ML20052F581
| ML20052F581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F577 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205130214 | |
| Download: ML20052F581 (72) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ O FINAL REPORT IN RESPONSE TO PETITION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLIN0IS, IN THE MATTER OF REINFORCING STEEL DAMAGED DURING THE INSTALLATION OF CORED AND DRILLED H0LES AND THE MATTER OF THE OFF- GAS BUILDING ROOF FOR LASALLE COUNTY, UNITS 1 & 2
, O Conusonwealth Edison Company Chicago, Illinois i
May 7, 1982 O 8205130214 G20507 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P pop
TABLE OF CONTENTS i O SECTION SECTION TITLE PAGE N0. 1.0 Summary of Allegation 1 2.0 Response to Allegation Concering Coring and Drilling Holes 3 2.1 Introduction 3 1 2.2 Definition of Cored and Drilled Holes 4 l 2.2.1 Cored Holes 4 2.2.2 Drilled Holes 5 2.3 Classification of Damage to Reinforcing Steel due to Coring and Drilling Operations 5 2.3.1 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Coring Operations 5 2.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilling Operations 6 2.4 Control, Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 7 2.4.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 7 2.4.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 8 2.4.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 9 2.4.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 11 2.5 Control, Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements 12 2.5.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements 12
\
2.5.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Partially fenetrating Concrete Elements 13 2.5.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements 14 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION SECTION TITLE PAGE N0. 2.5.3.1 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Equipment Foundations 14 2.5.3.2 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Mechanical Pipe Support Baseplate Assemblies 15 2.5.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements 16 2.6 Control, Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Drillirg Operations for Concrete Expansion Anchors 17 2.6.1 Application and Use of Concrete Expansion Anchors 17 2.6.2 Control Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 19 2.6.3 Documentation Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 25 2.6.4 Engineering Assessment of Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 27 2.6.5 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors 28 2.7 Summary of Detailed Structural Assessment for Damaged Reinforcing Steel 29 2.8 Conclusion in Response to Allegation on Cored and Drilled Holes 34 3.0 Response to Allegation Concerning the Off-Gas Building Roof 37 O iii l
.-_. .-. . - . . . - - = . _ - . _ . . - . . . -. ...
LIST OF FIGURES O ricuae NO. ricuae ritte Pace N0. r 2.2-1 Cored Hole Passing Thru Concrete 39
! 2.2-2 Cored Hole Partially Penetrating Concrete 39 i
2.2-3 Drilled Hole in Concrete for Expansion Anchor Installation 39 i 2.2-4 Nicked Reinforcing Steel 40 2.2-5 Cut Reinforcing Steel 40 2.4-1 General Note No., 44, Drawing S-199 41 2.4-2 General Note No. 11, Drawing S-213 42 2.4-3 Drawing M-1100, Sheet 23 43 2.7-1 Structural Calculations for Slab Panel 44-47 1 2.7-2 Structural Calculations for Wall Panel 48-60 O 2.7-3 Structurai Caicuiations for concrete sea. 61-88 i i, I O iy
1.0 _ Summary of Allegation The Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, has brought forward infonnation alleging, '"...that, during the construction of LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2, certain practices related to the drilling of holes in the concrete walls, floors and ceilings of the Units 1 and 2 buildings have created a potentially hazardous con-dition which, upon the operation of either unit at full power, may be injurious to the public health and saf ety." The subject petition contends that, as a matter of course, an unknown number of drilled holes, ranging in the order of thousands, were likely to have been cut through the reinforcing steel. The petition, which is based on the affidavit of Ernest Garrison, indicates that records of these situations were made at the time the alleged practices occurred, and that the practice of drilling through rein-forcing steel was discontinued or subjected to the case-by-case approval of an engineer some time in late 1979, early 1980. The petition also states that the State of Illinois has no information which suggests that any engineering approval was ever obtained from Coninonwealth Edison Company's engineering consultant prior to 1980. A second affidavit by Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh states that, if the re-inforcing steel was damaged or severed without appropriate , structural analysis, and if the drilling practice was wide-spread, l
...it seems nearly certain that some safety related structures...would have been af fected."
l l
i i i- The office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, also brought !O forward information alleging, "...that the concrete ceiling or roof
- of the Off-Gas Building was actually only 8" thick, even though the l specifications called for this roof to be 12" thick." The subject petition further contends that this concrete roof has cracked sub-stantially due to the number of anchor bolt holes drilled in it.
~
1 i ! l + !O l i j f 4 I l l l O-
)
2.0 Response to Allegation Concerning Cored and Drilled Holes 2.1 Introduction Commonwealth Edison Company, throughout the course of the LaSalle County, Units 1.and 2 construction, has controlled the drilling through concrete for both cored holes and the installation of con-crete expansion anchors via appropriate quality control procedures, and has documented and assessed reinforcing steel reported as having been contacted (nicked or cut) during this operation.
- Commonwealth Edison Company and their Consulting- Engineers, Sargent & Lundy, met with representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory-O Commission steff in Bethesde, Meryiend, et the reaeest of i Mr. Harold Denton on March 31, 1982. The purpose of the meeting
! was to: (A) present quality control and documentation procedures im-plemented by Comonwealth Edison Company throughout the project with regard to reporting reinforcing steel which was contacted during the coring and drilling operations, (B) present the engineering controls which were established to minimize reinforcing steel damage due to the coring and drilling operations, and O
.3-L -
- . - . = . - . - .- - . .-
l i~ (C) present the structural engineering assessment regarding the O adeauecy of the safety reieted coacrete eiemeats for eii Vait 1 areas and those Unit 2 areas required for Unit 1 operation with regard to reinforcing steel damaged during the coring and drilling operations. i j Subsequent to the meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, NRC representa-tives perfonned an audit at the LaSalle County site on April 7, 1982, to verify the corresponding field procedures, and also per-formed an audit at the Sargent & Lundy offices on April 8,1982, to , review and verify the engineering assessment of the effects of the damaged reinforcing steel. .O 2.2 oefinition of Cored end oriiied Hoies 2.2.1 Cored Holes l Cored holes in concrete are of the following two types: i A. Holes which pass through a concrete element to allow for passage of an electrical or mechanical component, as illustrated in Figure 2.2-1. These holes vary from 1-1/4" to i 22" in diameter. i B. Holes which partially penetrate a concrete element for the in-stallation of a grouted anchor bolt, as shown in Figure O 2.2.-2. Grouted anchor bolts were utilized primarily to. anchor I l equipment foundations _ and/or pipe support baseplates to con-O crete elements. These holes vary from 1-1/2" to 3" in diameter. 2.2.2 Drilled Holes Holes were drilled in concrete for the installation of concrete ex-pansion anchors. The diameter of drilled holes varies with the diameter of the expansion anchor, and ranges between 1/4" to 1". Such holes vary from 1-1/4" to 8" in depth. See Figure 2.2-3 for an illustration of a drilled hole. 2.3 Classification of Damage to Reinforcing Steel due to Coring and O Driiiina operatioas 2.3.1 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Coring Operations Cored holes were, typically, made using a diamond tipped core drill. This' particular drill bit is capable of cutting through re-inforcing steel. During a coring operation utilizing a core drill, three possibilities existed: A. No reinforcing steel was contacted. B. Reinforcing steel was partially contacted, and a segment of the bar was cut (see Figure 2.2-5).
