. L. 4 L.. &.:,-*--
, 9 :.
...J.
4 i.
..:a
- . 5:..e-Q, rE):..t0 4
.,..,..E..:
_. s :... -Q.. s = s....
.s. s. :
>s s
I :.. ::.. s.
a.
7 c n;,,,
s D.
,,.:,ye.
..... ::. s =. :
.e..~...=.e.
- s., - u. =- : J
.. >=.>. ;.,,: q.5 e
s av aes..
y.sy-2
..:.... c.
asd..,
L...:. C w.,
r, i e
- e. s.
~...
g k
cm.
s
..J
. :. '. s.. :. J s.e.--Q e.. j z. ;... 5
~.,...:=.f'.. e...~*..=..=.
..=.:..=..-
C.~
w.
w a f
~
r y
p w....y e.=
e.
y n; C n...z. s i. C'..:a s C:,
e
- -..:-. s.
a :.
a
. :..... e,,y
- 2...
e.: :.
c
- e.... :. a. :. :
c.
.O 2
e
=~.s..
. - C "w'. C ' ' *s*:
-. ^ " c. d ". - s s c.... a..g,
s..e.=......3a ca 7
...e.- s a.,.
r.......yc~.y
.2y s>n 7
-J..-.....y.
-~1 = :4..
.O...-:....
c :ve w....
c.
=-y e n.*.$ s* y e 5,9s, cn;
. -. ; c. - =.- -. -' s s w
g n' b " - - ; c(*
- - ~. -
,r,.
r.>5.
, z..3 r--..'*.**-
e = - -- e
- e' s
V C D -. l *s t
- r4 0 '.. ) c.(, c
",O~a."Us=5,
O~,
c u,Y y
~
...c
+ v,. C.."6. l a '. ".
~s~ ".,
-.v *. **~ 5 *. *..'. *-':.
U:.1 a yV r.c. 5 "m '.* 1, e,. v a. #,#,1 g,-
i.
,,,e,---3 r s
~.
~w..:'.<. 8-y g =.. :j :/.....s,S,,yp.,r.,;.,_3..e.
..s.
w.
g re- --. :s 3
2
- e. -...
- s. -....
.;c. u
..w
.~y
~~ * * ~
~s 0 " Y c ~e ~s ~e,V's s. :
..u c e e...> --> Ca
'w'.'. ' - ~, -..' 1..Y '. e c * * ". c*s * *- "..-:
us y
-m
.e
..:.\\s.
- c e
co-cre e +s w.cs r
3 c e..=...
>... c w...:..e.n2.. s v. g ve o-s.
r y... r -g.-.,,7
, a, c_.
- e. c. A -->
a 6.. f :..= * >.
b
+
h h
9 j
b I
i
m _ _ _ _
1 i
C: x.Y J
3
~~
r * * * * - * *
- 0. " V E '" "* *.v # ' "
C "., G ~ ~..~, l
- ~
'#~"
- r.8. g.5 ". V. C.' ' Ii:
C. ". $.1 i.j 4
f.
r....: E g
+6.. s.
c s. 3..
i.
c.: + '. :. gecJ.. sy-
?
c.:
e.:.z.
y 5
.'sg n..s:,..
e
...s c s n
.s s
r*
s.
s
...\\.: C.. s u.s. c ~f,.
.. 2
. 9:4 g :4..
- h. e g.3g.ar=..j z. e.
n.a. e g y : y..:..+. s..,... k.
- i
/.
co; l a..3 rz.: A,r C..,
a.,i
.~..p - b.2 ] i.
.O C.c..2....:.r.z. rrOL L.]E CE,,5e.
. n.
e i
u
.. ~
COr;E Ci'.'E 2CtiC1.
i L.% V 6 '. "s 'w* a* ". '. ~~..
- A
.e,r. a : C"s C
- i
- La iW g/e.n;
..a g.-
- a s
so
~s e
u--..--
~.
- r.,Y) a...
24.
.a C
n 5
- c. p..:s. $a,5.
s c
t
. s )..e k.
- n.. s:e,.]
eL g. 5 '. - ' ' ". ". #. *.~. C D...'.2 '. V, E d 'r.D
". C~.....i %s.. a. C *....~,,. #..c #. a -
i f.
.g t
- c..
re
- . z $5 - :s..c, L.;.
c.
w:
J *
,v.. r.:&,, (b 15....,. n., t e g i... S..:. v.., r. < s 'a. z. s.
u r
c..
y \\.:C.p
.r. s
- 3..e. 6 3 - L =,. g,..,,. y r,.
.. 3.. 3. c., 3 a,.:
c vo. c
.,.m..
a 9,..pn.,
I
, m,:.,,.
n,. c. s. \\.,. c c y. - ) jw.m. e. r...
J.o.
.t e]2ce.-=..'
C*
s* c ' *..v *+ c I c* '.a # -
. 5 ni 4...
+-
.a.. r
..e a g )
- k..e g r'
- g $ '... e..s :.
7
- z..f
- n e.,.
r ~. w a.
- i
(-...
.,.. s e v
,s.:.:.
t...,7,..>.
r.,... g.,,,.,.J e
.: t-e.<. g
.4*...:...g
. c.
3. c.
g:....
g.... -.,.. -.. g.
ja wei I
g 6s.
-~.
'f rJ :...
- ...y.
s.*.. e... Q*.
p... : *1 ],
l 4
4
.: y...
r s...: ; v.:::a,
- e..m.... ".a.
r.%.. :. s....s. 3 c
.s
~
as
....i.'.. C e gg-
. ~,
".t.:. : :
',s
.e
~..y,,g e,. e. h = (, :g lg,., g g y.
.se.
L I
..I e.
)8
.V.. f* ; *, *,
. e.
- b. = g
- ,a
.*....c.,.
.V..,
s.
7.
'.=.40 s..g C.6....
.a.
- e
..c
.4
..~....:.....z,e,iC.::o a2.. :.... :: r.;:. o.:
d a.
t
..g
., : + % :.
- C..
- :... : ;., C :. : =1,r.
w
.r..it r;:...:
.o:
1 e
e.3 y
... y..e...T y :. :. e. -. : ]
.u. e r.,...c..:
. -.o.g g.
c s-c.. k..
..e
].,..
.f8
.g q.e
.g.***
.g
.=
.e.
r.e..
g...%.
3P.O 3.$. 8..'g.
1
- r.
...,g.g
..l..
- .g g
,.. -. =. =
ty...'.......
J. :4. 4.. c. * ;.
y6 e.
- w g,.
y.
1
.. 5 c- *. ;. ~.,'-. S. E ~. E.*. ' ' -. ".".~.'.'.3."2 k
.,,a
,a
.'.f,*.*t,.,,..,
- g g ;;
.. : - b, c.
-);..
s...;r.g..
- c.. -
..c,
.J
. m.. 4 ; J. t.. d :. e..
,.., y e,.
b
.A i
s
.a i
,s
.Z
..3." :4.y g q s
..L.1...
.a.. Z. Z. g f
e p e, e..
- 1. p.
3..
C E
- *:),v,
s...
w t
/
- f.
C p g.#r.: d.
..I V..
)
e e...
f e
54. g. s, d.
P gg g
I r
{
i Y
E l,
f t
b t
1 m
v..
n
~,,
-r
~ - =
1*NIU ') 5~A' T.5
,c 9" j
, l
. p *~ % g W01 E A A 7 E C'." AT:P.Y c09 w: iC %
1
.e'.
. E -.1 C y IV 4
h.s *.. *~ /.:..'
r e
g g.. y~... p.... p.y.s.
. -. s g ~.
.a
.,,. m.
y"/e f
~
l
.i
.r g
- 'y AP.'.!N;; ;n.TIxAs n n o.s.o,.-;e,
,c >~
.v...C D.
e,/
- w, b
r r.:. E...,..
.e.s 5-.
+s P.? 1
..-. e.>...
/..
..e..O eO.
J.
s
.K s.
l y:..S,5 r, n.....;..~1a. s :
rw g s - v -..f >...
c w -.
.ma.a.
- v...
C.
- 1. y-,5a..
e ---w i4 t
., p e.. 4.c..
y.. C. m.
e.a 4f p
t I.3 a w..
s O... '),,
f vn L
~.t.,
y, s.s 6/ 2~4.11 ht..a4 j
I w.g. j.., 2 =..o -
- L.
...s...'.p
,L.
..m...
j-
.?
4:
,/.,
" : e.
- 3..:
.,. e.~..,
3 9 $.,. :.
.. 9.., a e. ; ;
1
..,c...=..
a..,.
.. -... =... e. n :..... + w.. e,
- g...... u.....,.....,,3
- ....s...
,c..:
g
.s.,,..
- r...
- y...),..,.
3..,.... m..
..4
.e..,
r...
.:...c.....
.yg....
c i,:...
.p..
..y c...
.v
~..
s.s g......,,y c...
e.
..:..(
c....:
s.q e..
c
.s...-..t-a..
~.
...,..e..
,..,.5,.
.w..
... a.
. :. c
.,.. :.........:.y..
- =... y. -. n e.
- z.. s e..
4
---r.i
- 4..
e,
,. e.
. L.. t,...,
g 2.
e..,-..... c.
.t s..... >
...3
- r....
z.. s e.
..s..
. :. - 2.
g
-e..
A.. :. * *...**e*s
.t*..*...:*
e..
..: e..
.y i..
a.2
..w.
...s. :- :..
- 3..r..
.. '...,w
.g 8
........;,. e 6...... e.
- e P.
e
.....'..w
......,g. s.. g..r
- 3. g. o. 3.... + e 3.= y
- w..a 4. g C 4 4.
- r....
, t ).. n
...e w.
jw w...,.
.: a. :. s. s. '.,y s
- .
- .. :.,...A..
~ ~. s...-..... : $.. } *, L =
- n. #...... {. s.. :. A.
- s ym J
-s
.~..... :.. - = [.
a.*
- ........'.*g...e*b
.: m. *e s ;... a.
n
.tedLJ
- . L., T :- (m..
a
.4 u.
8
=.
e.
e...
t....
.,.. =., a j e.. y.
..g....,...
.ca..
s} =.......t a.
g...:
6
- b
..a
- =
,.,. C.,.g
- ... a '. g.
.
- s.. s C. c.
- g..
.t
.p e
C.
. m *
- 2
. a.
'V i *. *n i
. f..# 3.*
5.
.e.=..
.w.
w-
~
..:.: s s..e t
s
- \\... J
...,,,,....,z
$ :., =a. s y.
.g
=*
- g.,
...,g
=..=.s.
g r e..
c.
.k.
..:* s. =.a *
- 6 4.
g e.:. =...g
.4 g
g =. s. e C:e*
.,3s e,,,;.
.e
.p,,g g,
..S..
c.e. c.,7,
g,
, x...
L, y..f g
e
.o
.4
...,,.ev.e.'.,
b..
e.
z = c...,...., 4 ;. g e.g.
7.
.at. ~,..q s... _,...
, -... ~. s g gy :
n..:
3
.,z. ~. e...
w.
.a
~:s :. a
- e.. e. ~. s.
u..
.l... :,,
p
- j '.s. g #. *b; O s *r5 f.2..
.O
.....6 1.
68
.. w e..y 4.;.
.4s..
C,
- . e
!l...., (g c.s..m J. -
.y e. g.. :
J*q t.
.1 4...
- .,. e g....,..g
.. gs e d.a.
.3=.
1 s. *. 3
.a..
(~. d.' i. $.-*.
.s*
....g.g
.. s.4 he th b A s ed w. a w...., in g g3
.p.-
e e
.e
....C J
- g., e., s.. *ye
{ g.
j r..,. p p. p *, c,.,.
s.,
~ M sty
- .,3 :
t y,
a r.
J.
- <-.. *. p,2.
4
,s aw g...
., a s s s.. g :...
s.
. 4.
8 4 44 7.
s.
- s. : M y 9 : :..i. e 3...w
\\. 4.j'.g s
. e.