. - = . _ _
C. Reinforcing steel was totally contacted by the core drill, and O the reinforcing stee, wes compieteiy severed (see rigore 2.2-5). Where the diameter of the cored hole was less than the spacing of the reinforcing steel (typically, 9" to 12"), there 'was a probability that the reinforcing steel would not be contacted. The probability that -a bar would be contacted decreases as the diameter of the cored hole decreases and/or the spacing of the reinforcing steel increases. 2.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilling Operations O orilling of holes in concrete for the installation of expansion anchors was typically performed with carbide tipped solid masonry bits, as specified in Form LS-CEA. These carbide tipped solid-masonry bits are not capable of drilling through reinforcing steel. These bits can produce only a shallow, 1/16" deep and 1/4" wide smooth and well rounded depression in the rebar, called a " nick", as shown in Figure 2.2-4. Based on laboratory testing and analytical assessment, it has been conclusively demonstrated that such rebar nicks do not impair the structural integrity of reinforced concrete elements (see Section 2.6.2). O Form LS-CEA, which controlled the drilling operations for concrete expansion anchors, allowed the contractor, in certain situations, to drill througn reinforcing steel for the installation of a con-crete expansion anchor using a diamond tipped core drill (see Section 2.6.2). This situation required the contractor to report the subsequent reinforcing steel damage to the Consulting Engineers. 2.4 Control Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged e Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrei.e Elements 2.4.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements The need for cored holes passing through concrete elements was determined by an electrical or mechanical designer during the office routing of the mechanical and electrical components, or by the field contractor in the case of field routed electrical and mechanical components. In the first situation, tne cored holes were specified and located on the structural design drawings via a request from the electrical or mechanical designer. A structural engineer at Sargent & Lundy approved the location of the cored hole, and released the corresponding structural design drawing only after an assessment was made regarding the structural effects of O reiarorcia9 steei iikeiy to be oeme9ea bx the corias oPeretio". Section 2.4.3 describes this structural engineering assessment. J
t In the second situation, the contractor was required to submit a O rieid Chen9e aequest ceca) requesting permission to install a cored hole for field routed mechanical and electrical components prior to the coring operation. Comonwealth Edison Company, on the recom-mendation of Sargent & Lundy, approved this request only af ter a structural assessment was made of the effects of any reinforcing steel which was likely to be removed or damaged during this operation. Section 2.4.3 describes this structural engineering assessment. These cored holes were, likewise, subsequently indi-cated on the structural design drawings. 4 2.4.2 Documentation Procedures for Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements i O a A permanent record of all cored holes passing through concrete elements is maintained on the structural design drawings. These cored holes, either initiated in the office or in the field, are appropriately defined as cored holes on the structural design drawings. The contractor was not required to report reinforcing steel which may have been cut during this coring operation because the structural engineering assessment was performed prior to the release of the design drawings or FCR assuming the maximum number of bars likely to be damaged. This maxim'.nn number was a function , of the diameter of the cored hole and the spacing of the rein-forcing steel, both of which were specified on the structural design drawings. It is emphasized that this was conservative, since the maximum number of bars assumed to be damaged may, in
fact, not have been contacted during the coring operation. An O example would be a 3" diameter core, driiled through a concrete element in which the reinforcing steel is spaced 9" on center. The probability of contacting a bar in this instance would be low; how-ever, the engineering assessment assumed a minimum of two bars damaged (one each face). 2.4.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements Prior to releasing a structural design drawing or approving a field change request containing a cored hole, a structural engineer assessed the ef fects of any reinforcing steel likely to be damaged U,, during the coring operation. As described in Section 2.4.2, this assessment conservatively assumed the maximum number of bars likely to be damaged as a function of the diameter of the core and the spacing of the reinforcing steel. The engineering assessment during this stage of construction consisted primarily of engineering judgement, in which a structural engineer reviewed the concrete element design margins and stress levels in the rein-forcing steel assumed to be damaged. Engineering judgement was appropriate, since, in most cases, the assumed damaged reinforcing steel either had no stress or very low stress, and/or the design margin of the concrete element at the location of the assumed damaged reinforcing steel was sufficiently greater than 1.0. The e design margin is defined as the ratio of the area of reinforcing steel actually provided in the concrete element to the area of the reinforcing steel required to carry the design loads. A design m
) margin as close to 1.0 as possible is desirable since it represents a safe as well as an economical structural design. There are many situations, however, in which considerations other than the design loads (such as minimum thickness requirements for shielding) governed the size of a concrete element. Such situations typically resulted in design margins greater than 1.0.
The design loads used were in accordance with the LaSalle County FSAR commitments, and included all normal operating, accident and severe and extreme environmental conditions, including LOCA and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake. Detailed structural calculations, which have been performed as described in Section 2.7, verified the O appropriateness of the initial engineering judgement in this situation and verified that these cored holes have not impaired the structural integrity of any safety related area. It should also be pointed out that the structural engineer, in re-viewing an individual cored hole, had a complete record before him of all other cored holes in a given area as indicated on the structural design drawings. Therefore, when a request was made to add an additional cored hole, the structural engineering assessment took into consideration the aggregate ef fect of all other cored holes in a given area. It is emphasized that, for all coring operations, engineering O approval was obtained prior to the cutting of the reinforcing steel. Where the structural engineering assessment had determined ] that it was required to minimize the cutting or damaging reinforcing steel during the installation of cored holes, this requirement was specified on the appropriate structural design drawing. The following are examples of this situation: A. General Note No. 44 on Drawing No. 5-199 states that, "For cored holes marked E, less than 8" diameter, use metal detector to locate existing reinforcing prior to core drilling. In case of interference with rebar, holes may be cored in alternate location within 3" radius from location shown on drawing. (See Figure 2.4-1). Q B. Drawing No. S-213, concerning the Reactor Building floor framing plan at Elevation 761'-0", Note 11 requires the use of metal detectors to avoid cutting of reinforcing steel in this area. (See Figure 2.4-2) Commonwealth Edison Company has verified that the contractors' procedures have addressed the use of metal detectors. 2.4.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements Table 2.4-1 summarizes the reinforcing steel which has been conservatively assumed to have been damaged due to cored holes passing through concrete elements in all Unit I safety related areas and in those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 O operation. TABLE 2.4-1 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Cored Holes Passing Thru Concrete Unit 2 Areas Required Item Unit 1 Areas for Unit 1 Operation Number of Cored Holes 844 127 Number of Reinforcing Bars Assumed to have 3632 584 been Damaged Number of Structural Drawings Indicating 76 22 Cored Holes It is, again emphasized that this is the maximum number of bars O which could have been damaged by the coring operations. The actual number of damaged bars is expected to be less than this value. Section 2.7 addresses the detailed engineering assessment which was performed as a result of this assumed reinforcing steel damage. There are no holes cored completely through the primary containment wall s. 2.5 Control Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Cored Holes Partially Pentrating Concrete Elements 2.5.1 Control Procedures for Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete
.q O Elements
1
; The need for cored holes partially penetrating concrete elements O
V for grouted anchor bolts used to anchor equipment foundations or pipe support baseplates was detennined by a mechanical designer and/or electrical designer during the design phase in Sargent & Lundy's office. The cored holes for the mechanical pipe support baseplate assembly anchor bolts were indicated on the mechanical , i hanger pipe support drawings, and the cored holes for the mechanical equipment foundation anchor bolts were indicated on the mechanical equipment foundation design drawings. The cored holes for electrical equipment foundations were indicated on the structural design drawings. A structural engineer approved the location of these cored holes and returned the mechanical design drawing to the mechanical designer, and incorporated the cored holes for electrical equipment foundations on the structural design drawings only af ter an assessment was made regarding the structural effects of the reinforcing steel likely to be damaged by the coring operation. Section 2.5.3 describes this structural engineering assessment. 2.5.2 Doc. ..entation Procedures for Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements A pennanent record of all cored holes partially penetrating concrete elements for mechanical and electrical equipment foundation grouted anchor bolts is maintained on a separate set of drawings known as the cored hole drawings ("CHS" set). Cored holes for mechanical pipe support baseplate assembly anchor bolts have 13-1
,e--- --
e-v, -- - - < = ~ - --- - - '
not been plotted on this set, since the contractor was not O permitted to damage reinforcing steel in this situation (see Section 2.5.3.2). The background for the CHS drawings is a repro-duction of the structural design drawings. The contractor was not required to report reinforcing steel damage due to the coring operations for mechanical and electrical equipment foundation anchor bolts, because the structural assessment was performed prior to or coincident with the release of ibe mechanical and/or structural design drawings assuming the maximum number of bars likely to be damaged. This maximum number was, again, a function of the diameter of the cored hole and the spacing of the reinforcing steel. It is emphasized that this was conservative, since the maximun number of bars assumed to be damaged may, in O fact. aot have been coatacted durin9 the corin9 operation. The examples cited in Section 2.4.2 regar ding the maximum number of assumed damaged bars is also applicable in this situation. The contractor was, however, required to report any reinforcing steel damaged during the coring operstions for mechanical pipe support baseplate assembly anchor bolts, as referenced in Section 2.5.3.2. 2.5.3 Engineering Assessment of Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Elements 2.5.3.1 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Equipment Foundations Prior to or coincident with the release of the mechanical and/or O structural design drawings indicating a cored hole for a mechanical
or electrical equipment foundation anchor bolt, a structural engineer assessed the effects of any reinforcing steel likely to be damaged during the coring operation. As described in Section 2.5.2, this assessment conservatively assisned the maximum number of bars likely to be damaged as a function of the diameter of the core and the spacing of the reinforcing steel. A minimum of one damaged bar was always considered regardless of bar spacing or core dia-meter. The engineering assessment during this stage of construction consisted primarily of engineering judgement, in which a structural engineer reviewed the concrete element design margins and stress levels in the reinforcing steel assumed to be damaged. Engineering judgement in this situation was appropriate, since, in most cases, the asstsned damaged reinforcing steel had no stress or very low stress, and/or the concrete element design margin at the O location of the assumed damaged reinforcing steel was sufficiently greater than 1.0. The design margin for concrete elements has been defined in Section 2.4.3. Detailed structural calculations, which have been performed as described in Sr tion 2.7, substantiated and verified the appropriateness of initial engineering judgement in this situation and have verified that these cored holes have not jeopardized the structural integrity of any safety related area. 2.5.3.2 Grouted Anchor Bolts for Mechanical Pipe Support Baseplate Assemblies The installation of cored holes for grouted anchor bolts for the O ttachment of pipe support baseplate assemblies comenced during
the sum'rer of 1980. Prior to these coring operat'ans, Mechanical Drawing No. M-1100, Sheet 23, issued in January, 1980, placed strict ' cor:trols on the coring operations to preclude reinforcing steel damage. (See Figure 2.4-3). This drawing required the con-tractor to carefully notch the concrete to expose the reinforcing steel in both directions prior to coring the hole to avoid damage to the reinforcing steel. This provision implicitly prohibited the contractor from cutting through the reinforcing steel in this situation. Commonwealth Edison Company has verified that the con-tractors have utilized this procedure. 2.5.4 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Cored Holes Passing Through Concrete Elements O Table 2.5-1 summarizes the reinforcing steel which has been conser-vatively assumed to have been damaged due to cored holes partially penetrating concrete elements in all Unit I safety related areas, and in those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 operation. i O _ _
TABLE 2.5-1 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Cored Holes Partially Penetrating Concrete Unit 2 Areas Required Item Unit 1 Areas for Unit 1 Operation Nurnber of Cored Holes
- 512 4 Number of Reinforcing Bars Assumed to have 512 4 been Damaged Number of CHS Drawings Indicating Cored Holes 12 1
*These cored holes are those associated with the mechanical and electrical equipment foundation anchor bolts. Cored holes for mechanical pipe support baseplate assemblies have not been plotted on the CHS set or included in the above tabulation, since damage to I
the reinforcing steel was not permitted. (3 It is, again, emphasized that this is the maximum number of bars which could have damaged by the coring operations. The actual number of damaged bars is expected to be less than this value. Section 2.7 addresses the detailed engineering assessment resulting from this assumed reinforcing steel damage. 2.6 Control Documentation and Engineering Assessment of Damaged Reinforcing Steel due to Drilling Operations for Concrete Expansion Anchors 2.6.1 Application and Use of Concrete Expansion Anchors Q Concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies were used to support l mechanical and electrical components, such as piping, conduits, l l : i
~_
lighting f'ixtures, etc., only when no other means of attaching to O the coacrete eiements were evaliebie. The most co-oais used bese-plate assemblies were 9"x9"x1/2" and 12"x12"x3/4" plates, each con-taining four concrete expansion anchors with diameters varying from 1/2" to 3/4". Throughout the course of the project, all engineering disciplines were encouraged to attach to either existing structural steel framing or embedded plates, in lieu of using concrete expansion anchors. Numerous embedded plates were provided in most concrete elements on a regular grid pattern for this purpose. During the 1 course of the project, however, it became increasingly difficult to route components and locate supports to attach to the existing steel framing or the existing embedded plates. The number of Q supports increased in the later stages of the project as a result of revised regulatory requirements, IE Bulletins, and changes in the state-of-the-art design which Commonwealth Edison Company and the nuclear industry chose to adopt. It became appareat to both Commonwealth Edison Company and Sargent & Lundy, in 1976, that the use of concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies could not be avoided. Commonwealth Edison Company and Sargent & Lundy recognized the possibility of reinforcing steel damage due to the installation of concrete expansion anchors and, therefore, issued strict control procedures in September 1976 to prevent any rein-forcing steel damage. Commonwealth Edison Company and Sargent & Lundy continuously monitored the drilling operations throughout the course of the project, and revised the reinforcing steel procedures to imediately respond to changing conditions (see Section 2.6.2).
2.6.2 Control Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors O The drilling of holes for concrete expansion anchors was controlled by Form LS-CEA. This form was issued in September,1976, and con-tained the following strict provisions for the protection of the reinforcing steel: A. The contractor was not pennitted to drill through reinforcing steel (Refer to Section 4.1-1 of Form LS-CEA). B. The contractor was required to use a deep magnetic detector to locate the reinforcing steel in the concrete (see Section 4.1.2 of Fonn LS-CEA). O C. The contractor was required to drill holes in the concrete with carbide tipped solid masonry bits (see Section 4.2.2a of Form LS-CEA). As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, carbide tipped solid masonry bits are not capable of drilling through rein-forcing steel. These bits can produce only a shallow,1/16" deep, smooth and well-rounded depression in the reinforcing steel refered to as a " nick" (see Figure 2.2-4). D. The contractor was prohibited from using concrete expansion anchors for any other work (i.e., work not indicated on the design drawings) without prior approval from the consulting i engineers (see Section 1.1 of Form LS-CEA). Commonwealth Edison Company recognized that these strict provisions were not feasible for the remainder of the project due to the an-O ticipated number of expansion anchor baseplate assemblies. Form l LS-CEA, Revision 1, was thereby issued on December 7, 1976, l relaxing the reinforcing steel control provisions. The following is a sunnary of the revised requirements. l 4 A. The following areas were identified for all concrete elements such as slabs, beams, walls, columns, foundations, etc. (see i Table 38-2, and Figures 38-5 and 38-6 of Form LS-CEA):
- 1. Areas in which a metal detector was not required, and re- l inforcing steel was permitted to be cut. ,
O 2. Areas where a metal detector was required, and reinforcing steel was not permitted to be cut. These areas of the various concrete elements were defined as a result of a structural engineering assessment performed by Sargent & Lundy for Commonweal th Edison Company. This structural engineering assessment entailed a review of the stress levels in the various areas of these concrete elements under all design load conditions, as referenced in the LaSalle County FSAR, including all nomal operating, accident, and , l severe and extreme environmental conditions, including LOCA and Safe Shutdown Earthquake. The areas in which the rein-forcing steel was permitted to be cut were those areas in 1
which the reinfercing steel was not required for the structural integrity of the concrete element under the design loads.