C. 7
- 6.., p i
4 r
i i
...8
.4w
- s..
.s....
,s......
1...
.. -.. e m.1
. L...
s a "'.
..1d 6
L.
4 e
I
~
7 K.' ns 15 65 ar,d E.lBOiTiC
+
C u-c. A
' A * '- " b C - l o'3 "
4 k
If c.- er.ferstanfir,; cf ycur piar.s is incensister.: with the above, pMse; c:nti:t :nis criace 1:;ne,1 ate.ly.
Sincerely,
].
~
//
/p i
~f f W gj r
/s
- .,w g
,arl V. Seyfrit
/
Lirector l
..,...~J.,,
p~r 5 y... r.
4r n..
?. E. Yas sai'ic. ADLWR
- .. Licitra, L.. s-nr
'l e
p 4
O e
W f
s i
i 1
t O
9 e
9 S
S e
6 e
1 l
f 9
I St. r.a.v c' CoacrEte Problems l
'Jolf Creet 16citar Plant P
Cmcrete na placed for the reacter cor.tainmen: 1uildine base mat in a i
i
.ine total vo.lume of the i
b 7.
continucus caeratio. c:a De:e.bsr 12 anc.13, i
10 foot thick rat was nearly c5DJ cutic yards.
St.~ ole test cylinders cf the l
.c e.rc '.=. w=-e *..:k=. d ~.'-:.
_Sc_ pl c.c.=.
- c.. ' suks a. g"=a'.l.v tes '6 a a' 7 cnd 29 ad
- a a
cays after placere.t to :ste: ine the rate of strength gEin. Sa :Ple cylinders
?
'or the final 90-c'ay stren:th dete-r.ination also were obtained.
Da P.a rch 13, 1c7 3, ;
the 90-day cylir.d=rs were tested---at:;t 9% failed to mest one test criterien; Eber. 55 faile' to :.e-st a se:m' test criter1Cn.
the N:.C inspe: tor was c
.c '. :. 4 9.n o-1'.a r cn' n.., 'i. ~/ E.
Inspec.1on
'no-c.~. l :. n.' a. -
u i n '. w"... : ' c.
m".:- c
- . c a,
F.e?crt STN 501E2/ 72-G4, dnad l'ar:h 3i, I:75, noted that the c.uestion of the
'.= s =.". c '. h. - d n o'w c c _ g, v.c'$.r-=..:. h ~., ~. v t...-.= '. = #. ^.. "... =.. ".....
o a ' =. i n...=.
'6 D
c a
4 I
.een 5ett.t et.
g
- l. 3 t
- h...
C#. I#.%'V ',
. '. ". ". Y, 1 "i. '. C ". ~...
- 1. 5
./
1 1
- r. c-l '.i _'..c c :
V m 5-C *
- c,..'c..*.'l~.
-s
- m n.
?
7
..:a.
i.e.
=e..
7 :.3 o ). 5 e:
n: e... e. :.. e l
. s.. :.
12. %.
i1-:
- e.z,. : r.. e.
~.~.e.
.6 s7
- s
. :...: =. ;. s
= =.
=,.n.. =..
.9. k.. :. q:. r..
T..:
) :. c e.n.. e. :. g :e.
b 2
i n..
5..c..
. s.:.:
..e.
> a:
s : n \\.. z.. :. E. C'1s 11,.. ns c.:. s
....O.
c
') L...,.,
.,:.. :.e :. :., r~...1 3,.
- ..-.a e--
.o s:.n
.v,
a..
s
.a.
6
- 6. u.
F c
s.
ia..
l 6
. c n g.. c;, f a e.c. /
..js.:s.
- 2. 3. c.. :..
i.. ps..
e rk
/
l
,, L. :4 v.
.b..:.4 L.: : -....
=..
.. e
... i
. - r 6.
r e.
l..e..'c..D*T. *a*e i
3,
.~/.~,
2 ;- Z, t.~ /,
r.. :. s *.....'./., c..'
.'=."-.=."u=.,
t y=V.
~.
s
- e. :.,..c
- '.e 3 y : :.
.:. 4.. 3..
r.:. 1 3 - c...c e. :. '.c e*
1. c.
t.. ws$
. r. m. -. c. c e
- c. 3.w:-
.o 1.
j L,..... c.:,
.:/.;.
eL.D
...s
.. a..:....
l
- ,.,.,,,,. o.. e s., 3. c o.. 5,, _ a... s:..., s...... =,.
4.
. 3 c.3a.
- u. a,. --.3.3..n3 2
wa.
L r..._,
.:s
- 4..,.;:
,.4.. Ty (.e ] ] c.. ) r: 1.
io.
..e......,
u., :.., n c.
1a..e.5.:
E :.
- 1. s..
.. :z.
m
.. e a.r, a. :......:
.3 c a.e. a. :...a.:
.. c
.......sca.
i
,y,j7..
e..
- V D c. "w e *a... r I, I. 7 7.,,. h *.
- m. s.
e.
e.
6...
. a,.
.c.. :.......:.
g P.f.r,..
.6 y
. V :. '.' 'i : M.. S. "...:.~. '
s, s.
.. g... a. c. ;.
.r.. ~.~. c.'.."..~....**.i.C".
~"*
.a.
j e y =..:......:...a a.
n n:. y :.
C..
.:...6:
- .z....:.
.; ;C.
E........e.
..a
.. c., 4. :. :4.:...,....:
1
..:.. 3..:
.1 s....... :..a r:
at.
..:7 6ca.
w.
s 3..
.,.,. : 1._.2... L. E
- e.. s. 5., e... a. E.e 1
....a a
..:. c.s.
_ a...>. :......w.
- s. c e..
. : s.
..a C n... :..
- 5.r =. "1"g ~.h' I
- ... k. g c e.
... c.c,. C ..
. a" c U. ~ ~.~ _c I #. ".. ~.. c~ ~,V, S..'.~. U.8 ~. # * * ~ #.
s.
. s..
- . i :.. s,.:... l.., e.
<rw
.as.O w.
1,... s.. s.
. w..J..
.we
~
yI:a..
e 1
.s E c :. a wa:
n....
.u:.,..
c..
s...>.:...
c.
n.
.s.
w.
t
- u t e =.7. emus 7:..-. 9.
.S.
c.'L. c.n. c 6.. c.., Q. 3 p. cs.
y.
a.
- s. rec'.CT
- . "\\.C E =. : 4 C..
". Y b"i. h d
4
'..'e.c. c... c. 4..r vz. c h. :. 3 r.*
A. v ' F._e N -
['n
- 3 C e.A. c.,-
. +.
s.
6nc llc _'4'c'.
. ^., '".,..C ' S
~.a~. #. 5'.'.."..'.t.
O'. ^. ^.. ". n ". *.C ~ '. '.5. ~6 '. On
- 8. D d '. O E.*N.7 1 c* e. '. 2 'c i
a.
- s..c. f sy A h.,3 pi..g.
L5
'n:a 5 j ? n r.... g., ] c.,.. J P
... w
.c....
na
- w.. i 7
3
.o a.
a....
,7,
- b e. 1... g. c e :. 7....c.e. g. r...a T C "7. C '.. ~w. C *. *. *i C 't c._ e ".,".,
c' r.,
.p.,. c,.. c. e.
].?.,
a
,...J 1,.. n 6 hE..h 1.,.hE 4
.2.]
3 :a c.... S :.
c.
- s 1
. g r,..J,.,. y - a.. l i.. e., o.
C C.... : :
y...:
6.
a c
T E E Ct CT C C'"'.'ii nTi".1 D L' i 4 G '.~.
e7C'.ni" VCic WES 7 00 n0 De.EE';.n T.h: PE *5 Cnr.El
'1. '/.,
07
- .*.* 4...". 1.0.,
C C
. U I.^., C k,, I)"'. Wi.5 ".**. E ~I'. ~. *vJ.C'.* - 4.2. 31 V ~ i #.I. n
- l *. *. * *. *.
"a.t S U. #
. e
~... 3. g y.2 7. 3 E 3 g, 3 g ;.].. +,. t. ? c.. y yrr. 4 g:
- 9. a.. g,
.,. 'O,
- 2... -. 3., a.ra.
i....
6.
4 s
c 6
s 4-
.;2
.-n:.
s..La
...S c.n.
ne. cC.10....a
- c. :.. 4 2.
. + p. e.
s.s.Ic C.
.g.
ps a e.e C D.. c....g e
- c..
.Ccqss: WAS
.O 3'..*.*.:.r$
it.
C."
.e.8 i S *. v
- o* :. S e C a.nv e...~>.
i n e.
C on.~ c. ~
=
1 ',.
7 e..
]:.y c..c... s..
.....c._
- 7*. J L. s e '. " C Cn' ". 'al S c" ".
C. :- #. ". a. e r. v:.. s
..s
.., c
,,.c.
T.,1 3.. e..
1.
s..
. t c
's 'o. '.s. ' -
.a.t. 'i nc.
- n" 3 g
.F**.r~1e
.s 41 V c -
r :~ l c' *. c. ".
- o
- e. t. *. *..* *. *.* a 8 " *
.~
s
.-n.,
' e *q:. j p..e. g.,..
.#..e.
3],
.3 3 ge.l. i.
- s. e..v: j
- s. s m. e.. g o.n..
C u c.11. r.,. : 07 C:.
s i,..
e
.u.
n...
..a...
r
- t. C :. D...
4 o", c. 5 0. C. ::...: /. E w.,...., ~s
...z.e.. k,Y s u.
V-Y e r. :. :., :. C. :. :... :.. e.
. a c:
r
.n :
....c.s.a.
.a.
.. =.].= =.=. /. $ *..g,.*.g T 3. 3 g.
- j ] c.,
t
~.. -
.1 n e s. e...
e
...:.e 2.
a.
sa.
.,,, 5.r n
- ~-
. : c._-.. -. c-. :- a.
.s.e -. ". - -
.s ~. ~. :.. -.. --=.-.
.. =..3=...=..* u=.c.
C O
- E.'. o. d.
s.e#a.
, ~. O j :... #
- u
. 1 3
.4.
e..
.e.
f y
e
.. s
...,.. _.. _.. ~.
t
- o.
r l
'l 4
i z,eetine was c=l:ed by the NRC to discuss the findines i
on
'6 h ~s =. '. i n. '.4. rg-c.
Cn Janua y 2,1.070, T
.n a.
- 1. :.,. e n s e c.
c:...
- ../ e.. : -,.1 cc a n.
- u.,.
s.
1"' ' re. ra.sen*wativas of all
-. 2 4.. -..
~.
.., ge. e
. t. '. f. =. s.' a. v.a.v'. e. '.,. n.... =. s m.
I
- r. ne...:.... 3,. z. i g i.a s. rS O.
'y.-. i.- En# '. I..: n' W s "..~" d #. a.
u
'k; e rli. D i \\. 3.:. :.. : g3 2 r. 4...s.k 5
n.
e
'.r.', '.#. a.=.'. = d'i ti on. al '.as ti nc. c, c".b e
". ". '.he ori c.
- n ei C. D-C*.y
=c'.
i
- '. - = - = =.
.t.e.3 c:...
,c.e..:n
.e.
l a
r.= "..> b e=..n cu. '. _...... =. '. s...a '. n c.
e.:
c
.u.
19 9, descri.ing
<u,p;.c. a =. #..'
_ e."1 cer.s e e s to *. rted e spe r cr.
eb ru a ry Zo,s. t1.C 1.. a l e'u'we r da' sed F =.'.r"= r.v 8, 1^w7 c..
/
.n cylinden.
s.s.i.e,c.31
.=..e.e..
.s >...ol =. *.a.s'i n o. on. er..n. a a i
n u
u s o.
-go.e2..e
- e. :.. &.o. e :.
-n
....c.
. r.
.: 1.. =, e z..
c..e3,._
."...u.5 a.
=.t.e e: :. :.;.. ^ n -. c '..= s ' r =,. c..r.. =...... e
.. u
.m
. w.=s asso
- .c:v :.