'B. The contractor was required to report any reinforcing steel which was either cut or nicked in those areas where a metal detector was required to be used (see Note 2, Table 38-2 of Form LS-CEA). It should be noted, however, that the contrac-tors, throughout the course of the drilling operations, re-ported reinforcing steel damage, regardless of the area, as specified in Table 38-2 (see Section 2.6.3).
C. The contractor was required to notify the consulting engineers when the metal detector indicated the presence of reinforcing steel at the location of an expansion anchor prior to cutting the bar (see Note 2, Table 38-2 of Form LS-CEA). Revision 2 to Form LS-CEA was issued on November 29, 1978. How-ever, it did not alter the reinforcing steel control provisions of i Revision 1. i Revision 3 to Form LS-CEA was issued on July 20, 1979, and incor-porated the following additional requirements with regard to the control procedures for the protection of reinforcing steel: A. A standard fom was provided for reporting damaged reinforcing steel (Form LS-CEA 1.0). Prior to this revision of LS-CEA, l l l l
each contractor utilized his own unique form for reporting re-inforcing steel damage. Form LS-CEA 1.0 required that the O contractor differentiate between a cut and a nicked bar. It was at this point in time that Coninonwealth Edison Company and Sargent & Lundy had reviewed sufficient analytical and test data to indicate that nicked reinforcing steel may not be detrimental to structural integrity as previously assuned. It therefore, became advantageous to differentiate between a cut and a nicked bar at this time. B. The provisions for cutting reinforcing steel were tightened in areas in which metal detection was not previously required (see Section 3.2.9 of Form LS-CEA): O 1. The contractor was required to submit a damage report for any reinforcing steel contacted in these areas (see . Section 3.2.9a of Fonn LS-CEA). As previously noted, contractors had in fact reported reinforcing steel damage, regardless of area.
- 2. The contractor was required to mark the location of damaged reinforcing steel on the concrete element in these areas to permit other contractors to identify the need for the use of a metal detector per the provisions I
of item 3 below (see Section 3.2.9a of Form LS-CEA). O --
- 3. The use of a metal detector was required for any further g drilling operations in these areas once a reinforcing bar V
had been damaged. This requirement was predicated on the spacing of the reinforcing steel in the concrete element ; and its proximity to other damaged reinforcing bars (see Section 3.2.9C of Form LS-CEA).
- 4. The contractor was permitted to cut one reinforcing bar per concrete anchor baseplate assembly within these areas. However, once one bar was cut, the requirement for use of a metal detector for subsequent drilling was, thereby, invoked, and no more reinforcing steel was per-mitted to be damaged without prior approval of the con-sulting engineers (see Section 3.2.9d of Form LS-CEA).
Commonwealth Edison Company was continuously cognizant of the drilling operations and its associated effect on reinforcing steel and thereby invoked these additional procedures in the areas in which a metal detector was previously not required when it became apparent that the use of concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies would be greater than initially anticipated in 1976. Revision 4 of Form LS-CEA was issued on September 7, 1979. This revision was made primarily in response to NRC IE Bulletin 79-02 regarding the capacity of installed anchors, and did not alter the
] previously instituted reinforcing steel control requirements. This
l l revision differentiated the documentation of the concrete expansion ! anchor inspection requirements by the following areas (see Section 1.1 of Form LS-CEA): A. Safety Related Work in Safety Related Areas The contractor was required to provide comphte documentation of the installation and testing procedures for all concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies. This included submit-tal of all damage reports indicating nicked or cut reinforcing steel during the installation as previously required.
- B. Non-Safety Related Work in Safety Related Areas The contractor was required to provide complete documentation of the installation procedures for the concrete expansion anchor baseplate assemblies including the submittal of all damage reports indicating nicked or cut reinforcing steel during the installation as previously required. Only the documentation of the inspection of the installed anchor was waived.
C. Non-Safety Related Work in Non-Safety Related Areas Most documentation of the installation and inspection proce-dures were waived. The contractor was not pennitted to cut or p damage reinforcing steel. J
-- - - ^ '
D. The contractor was required to use a diamond tipped bit to cut reinforcing steel where prior permission to do so had been granted (see Section 3.2.9e of Form LS-CEA). Revision 5 to Form LS-CEA was issued on December 10, 1979. This revision gave the contractor additional flexibility in relocating concrete expansion anchor holes when reinforcing steel was encoun-tered(seeSection3.2.14ofFormLS-CEA). Revisions 6 and 7 to Form LS-CEA were issued on February 13, 1980 and Ot.tober 27, 1980, respectively. These revisions, however, did not alter the prior reinforcing steel control provisions. During the period 1978 through 1981, Commonwealth Edison Company conducted extensive investigations to determine the effect on rein-forcing steel which is nicked during the installation of concrete expansion anchors. These investigations conclusively demonstrated that reinforcing steel, nicked by a carbide tipped drill bit during the installation of concrete expansion anchors, does not impair the structural integrity of reinforced concrete elements. This con-clusion was based upon both laboratory testing and analytical assessment. Form LS-CEA, Revision 8, was subsequently issued on j May 13, 1981, deleting the requirements for reporting of nicked re-inforcing steel. l 2.6.3 Documentation Procedures for Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion O Anchors e m-~
I 1 Contractors have been required to report any reinforcing steel which has been cut or nicked in specified areas during the O installation of concrete expansion anchors, as referenced in Section 2.6.2. Comonwealth Edison Company has verified that, as a matter of course, all contractors,- during the period 1976 through 1979, have also reported cut or nicked reinforcing steel which was not required to be reported by Table 38-2, Revision 2 of Form LS-CEA. As each report was received by Sargent & Lundy, it was logged in and assigned a unique number. The damaged reinforcing steel locations were then plotted on a separate set of reinforcing steel hit drawings ("RHS" set). The background for these drawings is a reproduction of the structural design drawings, and were initiated in 1977. A permanent record therefore exists of all reported reinforcing steel damaged due to the drilling operations. O It is emphasized that these drawings also indicate non-detrimental nicks, since contractors were not required to differentiate between a cut and nick during the period 1976 thru 1979. Commonweal th Edison Company, stated at the meeting in Bethesda, - Maryland, on March 31, 1982, that the process of verifying that all reinforcing steel damage reports had been received by Sargent & Lundy and incorporated on the RHS drawings was still in progress. This verification is now complete. Table 2.6-1 summarizes the number of reinforcing steel damage reports generated by each site contractor and the number of reports received by Sargent & Lundy before and after March 29, 1982. Also sumarized is the number of O additional cut reinforcing bars which were identified and plotted
on the RHS drawings af ter 'the meeting. It can be seen that the O V total number of damage reports identified after the meeting, 216, is only 6.0% of the total number of damage reports for all Unit 1 safety related areas and those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 operation. It is also noted that there remain 4 reinforcing steel damage reports prepared by The Zack Company which cannot be located. The drilled holes for the concrete expansion anchor baseplate 4 assemblies associated with these 4 reports have been plotted on the RHS drawings, and it was conservatively assumed that a bar was cut at each hole location. 2.6.4 Engineering Assessment of Drilled Holes fer Concrete Expansion Anchors A structural engineer reviewed the individual damaged reinforcing steel reports as they were submitted by the contractor. During the period 1976 through 1979, the contractors did not distinguish between a cut and a nicked bar. In these situations, the structural engineer conservatively assurned all reinforcing cteel to be cut. The review of the individual damaged reinforcing steel consisted of a determination of the immediate, local impact of the damaged bar. This review, in most instances, consisted of engineering judgement based upon the existing stress levels in the damaged reinforcing steel. The existing stress levels were, again, Q determined as a function of the design loads in accordance with the LaSalle County FSAR, as specified in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.5.3. In addition to reviewing the individual damaged reinforcing steel reports, a structural engineering assessment was periodically made, considering' the overall effects of the accumulation of all damaged reinforcing steel. This entailed a review of the structural design drawings indicating the location of cored holes passing through concrete elements, the CHS drawings indicating the location of all cored holes for equipment foundation anchor bol ts, and the RHS drawings for the drilled holes for concrete expansion anchors. This structural engineering assessment, again, consisted of engineering judgement, in which the structural engineer reviewed the stress levels in all the damaged reinforcing steel. During the final load check, which was completed just prior to initial fuel load, a final overall engineering assessment was again performed. O Subseguent detasied structurai caicuiations have substentiated end verified that the engineering judgement which was consistently used throughout the course of the project was appropriate (see Section 2.7) and have verified that these drilled holes have not jeopar-dized the structural integrity of any safety related area. l l 2.6.5 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage due to Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors j Table 2.6-2 summarizes the number of holes and the number of rein-forcing bars reported as being damaged due to the drilling operations for concrete expansion anchors in all Unit I safety p related areas, and in those Unit 2 safety related areas required G for Unit 1 operation.