.v.4..;
.e
.c,
.....c -
.v.. =..e c '. c.v e. n c o.r s.
it ev al u a'.a.
- ~ =.
..r..
r.r..
.=..-.
>.. c
='.=..
.-s-
- c... =.,.t. c ' "..'..c. '.. :,"i re'. l oa di nc. co"-i.:..i-.s..
u s e. d 's.
n
=..- ".. s. s.. -. r... ". =. vale =. #.c.
.S.c.
'u.
s
.c
-n,......... e.. r. c.
.r:e c,_. s... c_r.. 1.y 3:.
.u.a..
v.
a.
. n.. e. e. s..... ;.
c.
.e...
- c. 3.. a.
c r g p.f
- .gg.,v jo..,
j 4
.... g e..- f.
- 1. e. :. :. a
- ..... s.e. :
.i
- t. z. :. y : a.
- z. s. : : : ;.... : ',
.-)...
3p..:*
W s. t.
i t. t. o. :. 4
.u:.
6
- O.*..,
- ..
- L.. e. e.
.,. e.. g. e :...:.
J.
... L.
- f.,
. V:
l
..v.
u
- ;*O *...
- ,. a =. e. :. :.e....
g
.: n y.e..:.,
a..
.a w
p. :..
..... ;. :, i :.
s..... _...
.s
......,u
.s.
- .. c... s i l :..). o:..y,.,.,
..c.
a C.
..1;,.
- v... t
.u..: n...::...
.4
.:..... i. e.
e 4
.. a.
- n. o. e c..e e. s. y
...,s..
e.... g e.. c.
4
- .::: +..
]
......<...:a.
o
. g
.,.ma c.
c.,
s 1
...g.:..
c - : : e.
e:
-1.
w.: 4
....:......s..
1 l
- a:
- a. X. c... -.......
. :. ',. c... r.... :.. e.
C :.
] >. : r.. :. :..c.....s
- ........z...
.s l.i: c.,
.L.
-:. n. :.. e :..:. :...:.
v.3..n u:
ont
- .y
- e.. e.. ). s. e.t... n.. ';
- ,.a
.v... w a
..:........g.....
e.....
.s......::.:. *:.:..:..:
o
.a.
.- 9.
..:::...:-1:.:2 C....:
. 3.. :... e...,a.. g.. p.. : 7 7........ o.1 g
..y:...
,j
........ e.
- c...,. =. p.,.,.. e e. t..
- c..; g3..c.. gzS
. : =. e. g e..
.....:., e.$.:..i..
..,e......
.t a
...vg....
.i.3..
3
.e.
g.
.,.:.y
- c.........
s.
..:a.
s s......
4 2
. r.. 3. :... - : :
c...,...(.....v.....:.:.
y g 3 g :.1. s :. s..
1
.. m i :.. :
c.*b.
1...
.W y
...,......... *...,. e...
e.
- v. :...
v.
ca.
- e. G,..:.: :...q:.
..A s.
ft:::s... V.. s. - :.. e t
e <.
s...
- 1.,::..... " :.. :.
- e..... :. : :,.. e...
5 e.g n...
... 3
]
- /.s..a
] C. 7 c, pc. ). yo
.e l
I
.r.........(.
>>.a Q E C # - *. '. t. '. "..
j
..r. e. t.. :. c.. :. 1.
. e. s. p. c.
- .~".. #. #."u I 's a
... C. * *.*.
- s... 's ". # i 3 j
s 2>g.
s t....
g..g
.... :., 7i.. : s, 4. a4 7>.= p:)).
..2,=-2.
.c....
L
.3
- j.. y. :.. c..,...
- s. k..a.. s... n.. C o n
- 210. a. e.. b..: *t C: n,.
3..,s1
.c.
-.. 6
?
c..
,-.=.e...... o:. Cen..:.:
.o
. a : r.. :. a....
m..
g ::.. C.
I
- e.:**
J e.
>;t.
4,
.......:,. e. :. :... :n r c.. p r X:....E l}. c :.,
- 4... y. s,
5 w. = k.
m...
g c e.-:
u
.e.:..,.,
....,. r.a
-. -. u -......... o " " 1 '. ' a.
24.
.:....a i
.o eleComs,..
.... : c c v.....,.,
c'.
a '. t.. v w. 6.. :... e. v.....e. :.. e.d. r4
......a.
e a,.
e ::
s.
ft.
- v.., y 3 :,. :...,.. c. t =..
,Y
, =_ 6.,.. e....... :...... =...
and submit:Ed the -esuits l
.=.
ne ~ica..ses co ;ie:e'. E rea:Elysis :f the base ;E:
a t m " # :. 7. C c. 'e'..r.
...o.
... ".. 's Ts
. c g 3. c..-..-.
-a
.......r....e
...... :(.. '... **s1 7. 3 E ". E ' C ". c* *.:..-. -. s *.. a.. -.
..f.
u.s;...,.
e..
. r. a.
r.....
. :e r*.--3.. 5 v.
,.... =....... -
.p.g.
g 3
h., g... -..
.p hgp..
p.
y...s.
..p.,p1...
i L
p ip re::ssted the U. S..'r ny Engineer nt erways Experiment 5:ation (WES),
thin
- h@ur., v.ississir.ai, to make a pe:re;raphic examination of concrete
',' i KES submitted i
se::icns prepare' by the FCA and entine fragments of cylinders.
r.ei r Ex ini r.a ti on on.auly d, 1 e. / :.
i rs; ort c:.
K?R issued an avaluation statino that based-on the.ir review
~n J:ly 10,1979,
- r :..e iss; results in, :.ne rescits ::. :...e reanaiysis, t.ney conciute :nat tye c:n: rete stren;;h has n:: retrc;ressed, that the streng:hs of the base ca:
base nit rests the cricinal desi;n criteria in the W:lf Creek PSAR, and that u.
=_s;cn scacs anc icadino com.,1 nations
.ne net vi44 v.:r.s.Inc tr.e s:scaried :.
i s
s-
- : -, s..
.,. 1. y c. :+, sg:,e.y :un,m1on.
.._t 1.....
- ....s h
[
f f
I s
i I
f i
I l
l 4
I 4
il I,
4 b
6 h
?
I I
- l I
i 1
i l
.j l
i I
1 J
i i
l
i r.y....
u.
D r._,,.m. h h.
0 y1.,,c m,, MY r
- ./..
s.-0.'.",
W AT E R W AYS EX P EP.W E.NT STATION. COR PS C r E NGlN EER S
. (=' s
- p. Y-4,fWs G P. O. R OX 6 31 iI f'*
VICXS SURG. MISSISSIPPI 39180 4,.vf v
\\, V-
+. a s.o a m.= v o-
((,3 3 *
- i. 5 jut.
y,,
f-t a
I t
i r
g,-3.: J., m.g c.,.
1 s.
- v..
.v..
6 i..o S i
- m
-At.e -- c. c.,v Co
'cS*c-0 b
4 U.
S. N.. ';>.s-.
t I
...a L e)
O.1 N.; c... m c. E.
4. s.
9 j
O'-S s
.e 3 ca-s f
6 i;
., c.
\\._*.
c..:
1
.c;.....
e.s.%.
s ] 9 ~ ts$. E.. t.:.,. t.:. %.s:.. t
- *, z
- L s*
' D * -- =-.' ; 7. 2 -.' ~-..c.=........v, f ~... C... c- ',
-..c3.c..'C
'. -. '. -. s. S C' C. R.
I
- r. g,,
- s.....
.w.
s
... o. 2.,y.
~
c.e...
n,... E w
s e
c.., s C e ;.....
-j.
c.
. n,.. C. :.....
e:. r.. a. S
...t.
cE
.S
- ..c...-
C a.S D.:. %.. s.
. E...
w.
r-..
7-s c*c.*.*.
b'.# * '..
".'..8
^
~
- ..'.' E S *. #. c E *. #. C 7.
~..~.#.S s,.
.c....r..
- 4. o-
. s. e...
.'S a
i
- : v
,...z.
. %.. e. F,,...
- ..e..:
,.S,.
. %.. g i.s' c.
5 2 S
[,c. 5 c..
n:
a...
.c.-.
S
..c..-..
4,
.vs
. ~,
.e
. k
.. w; i. s u,. -
.n..
.~...3 r
c.
- t
.,Le.y
. s..e...e.... e.s
.n.
s
- c. ;
s s;.. ;..
.s.*
- h. g c c m.... o
- o. S c. '. : s.
- y.....
s ;.- ;..
- s. e. '..E t. e. s * * -. ~,.... s S.
- 1.
5 '. m A '.. c. e ww l
s.
. c c r.... s -;.
e.s.. a 9.-.....=..>5
. ',. L.. e.
- e. c r. o. g.e t. -.g$.5
- c 2
g.5
=
...e n.:. s. g.
t, t S,.......,
c
~. -.
a.
. %., e n s...' - 2.
5 r...<
e. b. g...,. r 1.c..a.....
s
.c.....
e g...
c
-..o
.....c.%..,.,,
C..,. -..-
.y e.
u.
r s.
~. c. i. 3. q.
.. k.. #. *. 0..# *' C a k *. '."1
'. *. 6
- S. S. '.~. ~.. S.r
.s..
d
~.
T.*'.-
^#
c.. " ~..'.'. E -..c e c r e.
s..... e
$. o...o.... c.- a,, 2 2.h:.y. 1 c..,.
~ ~~. Y
.>e
.e s.e.
- 4. S.~. ~ S E*.
s a
.e
.e. e <....:.
g_;
S'.
- e ely yeu:S, I
.t
~')
() h;'. $".s.,
~
- -. >.....y v
- _ -,, (..,..)
.t
,e-ee.
i s,.,
e s
s....
.u..w t.
4, s. 7 e<.BC.O.
i, u.
s -.. - -
s i
1 i
i i
l i
6 1
e
I 1
t
._ e t...e e s, g:i.2
--*4-e o..
S *. *. u c t".. e s La.c o c- *. o. ~
e c p.,. $ C.'
re..o,r.cf-.
I,.
g..a. e_.._ _; s
, pe _. i_ en_.
- 7. O. Box 631 r
5 3-.e.. c. - 4., _
Vicksburg,1.'is sissi pi o
4 sw m -
.xa.=ination of C.onc e:e St ples ::c= s.o.:.; ) 931,
'7 c. ject :
Cr e et 7. eat:cr Cc::2.ic e=t :=i' din;.,ase Pit, i' ansa s
/.DB 1,
x.
t
' lEac',.gotr.d t.
es.p strength at eD-days are of the concrete in
- t. e case rat.
r.
1, ne c.
4 y.,.e
$. ' pee.~,.
c,,. p g. g q..
- a...g,.
,,.. :. o 2 c.c.y e p., = c_. ep... =. ~... $. 5 990
.e
.c f
f
- s..
e
.c c a e_. 4.n e he 2
.,. n _, e.. 4 e _,. s. s.,,, -
. _._.. e e.
4.. ; c.,... e.,
c..
..- g...
4 tes:ed la:e in Ic77.
Tne Cc:struc-s.--
! caust.
ne lo strength cy1'cders were (g_,a.
.gs.<a.;o
(,.-.)
~~
,,.. 3 a. n.:
w n:
_c....
<e.s..
....c
-=
. ; e,. e.. ~, -.
s::e of these cylinde:s during 1975 and the ea-ly s.
- examined f rag e::s f:,:::
j ? art of 197 9 and iss:ed several repo s.. t. e present investigation.1 a Tnose dated 27 Tebrus.c 2
ve-e s:ut;e: as ar: C:
n z o e.:r i,.
9 / :
c. ~ ' ' ' '... " o c '.r. - - c a n.
d ' ' ' c-. -
-,, e. -,,..,. e -.. c.n
._. c_, s__.
... - g
-.c.
ences be:eee: the cc::re:e f rc: the 10- a:d.or:sl strength cylinders and l
.c i
n e e..... <.,
.. e.
z.. c. g e,..,,..
.e.-
c a e..;...
.c
-..> -=..
e., _.. s.., s........ e
..,e...
i C
I
,. e.., ;
9
.1.. _,-...
e..c.
.., e
[
e.
n.
.....,- e....,;..,., _,.
- v..
- s... _. : _ :.: : :. -
j
- v...-.. ) _ a... g e.,........ne y.e..
.. _y
,,.,..c,.<,
- r..
.e.
3.
c...;
(. _.n,
.,._...e.e c
.,... t
.r
,. e s, ~...
_ =..:...
t
...s. 1 c.. ?
.o
..~o..
-.%.-=
y
.y
,., E:..;
. s.-
.a
- e.,... r,.... a l
l
..e.-
g-e.
.g.s.
.%s
.z i
..;.e;..
.s
.:.. e C: c;.. =. s.
- .. s
..cs- ~. =....2 i
l 4
c,-.
E2 i
t
.. :..:. g,. 5 c.
v.....u.,..-
. c.
_..,..,v.-
.s
.n n v.
.c....
r_.
.14-
- e., C. : _ z
.C *...c. 10. c N E. 2
.u.. ; C...
.x }?.s. C.:. %.. n. s e l
s.u... _... e s :
e-n p.
- 1. C.....
s u
2_ a. s.s e.
- .c... s.:,;
...c g
...e cc i
-(
e
. _ f. e e. f.y e w.~.
. J.
..-s.,
$..., _.. e. e..,
a
.c.. a. g (r, _*.t
- a..
a
.a oe4--
v.
y.
.c c s-t, 2
t,c.o
- n.
o, 2
5S50 90 6540 4
3 6LLL 9~
4640 t
4 6754 9 *:
4750 c
z
- c. c. o, t 9~.
i 25 tm.
1 i
6 C ~r e.
e, n
,/O i
t w
.I C9 LTLQ A. f. n.'
t s.
E o.oi c.3
- p. :D.
c-r
-_O CD c,
62 :
_- c E.= c :
e,.n 9
$24,%^c 1_ -
C :.m U C, r0 r
!^
=
_1 _*
- 11..%. ^.
C.3 53c0 i'
[ L'.
- S,
{ *. c*.*,,
O,,S a
- c,w3
'J/0 i
CO/_
a Au c, m.
(o.c.n.
7
_s,:
3:
- c. _ e..
e,.n tOcm
)
L 8
?
4 f r e.... d.
., 2 *,
.J, e
.s
.eg gg.'
O,.
F' 4 '.
4 I
b
.w---e-
-,. ~.-.
m
-~.-pr vy--
v
=
a 4
e 4
==
Co-pressive
{F
?CA Slide Cylinder A;e, 5::e:gth, E.
Uo.
No.
davs
- si
=-
. -=.
E3
--y 7
67 3. L.
' S.
4E60 0
18 6771 28 5t10 E
19 6752 25 4450 E
h 20 6551 2E 5630 21 6700 2E 4790
.E 2.2 6735 26 419.0 3
c.
e.
, c-x,2o 9-(c. o. o 34
- 1,1 c
25 6651 2E 5130 i
36 6 M,.
- 7. 5 4,:30 Ps 7
s c e s. -
5'00 26 6553 7
400D 29 5513 25 557 0 1
- g c.: t.
- 9. :.
3.-20 i-
-31 6190 23 L'.9 3
- n-
- n. :
t. ~e.n s.
f <: r.'.
,J 34 553' 9:
If6D
.aD
..e a s=
6.: <- >
c.
a T4
(.C A..
c.
419.n.
- f. n: C
- C. *..
1:.,7 J^
31
- . t.,
c-
.t.:
b I. 7..
o 4: 3
,e c". 3. ;
c,.
.)
c*
.r z... e,
.aC
- t.. * /
s
-a
-e g 3.r
.c 4Als a
o
.e a-s.a ca.
s. C.<. s C.,..
,o
....,.e.. c...,..
C.
.c
.......3
,< - C 2,,,. C,,, n. a.,. e. S z
v..
.w g....
s..
n.
- s.. e u
n
.c
- '.,e.,. e.. '.., ; g.. s a,g t 3. g
- s.....
L. :.
..e c.
.,. s.a.. ;...s...
- s.... t.
.z.....- : ;, ::,.-.....,.....
'o.
cf C:rrespondit:
? u T..in Section C7 ' ' ~ ; * -
C:~pr es t1*:e E::t:5:h cr Slide 50.
E.
95-dry Are 6
651' 3273 35 4150 6557 12 5350 6655 8
6767 5550 Tes: :::ced::e f the C::r: :::i:: Tec~.: legy 1.aborateries of thethe p;:. 1 '
4.
.Dr. D. E. Cz:pbal" c
? J. is :he pe: ;s:s;he. Who es:e :ae p er c;rty'.ic exa=ination
~ 6 J.::e and part of 20 J :e ~ 97~ z; i: 5 as an officiel cbserver:f this Ee spe :
sa::le:5
?t:-
z:.d := i'.s: s s ' tis :~.i:
cf the n.ricts phr.ses cae vould encoe :e:
- a:e v s a:corf
- re: Initie a
i: zii: se :1::s ef c:::: ate.
gue 9
______-___J
.r-exa:-ination of good or is a2*.*ays desirable to r.zhe a petregrat. h.iCin cc pa-ison %"t 3
= _
5 I:
i; s::e=;:hs ere available as
- . a2 cc crete
=-
I= this case Cylisders cf loe and of ac:nti.
~
cere usec to r.a,xe co: para-g cc:: ete.y:ag=e :s; oota
=.
. n n seCu.o s that vere examine.a are bc:.a : i: seC::. cts anC
- e raars o:. :..
_=
2
- ,ve
- --z:.e:s.
=
sz.
a.
d C
r.ess.ve f..e o"-
=
a.,e..
s
=
.. e a? '
g, S.. e7..e.5.,
s
=
w Se.-.'en C.v ' '., d e.
J
.s-1N..
c c ~.e so.
23 6553 7
4000
.?
5.,, O 20
.t.
- 6...in 1c 9:
4160 c coa,-
3 e.
(4 ^
s.c.U a:
7 L
C-4 om v3 uv c.
.9
/L 4.
s.*
9_
fi39 c3 ci D p.s.
. s
,1 e.
/
..3 6.*.:. 0
- c. '
17 1
- 4..: n -
- c.,
.'. O. PJ
.w D. *>
c,.,-
./.
a
.c
.J..t.n. 5 ~...OsCnn,.,..
1 L..
- ' '+;
- n..
1. %.. :... g a... < c s.. g
- o..s. c s....~.',p.
- y..a.. %...
s.~...
c y
y. e... } 1. 2 -..:
- s..-. -
2. s..;
.. s.. a.
c :.. ; e :.....
.. p. e....... e. $
u.c
....... r..... y c -. e.. c. : C. *D..
e.~.c t..a g
p.. i...,
a
=,:.
..~ :
'. e...
. %. 4. :.
s L.:.
S.s..s r...,e.
C.,.
s ds. :C e.. ; ;,..,. e C.
.a r.
..,s:..._..c
,s c.
n r,A".
. e :.e..
...s
.m.
v...
s o.>,.
s.L.....-
.gc..,
,.e.
..c.e, e
.S C.c
..s.....
.c.
=._z....'..r.
- c... :..
- c. z.
eg.n...,
c
..g.
.z
. =: -
- _gave C-c cs.
.c..
. :.,. :. e
.,. <.,. C s. _. : g.. z...
4-..
.c..
... e.
z... e
.ee; e c.:
c c..,...
a.:.
- C.se ;e z f t. J..,
s.
C., )'.* C.. <. %.
a.:. :. 5 5,,.. a......3
_. : *.. _ e s 4 C.,.... s an 14,.,4. 2. s.. h 4
4.,.
7.-
. r.
- s. e r---
s..
e..
- C. C S...
.s.
-3 c
e:...
.;%.e....e o:. 1.sa.r..
t 2
A
.c D~.. ~a} S. e $ $..
4
- c. c-~.~e ;
.c ~...' e.~ c C.E * * ~.
- s.. a.m..,e.. C ~~ '. t o.. L t.' ?. <...a. 0.
.. n.L.,,. s.c e 4.C oS.CD.e.
~ -
[.
c.:
- e..,._t. e,a
... e.
c C... : 5 0..g tc C 12.
c.
- *e o" f
.s 1'
- ..s '.as e'Ch.e.' #o. s'O C..
_2 e. %..>.. $. '. s. :
.e...
c'
- e o.'
- %..e s s s- ". ~C C'f s
'3
. u..e J. n... e...:..s. =. c ; c c C.:. g :.. e e......,.y.t$ n gn 1.y c.
. 4 c
-~5.egc.e
,,..:: 2
. e '..-. p a.c - e. :s o
'D e C s.%
-. e c c-. s e c 3 c
c..e...
..=-.y
. g e.
s.
. - s *. e.4*.h Cv. '.#.nd e. #
'E.
~-
i*"
c.# -...s*.
.s.,. e e.,... e.c a.... s C.S
- o r. e y a. e C eO e*..*. pa s. e C C -
.r...c..
r..... *
.e 20.
r
.e y.s s.
c,
.. ca.p va-*
fse.t.gg.c~g.g.
-e..". 2.. a s.. -. _s c...e.....y..
~..y n.
t g:." ~ *-
'- ~.c; p.
$ ;,e %..
1
....mg.g ~.sS g...g:
..a.
.~c
...s.
E.,-
Ct.....,,
r.
rs.
.. - ~..
'...s. ce g.
....s...
.c t-,, 0., g.
g g.:
r
('.M.. 100) sde.a o
7
._ z. as.,.-,
e-
~ c_,. s.
.,e
-. -s e
s e.
i l
~his.ateri21 was then r
c.e -,.s-....
C,.
........g C:::ent:::a pste in the s. aller size cater a.
vas I-rayed.
- :::d :e. ass a 45-= pr. 225) sie e before i:
-~
l i
i J
7.e sult s_
Tne appe2rance of the concrete in the frascents of the f our cylinders The paste was gray with a slight i
11.
(6546, 6557, 6659, 6767) was s4-H ar.
f gli:=aring vitreous luster rather than chalky or dull, which is o te:
indicative of coocrete in poor condition.'
t be e vzs no evidence of abnormal f ez:ures such as detricen:l alkali-c2:bo=2:e rock reaction in the concrete fragnet:s.
12.
Microscopic c=c==:s of white, porcellanc s gel-like raterial vare obse-ve tlk211-silica c d in two c:e void La cylinder 6546, in two voids in cylinder 6557, an it ususily was n :
This na:erial was so stall : hat 12 i
voies in cylinder 6639.
hz-ination of so:e of this aterial f c-detectable he the entided eye.
l cyliziers 65:5 t:d 6559 in pouder i=:crsio= coun:s vith a polar f
shoved i:
1.541 his : eriti is alkali-silica gel.
I s presence indicates that ticresecge cf Jhalf-silicz reactien it be h the lev and ther e vas c s-all a run:
,...... s.
e.
,c.. *.. c
...e.,.
- n... g..er g.s..e '.W.... cd. d e.. #.
e'..*. e* '. a Y..c*.1 #..c # ' ** " a
-9 a '..'.c'.* ". _'. b. *. * *. e. 0 - D. ** c a c ' #. ^s o F.-".. #.. f,
- . s ".-..s #.#. e. *..#
.l e,d,. #. 6" h ** c 4
- ... 3.; c. 7..
- 9. c....J. eg,....> e.
g.c. g ;. -,. k. e..e C"*)C".6'.e.*
~..~. # s '. c V A. '.
0.
2 a
.r.
s.
.m q
e e c. c. ;,. < s, g... ) e a s c.
s.
g g,.
u gc.
.r~.-
ans C2 s
x,. s. c q
C:
a-
....e.