TABLE 2.6-2 Summary of Reinforcing Steel Damage Due to Drilling Operations O Unit 2 Areas Required Item Unit 1 Areas for Unit 1 Operation Estimated Number of Drilled Holes 50,000 8,000 Number of Reported Damaged Reinforcing 3,498 213 Bars
- Number of RHS Drawings Indicating Reinforcing 118 20 Steel Damage
*This does not include those bars which are known to have been only nicked during the drilling operation.
It is emphasized that the number of damaged bars listed include bars which may have been only nicked but cannot be identified as O such from the damage reports between the periods 1976 through 1979. Where a nick could not be clearly identified, the bar was assumed to be cut, and was totally discounted in the structural assessment. 2.7 Summary of Detailed Structural Assessment for Damaged Reinforcing Steel Throughout the course of the project, the effects of damaged rein-forcing steel were continuously reviewed by a structural engineer. As referenced in Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6, this review was primarily based upon engineering judgement. As cored holes were incorporated on the structural design drawings and mechanical l l l
'T drawings, and as the contractors submitted the damaged reinforcing steel reports for drilled holes, a complete record of all damaged O reinforcing steel was maintained on the following documents:
! A. Damage due to cored holes passing through concrete - indicated on the structural design drawings.
B. Damage due to cored holes partially penetrating concrete - indicated on the "CHS" drawings. C. Damage due to drilled holes for concrete expansion anchors - indicated cn the "RHS" drawings. A review of these three categories of-drawings locating reinforcing O steel damage indicated that the damage was sparce and randoml.y scattered throughout the safety related areas. r The engineering judgement which was utilized consisted of a review of the location of the damaged reinforcing steel in relation to the design stress levels in the reinforcing steel and the existing design margins in the concrete element ,. During this review, the structural engineer had the benefit of the complete picture of the acctsnulation of all damaged reinforcing steel in a given area and this was taken into consideration in the assessment. It is Commonwealth Edison Company's belief that this review, based upon engineering judgement, satisfies the State of Illinois' concern that an assessment should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Sargent & Lundy stated in the hearing held in Bethesda, Maryland on ,, March 31, 1982, that the amount of damaged reinforcing steel which could be tolerated in any one area was not a fixed percentage. The amount of damaged reinforcing steel which could be tolerated is a function of the design margins in the concrete elements and the stress levels in the reinforcing steel in relation to the location of the damaged reinforcing steel. The engineering assessment which was made continuously throughout the course of the project did, in fact, account for all damaged reinforcing steel on a case-by-case basis. In response to the petition by the Attorney General, State of Illinois, however, a detailed set of structural calculations was made to further support this engineering judgement. Prior to the O March 31, meeting, nine representative safety related concrete elements comprised of two slab panels, six wall panels, and one concrete beam were selected by Sargent & Lundy. These nine concrete elements which are located in the Unit 1 Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings, were selected because the RHS, CHS and structural design drawings indicated a relatively high concentration of reinforcing steel damage in these areas. Table 2.7-1 summarizes the results of detailed structural assessment. For each concrete element, the following data has been indicated: A. Design margin assuming no damaged reinforcing steel (Column j). O B. Number of damaged reinforcing bar locations due to drilling operations (Column f) C. Total number of reinforcing bars damaged due to drilling operations (Column g) D. Total number of cored holes (Column h) E. Total number of reinforcing bars damaged due to cored holes (Column 1) F. Design margin with reinforcing bar damage without taking credit for the actual in-place material strengths (Column k) O G. Design margin with reinforcing bar damage considering actual material strengths (Column 1) It can be seen that, in all nine areas, the design margins were not reduced below 1.0. It is again pointed out that a design margin equal to 1.0 represents both an economical and safe structural design. It is Conrnonwealth Edison Company's and Sargent & Lundy's belief that these detailed calculations justify the use of prior engineering judgement. A concern was raised at the conference in Bethesda, Maryland on March 31, 1982, that the sample selected was too small, and that ] there may be more critical concrete elements which only had
design margins close to 1.0 without considering the reinforcing g steel damage. Subsequent to this meeting, detailed structural G calculations were performed on all structural elements in all Unit I areas and in those Unit 2 areas required for Unit 1 operation where damaged reinforcing bars were identified during coring or drilling operation. These detailed calculations verified that the design margins in all concrete elements in these areas are greater than 1.0 with the damaged reinforcing steel considered. Out of all elements reviewed in the affected areas, 30 elements were evaluated using actual material properties. This constituted only 1.49% of the total elements in Unit 1 and in Unit 2 required for Unit 1 operation. Additional conservatism is adherent in these 3 calculations since a minimum component support load of one kip per
)
square foot was utilized in all areas, in many cases, this load .is less than one kip per square foot. Table 2.7-2 summarizes the total number of concrete elements where damaged reinforcing was identified and for which detailed calculations were made, and also the corresponding total number of concrete elements in all Unit 1 areas and Unit 2 areas required for Unit 1 operation: This evaluation verified that in no area have the design margins been reduced to a value less than 1.0, further substantiating that the engineering judgement used originally throughout the project O es enaropriete-Approximately 2500 pages of detailed structural calculations were m U made as part of this evaluation. The following sample calculations are attached to . illustrate the type of detailed structural calculation which was made for each concrete element: A. Figure 2.7 Structural Calculations for Slab Panel B. Figure 2.7 Structural Calculations for Wall Panel C. Figure 2.7 Structural Calculations for Concrete Beam The structural assessment, as mentioned throughout this report, considered those Unit 2 areas required for Unit 1 operation. It should be pointed out that, while the work at Unit 1 has been com-pleted, work in Unit 2 areas will continue for approximately one year. It is anticipated that additional reinforcing steel may be damaged in these areas. However the program which has been imple-mented to control, document and assess any reinforcing steel damage in these areas will ensure that the safety and operability of Unit I will not be impaired in any manner as a result of continuing con-struction in Unit 2. 2.8 Conclusion in Response to Allegation on Cored and Drilled Holes Commonwealth Edison Company has presented evidence, which has been subsequently audited by the NRC staff, to substantiate that the drilling and coring of holes in the LaSalle County, Unit 1 safety related areas and in those Unit 2 safety related areas required for Unit 1 operation have not impaired the structural integrity or O- created a potentially hazardous condition which may be injurious to the public health and safety. Coninonwealth Edison Company does not dispute Mr. Garrison's statement that he seldom failed to contact reinforcing steel in the coring operations. It has been pointed out that this loss of reinforcing steel was reviewed and assessed prior to the coring operations, and there was no requirement placed on the contractor to report the subsequent reinforcing steel damage. Coninonwealth Edison Company, likewise, does not contest that a number of holes, ranging in the order of thousands, 'have been cut through the reinforcing steel. The total number of reported cut bars however are known, (See Table 2.7-3) and have been recorded as described in Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. O Mr. Bridenbaugh stated that, if reinforcing steel was damaged or severed without appropriate structural analysis, that it was nearly certain that some safety related structures would have been i affected. It-has been pointed out that this structural engineering analysis was, in fact, performed throughout the . course of the project, and that the structural integrity has not been impaired. In conclusion, the drilling operations performed at LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2, have been accomplished maintaining design margins of safety related structures, above specified limits and the quality requirements imposed by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation,10CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Q Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants have been satisfied.