- cre, a.:: n 1
C: - - -
COU..:U
,*4 S 1:C'. e n 0. C ' ' -"
c.
4
-6 3
e.
n.,.6 c.2. e t s:.n, c g S. e.... O S b'-
+..
.n
.e c3 A ys.
C.-
a.e 9 r.. y.
s e, 1
L.
sw s
e...c.,e C.
CC..,.
e.e. c_
....c.
a i
-,2 s c. :. u..,.
.u..,.
S
. r..e; C.
.h, c,;;.e..ne.s
.il a....a,......:.y e.ene. s e..., e. 2.
a 1
.u... :
t c..,<.;. e..e soy e..,.
- e.. o r- <n::...e.: a..:
i 4
i e....._.. ; c. e : c.ne 5 o.
e c.:
.c.......
r I
~.a.... s,..s....c.
cAc t..
e.
- - ' ~ ~ -~-- ' c - - e.. :. 'n C o. C r e. e C' '..'
[
-..e......
1
.. c.
e-i
~... *...<e..'...c
. *.,. a. s '.... *... b c5
- 21......... : on c.. u..e c. %.. e.. n.
e J
c..c.
. c's...e.e
.es.,.
C..pe.
.1..,
c t
(
..-... e s th. c-. v...~'..' e xz. '..- '
.,,. e4 -
- e. :. 3........_.
.c t..v. s'.',e'......
i
.c... '.o.. s c.. ~. _ -.' ".. c. e. e. es '.
g A,
. u.......,. c.,.%.. s c.' s.~ ~_ ~. v ; ' ' ' ".. s
)9 se:: ion indicc:ed z de:se, veil censolidated cc:cre:e 15.
he tr;' cal thi:
1 cad cene:t. ;
tde v th a carb 22:e coarse aggrega:e, a natural sand, and per:
i' f
he paste vts a =ix:ure c:
h.o a:.: nures su:0 as :27 as. vere r e:og:, r ec.
l 4
ca.1cin: hydro :ide, and unhydrated cemen: grcins d
calci.r silicate h drate, The calcium silicate hydrz:e is i
7 sae ed :o be zppropriate in arount.
specifictlly recognizable by examination of thin sections of concre:e tha:
s j
al:h: ugh its prese:ce i.s readi.17 inferred.
The cc psra:ive ext i=aticos r.o:
l did ::: sugps: differe:: mmo ::s of cere.n: or ei vater bet. ee: the i
sections vere carbonated, er s all l
Sore of the thi l
z:eas vere tissing, or the epoxy resin was centzrincred with s:til crys:als.
differe:: sz ; es.
are ne l
These def ects are ec::ct,
- hat crystallized f== the resin.
- .,,. a., -..._:sn,,; u,v.-.
- c. 9e e. g o :.. h e
.P.C.
1 4
4 I
t h
l 4
1 e----
--e
+ -
.mr--v.
w v
f
'f 1
g p-ef erentially %':h the lover considered significant, and did c: o c -a No reacted stad grains o-opal-bearing sand grains streng:h-concre:e.
vere recognized in these bir sections.
16.
Tne cc:pa-iscre of the X-ray diffrac:fo: pa tterns o' c encentra:ed 1
cement paste fron lov strength cylinde: 6546 and nor:a1 strength cylief er j
)
6 4. 5 o <.' ' - a e.'
g =-.. = 1 s '_ __< 1 -...
.c
- g Discussion
.T 17.
K. Mathe:3 has described a sizila.- situatica involring lov s::ength j
co'-.e.e *,v'.* 'c.s.
C..e 7o' -. '.t c.
.*.,a. m h. e n. e.. * *.. = n q ~ e s < c. '... s.
n
- a. case'are:
4 a.
raz: p ccesses cc:,:c cause :ne ecservec :esults,..: tn,_s case
(
. o.. s t
- c....r.e.
I
- e sse s i c.cve d-
^-c-c m.. e. e. e.
... c,........., ;. s. n.
w
- t....
...c
..... s c..-
6
.c.
..;e e... ss:..e c-.,
C,...e
.Cs R:...,
C e en.,
.o.
.L
.ceSe n..uv..s
.z,.
.~2c j
e t.
..:=-..g.
...e.,
.c.
c..
t t
k e *. * ~~. c~ ~.~
..- 2.e.:8 *' * *. S. C. #.
.#*'*.L.#.
'. h. *- I *"c' #C
- ^
c##
- 1.., i s....c
...c.
.w 3
.c.
.".g...
a i
.cn y.
-- C o..c. '.d. t. c-.4...
c.. -. C c. %.1 e
... e.:. e,. J. 5 -.e
~. ~.
c.
L..
- ,a.
y..
. 1.
g.c.....
i
.*?
y...,
- a. s.,..
-...c.,:. g. g. g., g. a...
.e :... c..
g..~e..:,......>sw...
.g.
c--
..z..
7 4
p. e.
. s V.1C n
,.,e e
J.. e C g.s.. l
- - 1
... s. ;.. :. c g. e...,3
.c.
...., c _, c....
A..
a...
.c c;. C...r
.,e....,
.c J
'#.9e g.e..
- e...c. e.....
n.... e s #.V e c* # ~. C *... *., e.1"., :.* o o..;
s..
. s.. g
,.ga....
. s
.c 6
ee.ns.
n..
e s..
s_ e : 2.. e.
.a..
%.. c-.. : %. c. :.
.. l a..
- .. % y. %.. e t w.s C.,...c.,
+
c,..
t...;
... m.. - ; y...g :....:
- e.... y e.a e.....g.g.s.s..%s.;
.1..,.
s.
.. c -- c....
..s..
s
~
j
..g g e..ge.g g
sc.
4.. ~. g,
a...e C
..c c..<.e e.sc...<.. c. e u.... s.y E a <.. a. C:.
- u.. s....
.e,..... S r
)
.c.....
c. s c. s..e e X. 4.. s.C 1
_... 9. _ s... 3. s..
.C.C.,..e
..c...
c-
.4 i...
.e.,se
.e.
... c..
a.
e:..,
c.
7..
.-.-,-,_.e..,,....
c.:
........c
- c...
w.....c
. =,. -.,......
vi h a sters::ic::scepe vas spec'fictily designed to de:ect such 'd' f fere::es c.- ~,c.....,.,,. :,.. e..
..<s. pe o.s
- e....,. ;<=.=.,.g..g.
. c...
.3-cg g, g. v., :
a.
tier o:. una: snez,c ce t.re sa:e ccacrete separa:ec.y s rengt. s o.,,_,._ ps-.
t n
is
O r-d
(- v. ' '. #..
- >~0) c.
.5. e s c.c=.
c-e. d. =. s.. v-..c..=<.'
6s'
^~*
(c y' i
.>.e.
c--
- a. -
e-
= :,.,,. e. u..s.s e.... g..f. s* g g. s. s..o n e.e
<A S..o,. ec., c.<.: e - e.. e a s.g-. a.s a.n c..
w a.
a berveen the cc:c Etes an. :na: :.ne 7:co2e i:, not s, t.n :.ne con::ete.ter se.
Cenclu sions Since cc :pzra:1>e e.arinatien ef concre:e this sec:icns and cf 20.
concrete. rag e. :s ' represent.:s 1cv-and co::a.A-streng u.. concre:e c:.: ac:
r 4
reveal sig.,:., cant c,::ere:ces 22:. s.nce the tex:1.:re cn: s: ue:tre :.s
.n-s.. n_... u. C n..a
. C. C,.s. a.g co.C,..J:eg
- s... c..
.Q p., C c., o.:. e.. t. e...
- a...
o 3.$
y.
c.
1
..:.nc..
c31. O.s. h e.c CC,..C.e.e 4s C:
4 d.4C c.. e.J.
9 o.. s. e -. s..s c.
e
..a.e.>
c.
4...
- s. -.
.f
.u
- cg e
.s f.. e /
- o.,.
. g. e y.e. gs.. e s. en g.5
-,.. c.. e.. e 3...
te c..c--.. 14._
. aSa c.
---... e c'
- c., e. en g. %...e
..e. e ~, ~. c %., ~.. t..
.r 4
2 e e s s..a., s. s c.
2 c.
.a ?2es.
u.
ce to ene or :::e fa' lures :c fo'. ice curren standards of good practice
.n.cs.:..~.s.
a 5
i:
4 ll Si=:e :he cc:cre:e quality appears :o be as 1.: ended the cor.::e:e r
21.
t
_x._. en;o e d s.
,a, e.
ss.._. u.
.o :>,
-r...
t i
those rept::e6 h"> the ?CA i,
.,,__,,_ _: _<._. < - s g. e < _. g g-e,_-,. -
s : ~.
~.
r
- m..
Consc.:ctica e h: clog Laborat ories.}
- __-3 t
i I
)
hi f
e
)
r t
s I
f I
i I
f i
6 t
t r
i t
1 I
4 h
?
I
)
k
?
i h
?
I N
8 r
emesde 9
I 1
5 5
1 l
1 i
i b
.i 6
1 i
m Le 12 F
..._ e.~~~ ~_5 t
s.
1.-
g._, S.... _4CO ** E. t.."10. C c., 1 e. h a
- 2 ". O *..# e S D, *. *
- v^ o~ ~. c~ ~y.. d. '.' ep e ~. ~. d a*. *.#
~
k 1
E as oy s.
s..
. e: e.. CT.-0/ 0'.
g T.g....c._~
_1 0. C,.
s.
- )
Ts. t :..
.>.x.:.. g
~L.~)c.
n.
1' C c."h e C.z ~eS.S
<,,a.4..O.,**
- 4... $ t.,e 2
2 no.. O F"'s.
L _.tC v
- .,s.,
~ ~..,
~
.e
. s 4. ~.
C _,. L_. _..g w g _u.e.e a.'
CCD,..L.e "..='n"..a.'.'c. c.'.a' s, r'.S '1..
e c.
.e...>..o.
- n.. e. _.,
, _3 _> _,..'. 5, '_ C. '/.c.
,.. ~_.,
r :::>, /, :z. ::.z::.se:c::eree va.rac::ce :c: ve: rograpn_< c g.
a L
. : -.. ' - _ c _' =. m- - '. s C ~.. c. e. *., " N. ~. e *. o "4.- U. e 2, *. -. *. 14.
c __
5 e
1 i
1 E
i i
s d
f 1
W L
n 1
l a
i e
J a
l f
1 A
l l
J i
i l
9 4
J A
=
1 4
1 e
y m
w
4 E _%. # e f' l,.s'r.
JCL:." R R:GULAT ORY CCI'.f.'.lSS,.JN Appndix E i
I hMMINCIO % D. C. 555 l
er O
- dY gI
=r h..,..r e.
i
'A. &
O c.'
p
~4
% s%s r
v
&, 9.g4 i
JUL 10 E70 I
Dc ket fjo. SIN 53 J'.E?.
EMDF.1.NDL'". FD?.:
G. W. F.eirCJt.h ESsistant Director, Division of ReEctor
~
tenstru:tien Ir.spection, Office of Inspection and
- n..
.e..,n.
EOM:
- 5. A. Ya r;t, *: ting Assistant Director for Licht Kater 7.cactors, Divisica of Freject P.anecement, Office of l
1 h.UC a Elr r.eE;,.Or t.e.CU t E:1on t
%..., C,.:. k,
-.q.
,,, L,m.-. C.. D r r.:.r. r.t.1.
- w. :.u i n = :n :....a Jr c.. ~ p r-; ~ w : t.,
e.
i: a
...n
,s.....-,... : -:. L.: :n:. r..o a n 3 4 e. ; 2.;..
.t t
i t
i
.e.#. =.~ 'g " 7 s ". '. " 'a # ' V
- .' - "... *.. S ',' #. *. n' ca. c. :., c... : C.
J
- -d v...g. y
.O, 6.
.a a
2 w..
, s n 5. 3. &.,. 3. : n. ;.. A..
- .. *.: g. e e g 7 : c.. + -.
- k..g j j i t., 3,. 3.
...: +. g. 5
+ '. 3 n.
.. ~..%....,
- s s h:
e..n.s., c :. c.
.e : o -- s. i 3.r.: u..
e.
..e.e., e e-. :..s..
. n o.
.c 6
.s.
..c......
6 _ 5 *.
"..v 1T *... e r s *..* '.'..1 c.r'-
... - d.: V e.....
. e.. 1 *..d,
.w C ' ~.
C..
e.
D..t e.,. 5 C. C a* ". r:.* *. r 6
..,. J y.
t..-
s
- o..n.... 'J n. 5.c 5,...
e
.,,.h.
- i...e it.:
.e
.. :.- e. : t,
. s.....:
.c.. :.. :.... t.s :. D e.
.c.
p r....
.,,.3 3 'S ] >
- t. r.
- . L. > o.cw.3 y..
y} g n g. *..b.
2.
g s
s r.
s:.g:.y
- 4.,,... c.,,... :.<...:
g i
S i n'i','l VE 5 C;.
..E
,,. 2..
reek Ep;110Ent,..1 :. t E n o n,,.r.r. to CiSCUSS toe 155Ue.
a w.,,.a.s
- ..e. ::,. ; ;,...z
. :.. e.,.. c.. s.
- ..,2
. :, s :. n. :
,a
... w n
_.tu
- ......r.
- c..
w-.=.-.
.=-v g.,
J, 3 n e.
e g o.1 +6.
o.
- .no.
g rp 31 co.n*., c.
c e..,
- .s.
..z ya
.e, a.....
- a f.e g.a.,."+
(s ~. s..a Q. k. e. ~:
..+:,...
y.
w, 3..,..$
.... 4
); / O.
i
.c
- -s m. :.
sa its c r -.
- c.. ': 0 f ;.J :.. :,., ni l
...,.:.. s.e. e,
o c
.+
- w.,. g.. y,
.. e,..
t...
tests T er tni c: c ite Enc su:ci :ef the re u.. r r'. :ne tests by letters,
. n > c., g e...
.e...
a.
1 dated Felrut.y 25, is79 and May 3,1979.
At our recuest, the applicin: also i
sub.-ittei tht results of a rerntlysis of the base r.at, by letters Cated -
w:..h.., s..e n c....n o:.
. e. o.,. o C _ s....,..>..c.
- .+
un.
M,. y m.
e n. a....>., :
.c
...w, a
6 c
D,..,+c
. 4,..s * > /. "..y
'Fa CS._ ds v c.vj j p.J s.. + o 5. 5,
+u n.bo h.a g o.
.3.+. sgt12. 25 +.ne I
.s v. a,...r_ :.-..c.. 5. 4: i.. h e p. g} :. t.,. 3 k p.t.m* ;...
+no TemJ.5. c:. j:, q.,.,. '
t m.
g 0.s;:.nce.. s, U5s':
P..= 'e.. rr.=,vs.- o* T i. =...
a
.c. -...+,. s 1 : b..: *,..v c.
Co.m.e.
3 r
.4 y
. d.
g g....Z. n,_*.:e,un
,w:.
, t s e.*Ee., k.. l.. U..Z z$f cca-A, g A n.. :.*
e.: *. c e.;. e. c g.s s
.c i
.c
.t... : e a
..w y..
4 py t 4
.O..w..,
gp e
d..
g i
1
.e v.J,%.
e./,
./
t-5 i
t I
i i
?
2-JUL 1 0 107o G. W. Reinmuth The Stru:: ural Engineering Eranth has completed the review of all the above docu.ents and its evaluation of this ratter is presented in the enclosed The repor; cencludes that, based on the review of the test rescits report.
and the results of the reanalysis, the base mat concrete strength has not retrogressed, the strength cf the base r.at meets the original desien criteria in the Wolf Creek PSAE, and the c.a: will withstand the spa:ified design leads and leidinc cc:5inatier.s without impairment of structural
\\\\
integrit,y or safet,v function.
i L
I r
t
\\
1 dsga, Ac;S n,'
I d LLLL' Dire or for Ligh; h. As>'stan:
Steve A. V er F. eat:crs Division of Project l'.anage.ent Enciescri:
e.S q....-
.c.:.
- W/en los Te:
E. Seyf rit, IE, IV
?.. 5 r e.,=2 k e r E.
InCra3 O
A h
e e
9 S
e 1
._____..-_-_m.
m i
?
EVALUATION REFORT F.EGAF. DING THE CONCRETE STRENGTH OF THE REACTOR BUILDING BASE V.Ai j
WOLF CREEK GENERn~
'TATICN l
n 3
b i
On Decer.ber 12 and 13,1977, the Wolf Creek reactor building base cat was placed as a conolithic pour of approximately 6600 cubic yards of ccncrete.
l i
i At the end of the 90-day curinc period, thirty-four out of a total of sir.y-six sets of concrete cylinders tested exhibited strengths below the l
spe:ified concrete strenSth of 5000 pounds per square inch.
Thirty se:s i
I of t.he concrete cylinders tested at 90 days hac^ 51 ent;hs which were lower 2
than the stren;;hs previously cetermir.ed f er the same batch of concre:e i
after EE days.
The 5000 pounds per scuare inch strencth fcr the ccn:re:e j
was s pe:ified by Bechtel (archite:t-engir.eer f cr the -12n:), in c:nf tn::ic, l
)
1 i
l t
l with other :esi;n :arameters (e.g., base ca; cickr.es s and retar ar-ar;emen-),
I ir,crder
- s atisfy the cesign criteria 5 pe:ified in ite Wolf Creek Fr e-i r
limir.ary Safety Analysis Eeper: (F5 A.0. ).
These criteria recuire tha; tr.e base i
cat t e able t c withstar.d, withcut icpairmen; cf its stra:: ural ir. eg.rity er its safety funt:icr., :te specified design icads anc icatin; cc cina:icrs.
Subsequer.:iy, the applicant conducted several investigations to ce:er-ine the i
possible causes cf the anc.aly and submitted the results of the investigations in a reper;, ca -ed Octcber 26,1.C78.
The applicant cor.:1 uded in
.s. report tha; the SD-cay stren;;h of the concrete in the reac;or built; ; base ta:
was a5:ve 5000 pounds per scuare inch and that the apparent low sirer.;;n
[
~... of a per.ti:n of the 90 dey cylinders was attributed to errors in testin;.
1 i
?
i I
4 e
-n...... -., - -
m.
.,e..-
-e-
2-Tne catter was in.esticated by the N?.C Office of inspection and Enforcerert (*.E) l 1
with.he help of an cuiside consultant.
- s a result of the investigati n, '-
deterr.ined tha: the con:lesiens r, ace by tn.e applican*. In its raport c:.
I i
Oct:ber 26, 1972, were act sufficiently supported by the f acts containet i
in the repcrt.
E-etailed findings of.he investigation perfors.ed bv IE are ai l
des:rited in a rep rt, dated Fearvary 15, 1575.
Subsecuently, the applicant per#cr.ed additicnal studies in crcer to resos ve the issues and concerns ex;ressid by the IE' staff. A cur reevest the applicant alsc performed i
4 a riana'ysis of the base ca, tasic cn :he c.cre:e strent:n ir.cicatec' 1
b.v.ne re scit s :
ne 53-:a.v c.slincer t es: 5, t o ce termne 1-..
tr.e cesicn s rtsses are wi-hin all:wable liri:s and whetner the base ca: cesien sa:isfies a.) c
._e..
..., r,.., e. c.. e n,..-.. =.,a..c. r..
3
- o s
.m.....
E 4
.c
.rc..:es
,..... 4
. i =...... 3...
.,.e...t..,:......s.;
.r.,.
. s.....
1-.
%..:..c..c.
. e 2.2
..~
.....z z.. :. $... a z. g... z.. :..e,,.,.} f 7.. p.. c... ;.. e...,
6
.n :. y =.
.'..c.., (..:...
...o..
r..
....ec.
i vicesiy t es:et at 52 tafs and cn 25 cyli-der re nar.:s previous *y teste:
t a: IE cays.
C e,e.: c r:rEssien s;ter;-h tests tere ai50 perf Crae: on TOC-l t
r.e actitionas c:n: rete tes:s consiste, or cerpress:ve c erer.: s a ;,. e s.
stranc.a
.ests on twc-inch cubes saw.d f rom the cylinder remnants, and pe rc.:ra;5i: ea.inaticn ar.d chemical analysis of a selected crcup of l
cys t nc.er re:r.ar.:s.
c.l,i c. :nese tes: resuits are describe., in oetail in i
reper s s ubnittec by -he applicar.: by letters, dated February 2E,1579 anc hty 3,19 75.
In acci icn, the 5: rec:vres Labora cry of the Corps cf
)
i f
I
.. Encine=,s, L'5 AE ' a:erways Experiten: 5:Etien, Vicksburc, Mississippi, conde::ed a pe:rc;ra;hi: exacina ica of con:re:e thin s ections and doctraented its j
j i
cer:lesiens in a reper:, catec J ly 2,1575.
j 1
4
=
y i
1 We have cc:pletec cur review of the results of the tests perferned by the i
r F
Fertiard Cer.en: Association anc the eveltatica ;ericraed by the Cor;;s cf i
)
i Engineers.
Eased cn err review cf :he :est data, w cencl ude tr.at there i
t 1s no evicence c cecra_,a 1cn et. centre:e s:ren.::r. r.or is tua e r e a ny s i c...
i' of subs:ancard er fael:y :e. ent, hx ver, te c a r.n : conclude that the low SC-day streng:'s c".ained with the cylin:'er :es:s are attributed
- c e c 6 i n :,..,c..L ' r. =. #. c.,
.t o r
+6 = c. i. e c.-+...; i. i.....e c.c c l a i...a. r., b,v '. h e c,. a' d.
a n..
6 i
r t,
We note that the 9'J-ci.r cylir. der strenc. h test results correlate very gn.,,e.r.
- a. <.71.
... : <. ~ r s. $ y). z..
}
- ge.
~
u y =. ) ).g:i. h
- a. o g
.....:e-
.. k e.
.w.
s.
.t i
w..?. e c'..z.
- k. c.
,,.:.: '.. c. '..
r'
..:.. y. :...,. e... y e z
.u z ;. 5 e
'.. e c..
r w....,
J s.. :.. p (
. L. w. e.
{
c.
. x. 3
- 7.,..,. s.
. c. ] c.. e... ' :.. : : p.
.9
- a. 2.. s t. c:.
5.je.
v.
1 i
.. o. 3. ]. s s.'. '..~
i
,.s
. p.... a.,. e..,. 2.,..
- y.... e.
.e3
.s.1 2.... e,
c..
e.
. w 4
.t**..'
. a.
' '.t e " '.." a.(.c a.t. #. -,
I
..."2'.
".. c. ~. :.'.'..t...c s
..-t:.s.....s..#"
..a.
f I
3...... :..... :.
- 1... :
u...
.:::.. c..
.c s.
2 i
!I 5
1
. c.. c.,. n :
.x.e,a.g.c c,,.:
. :....c.. :. y: 1 :.
p J < r.., n... -...... r :.........
.a:
w as.t w.
+
1 1 c...,..,..:....v. y j..
}-,;.
.. i C r w~ a. -
'O'-e,..'.'.'-
. 'l
..a.g
.e..
..... 3
. v c,
s 4
i d
... c..):
c.
4.
.. r e... -.. :.. e.
e....c..y
.z. y a. 7.:.. y :. v.
.., r a ;. z '..; z :.e,
n.
..... 2.
... i. ] j s. :..r. e,. n e c.c... *. c. a..t w.e,
, C,y'. j
- s. s.... c. s. 7 :. c.. }. e
.L
.c.
- v. ; c e., s
. e...
- y
....o w..
s..
i, il
" k..=.. '. c.. r. c.. *. c. '. e 1. s ' i '6 '. '. a.
(.," C ' i, c
..,..nce C. "..a. i..> '.. 52. *.i n 4.'.
w.