Commonwealth Edison Company has demonstrated that it has implemented appropriate procedures to control reinforcing steel damage, and has . exercised sound engineering judgement and due pre-caution with regard to the drilling of concrete for cored holes and for the installation of concrete expansion anchors. O O 3.0 Response to Allegation Concerning the Off-Gas Building Roof O The petition brought forward by the Attorney General, State of Illinois, alleged that the Off-Gas Building roof was only 8" thick, whereas the design drawings required this roof to be 12" thick. It was also alleged that this roof had -cracked substantially due to the number of expansion anchor bolts drilled in it. Coninonwealth Edison Company presented data at the conference held in Bethesda, Maryland on March 31, 1982, substantiating that the roof was, in fact, poured to a nominal 12" thickness, and that the cracking which was observed was surficial in nature, and not due to rein-forcing steel damage due to the installation of concrete expansion anchors. O V A total of 55 damaged reinforcing steel reports were submitted by the contractors for the Off-Gas Building roof area (five panels, each 15'-0" by 37'-6"). None of the reports positively identified 1 that any of the contacted reinforcing steel was cut. However, each report has been reviewed and it was conservatively assumed that i each danage was a cut. Detailed structural calculations were made for the slab roof panel (panel area 15'-0" by 37'-6"), which had the greatest number of reported reinforcing steel damage. There were a total of 27 reinforcing damage steel reports in this area. This corresponded to a maximum of 47 reinforcing bars assumed to be damaged. The structural assessment indicated that the design margin was reduced from 4.7 to 2.79. The final design margin of O 2.79 substantiates that the cracking which was observed in the roof was surficial in nature (i.e., due to normal concrete shrinkage), and not due to reinforcing steel damaged by the installation of O concrete expansion anchors. l O l O 28 I
- . , - - - - ,.---,,_m, -, , , , - - , . , ~ - - , - , - - - , , , , - - - - - - - , - - - , - -
e - -- ---------n,-- --- -------,-~<--e r,e - - - ~ -,-- ,-
LA 6ALLE. CoVNTY C>TATION UNIT l 4 2 O Pir*E OR coNoulT, ETC.
, ,;. y < .s/
gN Y2 = c l}4'
- TO 22" F I C= U RE 2.'2 - 1 CORED HOLE. PAsslNG THROUGH CON CRETE ANCHOR SoLT 9a :p 0 ,- <;. .Q
# ; k'. ,
by M *.-* ! l
. . . . j. . ...
l N D= lM TO S" FIGURE 2..'2.-2 CORED. HOLE PARTIALLY NETRATING CONCRET1f. gdoNCRETE EVPANslON ANCHOR, E
.[El I
=
~
g
- 30. No Q
- r =
# l\ A_Y 4
i po .y = To I" FI G U R E 2.'2 - 3 l 12FEILLEt2 HOLR IN CONCRETE ACK EVPAN64CM ANCHOR IM8/TALLATION LA 4ALLE. COUNTY STATIOM U N I T I $ 2, 7 O CARRIDIE T l P'P'ED DRILL BIT CONC.90RWACE.
?)
- 94 REE5AR := =
MC< m ,- v ar dI sjg \ ll
.'.k i i SECTION O FIGURE 2.2- 4 NICKED REINFORCING % TEEL L &
'd ,4 'k0 ;7 Fi'ESAR COMPT.ETELY s- REEAR l
MVERE D f PARTlALLY CUT m _ __ l PLAM FI G U R E 2.2 - 5 O cur ==>" oac'wa er '
3 U'I II ?. e-
... . ~, r:G - -: .
--.r
. . . 1.:.- t9.< ~:.:.: ,J,ep;3gNp,=
e - .t - , s
~ .- % _ ,
e . = .s i:!u e ? 4- . .. ; +_ C 3 9 4 AL.L 8:5. (, * v) J;. Mt
- a = 6 s> E c.i " : rcN .5 - 2 .~ - I'
'% % ?, .r.w M ~ ~~
i t
' - =,L v pra a . L 9,5 ,
'b cc,4 ". c o N S Tr-: v.. r,(,N AW /62 e ' M f C'O ,^ W C- $ 5 STR UC TUF-lE . .
k,.1h 41, ! /. '.. _ q _ : ecA.L. c.: ._u5v -
. .dSC, a-14LL 90.: 4 --
t.- * * ' - *- c c sc e.Ji T it J ACC c t'; AN .' 3 V, .'M L_ . +
' ' ' ; l.; .
-%b\. I 'I ' ~
4 fl.. * ' ~ ~ , xxt TimJAL E b NE!'J ca Ad 9 C) _
- y. -
.:- 2 :hv % 1;L-M au :- w a >WPonTU CM .,
r . l *l 1.- -~
>^o v :' c' N L . sTE E t.- $EE ::'cTv11 DGT &4,c' ,
,> .:,1 .;
4'3. CO R r;.C C. _C HOLE D i A ME T E P A % re-3 4e,r 7CM CCPtso m%ss MAi:'X.EP Lf!SS THAN @8" EE $ uMSt.EEVE
- 4. .ti' .
M ETAL. Ord.TEC.TGR TC '4 CAT 2 E 6TiMG %NF. FAICR i TC.' TC CCFC DRlLLINh Ir4 CAS3 6F 6NTE.RFEPS:<:2. Wint El Pd EA' 's , HCt $.G VIAY B5 :O 2.i D lN ALTEFENATG. Mi t CGAW N WITHlf a i 3 ' R.AOiUS PROM LC4AT:Ct4 c., S H O v/!/ Ct4 09/9 p,'.
%2 ALL 6:_, c.Losa WM '5f
- 45. EXE L" ~ OPautNG.s c c M ._ J. : r E. C Q. stor 1 - 6 HRnNet C CO'K.
w Q. : ;. -. .
.i. 610,0.4 .'- ..-.O pa N iw _. ;;.1: - ' ' . ~N O TGD
~ ',
4(g, FCa 'PCal % N T E' N A N C. L :. .,a' ' s'l: P L U 3,5 ~ p2TAtu 6 6E:: l')Wd . (,6 - Q.6 f:'; , g
._ ,)N h, u.
m -
),j) F:'U C TIO N f' x., .r - - - - "
_wy ' , Q: sj */3i;- > r, 4 l3 i i s c-L. t
% J j
l v, ;
./ '4 F- - . . . _
g U '. s..o. g
-4, u. . . ,
d Z i ! 9 '. s t
- 1. 1 W <
O. j e X
,,eL~q
(.,l.