....c v.
-, t e c.: r... F. c^ *.
'$.h e r e s ". l *. c* * *. s *. *. c^.. : *. ".
- 4 s
4 t;.2.n 2../
t '.*.R - 7..
s o... n.... g. 5. k. :
c a
er 15 giu. e,e..o e.
7 5... z. = :. n c h.
a
-=
4 If il Tne retnalysis cf :he last trat was then pe #cr ed i, acccrcance with tr.e criginal c.esic,c: r.-: er.:s c-tr.e r: n - Cr e u. r:c.. :y using the calculated seismic 5:il-stru :cre contre:e stren;;
- f..:.- f o:.n:s per 5 Ire intn.
intera::icn analysis was ;er#crred :y usin; the c:c. u.:er code FLUSF. based j
p p
g-
.,y---g.-4.-r
-m- - - -
ya, a
.a c
w
-w
,-g.
er
.e-
+
'w--
4 o n a fir.it e ei e e r.: approach.
Since the Wolf Creek plant is one of the five 5?C'PFS star.darc plant units, the StiUPPS envelope design earthcuzie ground notions of 0.20c for the safe shutdom earthquaie (SSE) and 0.129 for the operatir.g basis earthcuake (05E) were used to generate the seisnic design forces for the tase cat.
Tr.e SSE and 05E f er the '.'alf Creek site are 0.12g and O. Cr~ g, raspect ively.
The seismi: f erces cer.eratec by the finite ele = tat approach were compared with these tererated by another esta :iished nethod ti ar.alysis, the fixed
.. e,,. ;. s,
.... s - c.,. u<:, in
.u.c.
e c a lysi s
- s.. _. n s.. c....:. s.c...
- s. a c..-c...:..
.w 6
c r e C c T:le r vi-T vi f 07 - he 'tDlf CTCei pl a r.t.
Ecr the fixeC base apprCach,
" ' 2 "
- . o.
- ..".-.'..~..~. '. #. C *. s C.
- c. r. w.
- 4. c C o..t i 7
- 2. c'.* *. 5. " '.: i c' U
.k. 2 '..- ].* C. : s. r.
.e j. o.
v'.. ;
o v
- ......... : e.
S.
t :. :
- 1..
- u. s
.t.c. ~.;. g n..L:.
- g
.G:.
y 7a. t u.. a c.
.e Ir.e res'.lts Of the reanilysis by bO;n approitr.e5 in ica e that the Oase Cat
.h,
...:. Lr e e. r. :. c.. ; ~...
a...6 h e... h c..e s:.le
.e:..s p:..:. a...
c :. e.. : c.
- 1. v,,i
- t..
..y c. s. -e....e.'.'i a.
.vt,
. k. a
.k..:.e a.... c.
t '..- :..e,.e : c:.
-:. - e. a.
- . -. e.1 r. e $ *. =. a. )
. '. =. 's c a.' c.=.. ; '..'. ': " > y c' " i *..v c '. '. '. e u.
.g
,4g.,c..a
- s. e., :...
S...... - =..
. 3 r.at is ;.a nit prir ar1.y by the am:ur.1 or rein: crc;ng s.ars previc ed 3
in the base cat.
Lt>.erinc the specific concrete design strencth fr:c 5000 -
to 4450 pcurds ;er scuare inch has very little effect on the load carrying C c.. i C :... C :...,.u. a s e... c..
Based e, cu re.iew of the test results and the results cf-the rear. clysis, we concluce that the base mat ccncrete strencth has net retrocressed, that the strer.g.h of the base cat meets the original cesign criteria m
1 t
-.5-will withstand the spe:ified l
in the iblf Creek PSA., and that the r.e:
P of its strue:cra) cesien Icads and icading ccdir.ations without impairr en:
integrity cr its safety function.
i i
e4 1
6
(
P 2
e
?
s I
?
)
r 1
I 4
0 s,
D f
f i
f i
i l
I i
- w i
!i a
^!
e r
'I i
l l
t
.1 f
i if; I
[
u o' *
- c p
UNITED STATES i
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
y g e rg }f
[
WASHIN: CN.D.C.MEE5
- e t. C,w/ el t
s S.kyr,.
1 s,,
January 4,1950 l
MEMCR*NDUM FOR:
Olan D. Parr, Chief P
Licht Water Reacters Branch No. 3, OPM 1
t i
FROM:
Rcbert E. Ja:ksen, Chief Geoscien:es 3ran:h, 055 j
n..I LL u.,,, H. n. :,D,5 L-i.s 0,.1 r,
a n..
u Sintr atcr o,,c:
.-- - _ n.
.e.L.~ u. ceti n
SEISMIC ISSUES AT WOLF CREEK Enclosed is the Staff respcase to William H. Ward's petition to the C m.issioners i
requestin; at least a :artni. sus:ensien cf the construction per-it f:r the s
Wolf Creek Genera:inc Stati:n. This Staff res:cnse is an ex anced ba:kcrcund for n.
19-
- u. rec::r's ine siis.i: issue. mentioned in foo:ncte e c-ine a. ly it, u
n Cecisi:n under 1C CFR 2.20s.
Tnis Director's Decisien by Victer Stello, Jr.,
i 1E, cEnied Mr. Ward's :eti:icn.
.: sta:ec tha; ine seismic issues cc.:Einid in Warc's le::er were crevicusiv c.:.nsidered bv the Staff and do not alter the f'r.
1
-:asec upon the enc.::sec 7,
Sa.e :nu:c:wn :ar:nqua(e a-ne no:: Crees si:e.
t i t ensing. c.e:1s1:ns, we concluce e.'aiua:1cn c. V. aarc's c:ncerns and recen: t.:17; the C.12; Saf t Eh.:d:. Earth:.ake is a:e; ately c:nserva:ive an: therefore i
- na:
'*r. War:'s request f:r at least a par:ial sus ension cf the i
rece renc :ha:
c:nstruc:isn :ermit f:r Woif Creek te cenie:.
Dr. Phyllis 5: bel, Gec:hysicist, rre:a ed :nis evaiva;i:n.
She was assisted by Le n Reiter, Section Leader.
i
.[-2-}i-nic: g.
- '.t:2::m 4
. c:.er: :. cac.< son, Cn.ie:..
n Geosciences 5rancn Divisi:n of Systems Safety
}
t tnclosure:
,i As stated i
cc:
w/ enclosures C. Knicht p. Lieberman l
?
S. Var:a
- 5. Burns i
?..
Ua:ksen R. ROIT.Can L. Reiter H. Lefevre l
i E. McMullen R. Muller
?. Sebel.
- 3. Vassallo l
.incrnbury, I:
M. L1citra n.
i
.einmuth, I:-
Harbour a.
r v.
M. 5chumac.ner, It i
I
?
I k
?
1 I
Apper. dix F l
s t
4 t
i r-f s."r.C" * ::.O. 'we O. ' e.'.*.-*0 'A'
- t t. A r.s#. U..
1
- 1.. ?
- 1
- O.. U a I..:~I 1 Q. Cs' ate e
.4
.c...er.
5.e.L,:5 n a,%e t Cc.:.:<.-
..r a
4 i
1 t
r Cn June 23,197, Willit. H. Wari, Attornsy for the Mid.;cerica C:alition f
i.
fcr Energy A1:e natins, wro:e the NP.C Co cissicners to advise them cf l
t i
Severa) sciscic 1ssies 2::et:1r.; tn.
e,C)i greek site and to request at f
F.
le=st a par:ill scs;ensi:n of the cor.struction per:r.it (Attachnent
).
It is the pur;:se :f this 5:aff res;c.se to address Mr. Ward's c:ncerns.
i Conce-n 1 A rie:r: by -he Kansas State eolcgical Survey (K5GS),
j t
NUF.IG/C:.-;I.:4, ::ncbdes tha: the IEf7 Ma.hattan earthquake was at least i
l intensi:y V.I-V.'II (v?). Mr. Wtrd states that this earth;uake was used e.e. u.....:. e.....,
.e. 2,..e.s.....
s
- ..n.,.., re.e.r) 3. s.
- 5. 3
.u.
.e.c. w.,.e.
.... -. <. s.
r
.u. a,....
c s
a P
c -. ~> =..=.c e.~.. i. e..'.'.'..=.1..=.a~ '*=.~..=~.n...
=..=....., u u c.
..~., i ', ~.u.
c.
t.c.
4
. m 3
3-o..,. :. j. -
'... - - 1. u. s.
- 2... r - =. a-
'.. '. ='4. i #.
C - c..= k s '.. e,.' O... i l c.e..' n i
- 15.. :. %..
.., e.. -.. c. 5.,
.s. =. y,.1 c.
, s y. u.. v.e..e,
- u.....17 5 ri--...al w
i 3.~
3 a..q. :...
. e.c e.,.,:
....,,..=.,...%.
... s :. r '< =. i v a.
- o.' '. r. W.=...".
~... -
d i
.es:e ns t.
T..e 5: 11' ',ts reviewed the re::r: ty KSGS and still finds th:
i l
. : : 7.... h.,..,..,.
- u....,....u:
- ... s :..j.. u.- -
1.r v e. f.
i.
..c.
...e ess. n.r..
- z. n..,s..,y
..:.. z
.._. :......s :
.s.
4
.I
.m...,.---
- e.,
..:.a
,,:s- /
r,....
-. :. q u E. a,o. C n. n a z. a r'a O.. t :.,. 0 0.u.y J c.1 c..
e a..
v.
.- a 1
cf the d"ansas ?.iver. That c:ser.!:i:n sa assigned intensity VIII a.d placed I
9 c icse :: the epi:satar b/ the.a.sar.sas :eol:gical Survey.
1.1gueractier. y.s very I
ce;endt. c:en ',: cal site cc.-diti:rs and ay c::ur in isoseisnal arets that P
i r.sy c:r.ir ise bs Est:c'a ed with ir.ts.sities less than VIII. The staff agrees.<ith tre s:t-itrd refere.:ss, se:h as Earthcuake History of the United Sti:ss (1372),.hich lis: this etr-hcutke as an intensity VII (!H).
N m
..a-
,o n
-e
._,_.~,.,.-.,m--
2
) e.. + k.e 's o l. Cre. k si+s,, + 6.,
s
' e.r.:.. '
...c.. :..f. r./ _: '4.. : nn r.c.
n.,
+
a
- 6 1
.w:
(
w.
r...
,;an :r. ss a :ar e.:..utcown - a r nq ua< e (.c.:.) o,. inten s i ty, I I (,,n, inis
.g u
it. tensity vis basec' on:
1.
Tr.s uiou. Ear.h:uake that c uld o::ur in the f;Emaha Uplift at its
.o.h,. *ol:. C e.=.q. s:i
- a..
- e. n.,. e, s. _=.,.... u n
... r
_ene ::t Tour. rar.:co earthcua.ce in the region (for examp.ie, the 1e56 2.
Cate:st, O'r.l an:.a earth;ua.ks).
T e Stiff's analysit did r.c: insolve the direct use of the 1857 Manhattan etr:n;.:a.cs s'..= 1 '.ar;tr eirth;ude (in:er.sity greater than "I:I and less
.:.. e.r.nC.2.<e
.. c _.. c..,
n.I...
i n. s *a c.,,
- v. 4c J - r.:...s..r:..>: -.
..,,. n _.L :.
.. wr e...
a
..35.
- "e4....'#'....
r 8 'J l '
~.
...].c.s.
,r'.'..-h.
C.
- 2.,. c. 2..
. - _=e.,....,
...r...
m s
1
.....$..]..
. e.
. a.,..t. 3 a : s c.r..: s,v e. #. e s
. g,s 6: r.: (
.c.. :
s
- c.. e... =.,
.a 4
4 I
...e.p. 3,esul'.s.