- 6. ,
.< L
'O -l FIGURE 2.4-1
. \ '. ,
-s o, ' _41
, _ . _ __ ,_ _ . - . . _ - _ _ . . - . , . ., y
. . . c.
. x. .- . ,.
- . j l
/) . ..,
j l I l
.- / i a - i i -
.j-C_).
7'3'
/
4, ,
-t I Ak.! CL. ism .'.)fl .Ve= e r .: .\. 2 t%. _.-.
I
~. -
s
~:s A '
=
1 1 n ~ ..c1 e. G '= ': nA. ; w- _- s . . . . . (y; g i. I ROP M.N EML f@ .5 L.. DW }. $- s i ! . M12g3 l SHE,E
/U CCNCRETC. CN TI:tS. ~ 3. < - L '_ 4.BA-40 tiNLE ' l- EL 765 '
.. $'. L <
. ..:.. u
-. l Ia g /C *. COL / V 'a SCHEDUL':. 52 : . 3 ~239 ,
4 4 w wv .x.w w.itE s r .. . wc, . s . 2 i; j 4 ;j. COR SL AG SMGU' 7. Si". L. 2 c..?"I f. 9 ~A 9 d G.' F^,1 EQO tPME NT FOUNDAT'G N DOW R5 Str. OW:: . M- ISC.E j
" I ri. A P, SE T. '. w'6. .; - 20 S.
, FO R EM' ? D.'.* E NTS 'N VI.'C E R' .L .
[ m 6. 1 ~CE EV.MDDED DovETAL.S ( . . i ~.ti Ft.79 ': ~ 5 O f 'o. A-f 3 4 }.
^
,) 9. < FOX. S LEEVE .5d'.HEDULE S SED. PWS 's 6 1177, S-il75 .
!, 1 6 -1196,. 'l -
g v '..;gh. e , 20 E 9 Be- F. .' ESC .5 TEE W G M un4J , l, g . .- MO l ii. :CE f/ ETAy D 5 " ~ .'"'O ~ ~~ J O GTi CCR C D M C L E*w ' r.i.V. ' I ' ~ C
- t
. . . *z
. .fin O I -
l To ..W t o p c eT J 6 R . .,Jc.m c, . v m r- y A i3 i. . . .;. <, .> -
~ %j ' '
P , A: u H c a .
..o c.. ~.:.. ..1 -
'~ 1 t .': 9 g ..,. ,. ,.' y '
, , ,W.' 12. j OPENINc4MARgED Titus (t, f4EED 14 OT EE CLOSC-D .._ a ff l l- v:f re.~ / : .:
~.w-l
- _ _ ., _ . -- =. _
+
O . . . ::m..a . A.. ..a a ...;x,, . . ., . ... ...'m x. n.,l. .v.c _ A . a .. . =l C . i FIGURE 2.4-2
~ ~ ,.~~
s s I L ( A. PI-LS-16 Appendix J Rev. 6 4-1-82
. __ --Page 25, ,,.,,,q,-.- _
SNEAA DRECTicN DISTANCE TO "PEte*4G-T-- D3TAMet To ku,T ecLT y p f a. p op PSA- ATTACHMf 64T ad-evew.o.c on auntout T meaus tut.T
~~~
i a [(t.Tuicwness maArentAt 4.x(c ) ) O s e t. w o rre e e M" a- PlGT4.OC 7 o E esq.stoo. gut ab g
--- 9,.
4 ,g esas ts.c Tw m co-.eaave. PAicts SC8" ORE e% 5*A-LW4 PLATE . A I e 1 9- dh 8 I 5 i o [<. -' - 7 p , ec,e y,,yc.e., _ , eve,. y _._q_,-_.-- , **"' '*~ f,OR D SUM *C E U . . . . 1. . l . j ; lop LAYEqs op str pcut CM I '3 1
' s i m 2WLAvsa l,
' t 2
'N see wcTs.1 c JL . 1 ore : co. . .L - .., .,,,,,.c use A.es* stTr.
'J G E S*2 .=a.U.n wa sa c Ar, hole D' A. = 950LT Ot A . + k, _{7op op W1JT C* A 4 M tis ATw e d '.
ypjg *g* *
"C" FLAU Ot- ATE =rm * :
( l.) caderedLLY penTCet CCMetTe bij* WiDC UD4." EA tsC* 3 NcEXD e ns 33T H cHR. To LaGWTW TJW . BA.'4 9 W Top L.A vv.R E . Loc.=TE PL A 1s TO Avo O CuTTate 3 tXPOgttD SEl>eF ORCI?'4.E 4PC&E 23d LAVEM WbE *2 A8"'tCJO C. cn c- * . 6[, (t) Ago to e To --e (n even =srAccmc .oe. m.u comes, e. retco c.sc, c.ao.:r .. moo te=sTw.wwe no <c ro u..,
- s . i r ,.
.cw.
1 $ tve
.uoorr .cccc i
(tus site) .,-
. . uracxua:p u, cTu r. u . u*
. ce- sinter.ce o.3
. no o m , e .. m w
h_. d A [NUCLEAR ..muu NAFEiAvv "R'EL AT cauenT
~ ~ '
y
~
ED
' E'S
* '"^C" """'""'~6 " ' " " "T w
I' EM S . AR E S.HO.W. N O. .N... T. H.I.S .D_R.AWI.NG. . C') ^"s~'o" *, 7w "n*.au*.
'T^cwewr *T t o- e. e + i _
e-g f 3
. STANDARD FOR CORE-ORtLLED 2>OLTED PLATES W "e'"ou"T as won Auc on t r.) ar ectv (oc.now ..I g. e save.., Twact.<,
~~ . _- -_ -
P" ATE Sot.T sh OLT e AT t. L p h a. b c t' e y z T mu u 04 ATTACw wT t O Ap (.m i W ,
, . L, ai2.c air.a -
- L5' u tS* g*
..t A-m n.1 iz* 2 {. l G' 42' {. 11* 'i. 2 }* It i t- is' er. 3 . . o ccuiv.
aa upset = #5 eutn = 22.8 3* lrn e sA - 15 vPs.eT = so A.ru . . i- 8 0 22*w t3 Ig- a 22* 2. G 18 2 3 [g 47 3G,* 18 14 g gy, EMER. t 72.45 l owr., sera mtv. own no ' st v. ' DwG. aso, peg ows.no. {at yy LA ALLE CCIJs'T Y d.T Ail O*J giv w,3 UM'.T. e 5 2 i fgk Cou u ON AC A:.TH &.> 0 0 J C N aAN Y EL'P*OR T CLAS3. 4Q cnica Go 6.*. .; Q on AniNG P* t.E A*.E RECO'mD , arv i sen c wo Latt caA*w cwe ato tus n Arr L , MW E t80 8 E
- f * ' {g ., ..J b' ,
COta p. owc,JT f.uP'F ORTJB C,5 %. E rta6L _A jJ 1%C t - t! r0 . ($: s. __._ fly-1 v<5 Q f f y l'6 l Y <o 2 vo v _ . - **T_Wi* * , noTus Ano c
- Tw- s t$ 1 M V' 4' 8 l9 y. 3 <
- uh- _ ,.L*.i.d_ . c e.' x i ,e
- f. f.t. p. _ , l _%, . CF D-J4 50 r----_._
(sH@g C J 4 9'o 5 - 71N Sa%t Ge> 6"G M,.{gy :t p g.. ,.e gg.7.ny ;, J D J*L%30 'T-t-60 QQg Q5;'&f Q hf C G O .?.,95 5 N == . ~ i
- e se s , _&- -3 y .a m ,, S 8
- e. - i . _
REV8GJON DEEORWTION J PCv. p psa rce e.4g0 $
* , - - - - - 4tGs.oo PfGLcT er3 y ,j j gh. T O' ~
5 4EET 15 CFs ;, D 4 t47.c o b
e su-a-. gs&---- nu- ,- m -
- m, -- m a m ,- ,a+a- A - m .a -.-- ,-.