- p........ e n..,,
,s w,
.w
(,.,..-. : i.... c. a..,
- 1. )
2..,
c a n.., e m e.......e..,,.,,
s
..r..r,.a.e y.,.
r.r.....< c.;r
.4 r...
v.
by rEf tren:e t:
.*E SEE f:r ar.c.her of tr.e 5::UFP5 units, Tyr:ne. Seth Tyr:ne
.........n'.e.e,icn Tec
.f.".,=c.
".'....e.
z,
- g... e... e..,=.g.,.,...,.,.,.:
.c.....
s
.... e.c..c.:. i s '.
."..,r i.cr.
=.1
.= r - =. i c.- a. i n.
i.a.,.
6 i;..
Res::rse.
~he Staff's esssssman: cf ths SSE r.t teth Wolf Creek and Tyror.e c:nsictred bc h t.ns maxim: m-ran::.. sarth;uake and the maximun earthquake that c:vid occur en a nearty structure. The staff has evaluatec' the SSE at Wolf e.r e d t..a.y-cr.a ir.it;h: ef r. ore re:en: licensir.; decisicr.s.
rs a result-of this evalca:i.n.e sie no evidence that the 55E at Wolf Creek is ur.:en-serva ivt :r 'J.1: i; is inc:nsistest wi-h recent licensing decisions.
~ -.---
k f
I r
O f
1.
x.1,.o..
- e.., r + -..,s. e.
a+. sy-o,
The Ty-:..e site is near tne ::an :f Durand ir, western Wisconsin.
The i
,. n.,v i n c e..
T. r. 6 e
....a
. e.. :.. v.r. 4 a. r... mi -
s..= 1 e
.r.
."a r
c..n. r.>
e ST.R (197-), the Staff consic'ered tne intensity VII-VIII Anna, Chio earthcuake of l'27 is the lar;=st eart". quake in the Central Stable Region which could l
i not be raasonably associa:ed wit.h in:wn gesicgic structure. Using the Trifunac-
- r a cy ( 1:.7:. ) e :n.ricel re,ia:1cn Oe: ween in:ensity and ground acceleration, the en vibrat: y ground acceleretion correspcnding to MM intensity VII-VIII is 0.2g.
i s
- e.,c.a.rv a.1 v ;
...._. v.n..
.6..=.
ce r "_ s *. r =.... ~... =. =.. "...,". =.k. =... c s..... e w. r n =. s ".. a.
c..,.
...3 e, I
e.;
- 4.. j '.. r *..* r e.
c + 14. - e.n. c i r.
d.c. ~ i s i -. s ~ '.#.
- . C r m. '. "i. ". si'es in
'"o*.
C;.1. *. 2.1
.C '. E' '. e '.
w
. 2
.c O.e " i n. The 3.aff, h weVir, reCOC-izes sipificar. Variaticr.s in the hist 0ric i
...-J rEI
- v. +..r.iC -rovi...***.
'. ' s e
- c.,. e. s. j
........ s. t,: g.. s
- n. e.. 4.. 1 aT';a.s c.
r s
o o..
... a
..j 1
i as s. s. p
~.e.. e.. g g i. :., s. q. a u.s
.. :i : p..., e:
e..
w.
.w s.a.
'1 :,/ c. ]. :.. g...c
- . :. y { (.
...e 1.
ij
.. o w...
.n. e....,
s ::: e :: e..
2..
7.:...,.
.,,,s,
., c,.,::
...,y y a,., C, s 1.a, c. t p.
- ,n
-]
- f.
- . e.. a.
e,..
.w...
6....,
y...: q l
r i
a.p ~r. r. r. a. s 6. *-e.
- k. a.
r.s.r.4.a.~
.e.s.e *
- r,1 k :.
- n. a s :... ~.
- e. r
- z q
'.r T..'eA. } ' W.. i e. ra.
(.
e.
p e.
.o w.
a e...
.j
....... w.. c i r..s. 'a
- r.,- ]f,
.s q. d s g :.:.. c.,. g s
- v. e,.....'
- c. e..
- v. a.
- 2. 2. ',.. 2.(.= r e.
.O.
r..j.
s s.....
s.
...m.
g.--
...:...o..c3.=.
2..
.- c.... =... 7 s =. -. = c ". c.o l...4... v.. 3 "... =..'.t. a '.
'6.. =.. yr,. a.
s 1 '.e,
'.he.
.c, c.,
evc..t e = '.e r.
e e
the effe:ts f the maxi t:. earthquake assv.iated with the Midctntinsnt Ceoph,ysical y
An: u.y J...:.n ; cn the.syrene site (..,n..., 1 e... )...ine.etait assume,,6..at an n
c,... 1 c- ~. c 4 s1'".n +..e.e. r**a m.
- c..s r.k..e.
x' e c.J i d m..... r.m n s =.. e. a r e-c, u
1 r.... e. /-
".~.~.T.
m 2
2v.
m wc s..,4.., e..
. s c. -,,. s.... r c., w.o
.w.
.. s,... s.. h c..
3..
.n..e o...e.e.,
e.
w c..
- milts, e ir. tensity at t.e site cue to attanuaticn would be reduced to intensity j VII.VIII. Using urr=r.t intensity-at:enua:i:n relationships for the Central statie Eigica (:.;;a ar.d 'h::t'.1, '.370 atten.;aticn of the effe::s of the
+o e 6frone s1.e, C..s c..
. r.a.,.*.. n
- ..w. e */ ~ %
a An 9
e.
e..e
+ 2
- s.e a r.. E9 5..f '. :. t.
.4 4
c
--. g
" s #. 'g'
' ' * "i r #. #.
- n a.',', -
J e.. $. '. s
- . a. *..* c, #. *.f ). $ g
..h.3... U.T 7..
i
.4*.$,
rg$.9...
. se w
2 s
.a.
i.
.4 4.
. g,.
I g 3. el.
.,,.,/ ;7 c 9..
.. b
,:g..4e*
.t
- ,, c. J a.=..=..e / 3. a-t.
c 3-in.e.
- .,g
~
e 4
vibratcry grcund acceleraticn corres:ctding to MM intensity VII is 0.12g.
r,an c : e ar:. u t< e at..o.n Cre e,s,.
- r..
a 4.
The Welf Creek sits lies in southeast Kansas in the Central Stable Region Tectonic Prohince.
In the Wolf Creek SE.
the gaff considered the caximum R
ranc; earthcuake to be irtensity VII (M). This position was reiterated in a acre recen: Staff decisicn in the same region-the Black Fox site in
' eastern Oklaho.a (SER,1977). The Str.ff reccgni:ed the low lehel of I
..CX site in,. Considered r.e Cixir'.ur-s5ls-.ici y in tr.e Y1Cinity ci tr.e :,la: K r i.n c ~. e grthquike.3 he intensity VII.
- v., x :...... a_.,. a.. g. ~ 7i.., g ps. : y
< <.. :. :.. s r., s i. e.,
- a. :. :. c.,. e.
1
...n.
.c k':if Creek si:E.
(
- .. e.
"a " l e.
- r. e a. e. k c,.. o,. - a.
.c.. a..
j
..c.
e.e.
lich'.ne
- r.a
- . r. r. =.. -. c - e. :
i
.=ee..:.. s.,
.a
.b..=. o.:-
u..,
,.,...s c:..+:.. c. x 1....... =.,,....
c..
.., =
.c.:.
~h e
,t,'s > ".. a c. c, u. =.. '. ". >.
")
c r.
s.'.e We. l'. C. c. a. k s '. '. #.
.c = =., l=7:
- v.,. ; i :...
i ee ye.
e, (.
. y.., ;...:. e, g e.. d.
} ;. g.. :,. y
- e.... } e.
s,t..w.*
f. *...e :.. : e..r
.e.
e.
a.
- .. c..
- p. i : :..
2
..r.
c.s.e..
- , e. e. e... e. e
. u.... e. l : ck r~ ~, x s i '. a.
(. ::.,. c < 7 ), ".+..w.a.
.s
.c. s. i:..: e, e. 4. e.. :.. z.
- c.,..... ~c. y,.. :
ir.+.=.e..e..,.,
el..- -
.A o, s a...,. r e c a..s. s.. s 1 e.
u se
.1x i.. 1 event :n t.e E, based on similarity with other structures ir, :he Cin ral stable :.eg en 9.nien have associateg. sei smicity.
(ints ::1 7..
ds:1 sten was s;;;; rte,. by the :. lack e.cx L1cer. sing = card Cecisicn,,.ar:ial r
3.r.1:1 al.e:1st:n n.. hcr1:1ng Lici.eg..cr.< e,.u hori:a:1cn,. L..
-,..:.--<c.cc, e
..e
. r.
s s a
..s zee, z.i; 0;. a: 0 (,v e c.,/,,. e < : ;..
e, s i n g
- h..e, iii,1 e..,..:j, r: n. a e.,. n:
.i e
1 c rrer.t intensi:v-t:ter.uatica relationshi:s for the Central Stable ?.ec.ien (G.J;ta a.nd Nu::li,1975), attenuaticn cf the effects of the inte sity VIII even; at the cicsest pcint on the NU :o -he Wclf Creek site, i.e. D miles!
rs..~.'s ir a site inte sity less than VII.
O
.y.
Cc c.mslen ThErefore, based upon our eht.uaticn of the SER's for the mest recent
~
licensing cecisicns, we cenclude that it is not necessary to have the same SSE at the Tyr:ne and Wolf Creek sites. Applying a current intensity-attenuation relatica at both sites, a site intensity of VII is an adequately ccnserYE ihe halve for the effects of the maximum earthquake en significant ne?.rby s;ruc:ures. At the Tyrone site the maxiaum random earthquake was conserha-iYely chosen to be intensity VII-VIII but the.
S aff :culd ha.e ::nsiderec a 1:wer inter.sity based en the icw level.f
. h.;
- c. a.. e.
. L... ate
..ge.<
si.c 2
- c. c. s e..,
e.
.L.
- 4. C.
.f. c:.
a.
4
. w.:sl.
., a :.,
d.
.at
- e....
...49 w
gi/en for :nE: '. 0 acr letil Cf seis%icity ir. the Vicinity cf the si~e and
. L =.
.....:.,., a g p a.
.e
.q
,y %.w
- 2... c. s #. yV "eII.
e,...
....... 2 2.
L 1.
- e..s ] vc. 4 s c#.,
s.
.C ".".'. e.
". 2. " 0.. s 5 2.*.".
0 " w* - ' # - C...
A ".. #_." '. #. *. *. '. h *.
'.4' ^ l #.
C #
- . A".U
- o.
- ~
r.
g.
- a. n.<t.:a.,
r..
........s.
- 4.....
3.
s i, i....
e....
3,...,.. ye co.,,%r.4.,
.c.
e w..r....
r...
seis.i:
a-d c.i::5.vsical research - ::rF.. b.y seheral state geclogical surheys thl is set <in.:
o :sfine the structural settint. and :ect,nic his ory ;f the i& tha Uol'.f; and the..idcentinent Geophysical Anomaly in order to prchide the bEses for a more realistic appraisal of the earthquake risks in the siting of nuclear f t:ilities in the florth American Mid-Continent.
This information is used as a basis for continuing resear:h and as input to the-ehaluation ci seismic risk in the region within and arcund the f;eraha U:lif.
The research effort thus f ar has increasec cur current data base and 'our uncer-standing of earthquake phencaena in the hicinity of the Nemaha Uplift; however, this infor ati n has no indicated a need...to modify any~ previous licensing
_~
ce:isi:ns.
1
- e.
- of this croptrative research program, the 13C is funding a five
- s par:
year detailed study cf the scurtes of seismicity in the Nemaha Uplift area.
There-The results Of w:r'< ::mpisted in Phase I is currently teing reviewed.
fore, it is too early to assess the impac't en nuclear ;;wer plant licensing.
The 10:11 it:a:: of -r.e five year study cann : be assessed until the everall The program is c:=;isted and synthesi:ed with seismic :,cnitoring data.
- reliminary results are being considered in the development of a tectonic province or seisnic
- nin; cap of the eastern U. 5.
i.
I t
e i
i
[
6 f
I i
k
~
.