-4 & 6 m*- L .4 A -, a . n
) i 1 i l FIGURE 2.7-1 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR SLAB PANEL I I l l l i I P l i j
--- - , ,,-n.-r--,--,__--,.-r--n-v.-n----,--,,,---,,_--,-,----,,__.. _------- - - - , - - --
I 7 Cales. F or RF - 6 AIR CUT 14 SLG Cale. No. 9@/ lSARGENT kLUNDY 1eNGINSeme EE. L . G94'-G l- ES- 1o3. R ev. O Date 4(318 7-Y
*"C^"
Safety-Related Non-Sofety-Related Page k of LM Client C 6 C. C) Prepared by 40 0 - Datec hl3l82 Project LA c, A l.L 6 C.CUMT/ - 1 Reviewed by 'f $hf .. I Date Y/t [b Proj. No. Z}. 2(,G -Cd Equip. No. Approved by Date 4- 3-/W
,_...,..____.,___-..___.~7_.__._,._ _ . . _ . . . . , - . _ . . , . _ _ , _ . . _ . . _ . _
**
- f Oh , L4L 13 THlf.k N E % -~] [ ) ( o N E W A f C L.Ei3 j -
4 l i
' MSTe W ic. T Die.u r aca ;
i
; n !
f E FR $ 4 6 6 W 4 $,p , $ _2c g '( $_gcG
,i ,
lJ 1
, EHS-2bCc! A fH s.2o7 Foc r2s.e-c. cur '
[-- L ' s,9 i ca.5-3 oi j A cns.-so2 reg' tw c". E4 Ule N w tm ekJ ; [ , ccen. Hot.no i -
-t --4-- .
! , ;g l 24-6
[.
. _L-R'6- Il8 . ,
a hi gg.k
- I L 1
! g, mile
- .3
/g(.pii
~- -
l . .. i .. s Pi q,;.,: . j . g i-gv y) : I galG & l t o -l >O 8 [(g,4.S ) _h l
. ct i
. J. l
~ I f? ll l
l 4.' . HoRTHr 1 - l g i i J, ; .v'+ , l 1 s c,
. 4, e@p p l l
0p . . e
?
1 ' Y .
- l 2 j 'l- R 8 -11 0 T l ,
D
- I s
+ AL -
i PA E TI A L
~~~
PL A M (Dwq . 6 - 2 o r,. A 2o7) ~ ( bw4. CHs . 20c- ( 7.o 7 ) (DWG. 'co s, Bol J, 3o 2) - [ . . _ - . . . - .. . g_ fctp.,,)of3
c.ici. ror & Ae c.or rw CtAe,. Calc. No. OIGd SARGENT% LUNDY pc. gl,g
..~.~.... _
) -es- 103 Rev. o Date 4lsi 8 2 C ' "C ^ C' Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page l4 4. of O
Q Client C EE d O Prepared by //)W Date4 ) 318 7 Project L,4n5 A }_}E d o L]/\)'T Y " I. Reviewed by hAi Date 4/h/) e Proj. No. 2 2g.oO Equip. No. Approved by
.p, - - Date Y-3-A 7_._-,___.,
- 7. , ,
I N !P,$ - lO D C r/t4.I ; . j
- i i
t l i , i + 1 . I ; . . . R -ell -- SW E t dog cidoM c N6T. Co. k'Spott' NO' 907 5 DATED . (3 ISO .
- -@,.918: a $cG ' McIEOISoM deu $f 'Co. 29n 'r40. %0~16 DA-fsn 'bh3lTo '
l S ejGG '6ee McEnts'N o d *N'T'Co -fe P Y+ 140. 900(, PArgD % d e.c l Pa C ,LG>ov E E'sporars . TFeas is so E'e r2, An . c v Ts /
! . At L. fa m as A c.e u .ic.$ s p . ' ,
, i
; i CH S - B C)). .E2 AsT e M D : ,
f ICl2 ~ C,G.'C.d. dREA 2eoLER 4 FA4 FouN DAflo^1[5sg DW4 M-leo snr.8 No h l 8h X i' '2" C cEE.D HOLG6 (MAgtE D ou "D W 63 CHS. sol 21 - 123,124 [ 12 $, 3 2(- I 22, d 3 k Isa. '7 ' Loe+Td4) DUG fo AFbcVG dcRCD HDLG'> O N G'f TOP R G Ib Alls ate D arna k e? O . l PONIBl.8. YoTA L- f2'iiE
- PS RC D A M a 6,k'D - 7 Ol#-bob 2 _ YG_6T__ G Mb '
NR C.S.c.S ,4Es A 4~ool.cfE 4 fan' rouMDATiv4 (Gec D% M-isco 39t-a no h
',hX l'-[ CCf6D l-l8l65 MActCij CN pWe4 C DS-302 - k. IlG, ll7,11%, llS l'biel24 /,117 ' i q L.e C h T'lO N & -
N I ( j ( . Db liii: : Io 460V6 CORED NOLCC* d'))d L 7 To p l2E'-6 AEA 426 DAMAC,E C, h5siBLE TOTA L b '6A12A ! DA ru AA GD: g / O
?
BoTH ENos:- 'To P (2rsiNE:oEcgro e 4T' 48 6($ ee DwA S~24 M l 3 G A w A we.<Fr) Ar su Fmtrs: PloME M7 dA P A ciTf (da do d) :. -lc>9.c) S' k." g, q c4i.c. s oc k 9 c, Nu;Ariyg AcioAL Momer 'Due (o l.oeb = - 53 N'k .
~
pagc go.lo24. 1 AcroAl. NfMDT. SA.CED ON f0LLOWit/4 LCRD Comb /NAndAl (Ced"W"E SSG Acyraus) 76 2 DE.4D donD., Equ!R hsp ./ kanee Lssz>. 'p , d- U t. o D + l.s B.s s H.o cou. + i. c s% o.:,p i,o is - go,,, cm c scs.e n; eas e - 2 o em
-ce o.voo mb e ,. ne se,m,c c ,v c., cyoo, .
^ D 5* R 5 (4, y gcJgL : VALE bcAM. Pros pee 560E E D O E To PIPE Pa 2 6 A.14
$AFETY MAR 4pJ FAcrola w lm ou r .g e.e, An c u T
- le's.o2 93 81 ~- 2'cz 3
- -...=...-- a. - - .
_g -- [/// 2 #E !!
i Cales. For frG FoA E' dUT fN $LAS Calc. No. b 16>4 SARGENT hlUNDY gg L gq,g, ;,rzs-ios
> . ~ . , ~ . . . . _
Rev. o oate 4_3 8 7.
'*"C^<* ! Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page f 4 ka. of Client C EC-C.O Prepared by .
foM Date 4 3-22. Project )_ M A L.L.lE'pu tJ T '/ -- 1 _ Reviewed by / , h r. t Date 9/N/N2 Proj. No. 4 26G -o o Equip. No. Approved by ' Date 8- 3 ~~d "
._,_.7 .._.._._-.-7.,..--- . , .
I
'~l [Z5 105 ' ~
copy; ' DDE Tc) SLAB > A SILITV [7c= REDMi.TCf 60Td f1cMsNf DAMA4 EI) 25 -6A3;? MM Be A6s orMD ~~o BE umFoeMby t$. ALT : END C,U PPORT I .DMcEUTED AcEcss SLA6. AL50,6fA6 WILL Acr 46 A UNIT.:
, j &2, 20-5141.DTVI CP SLW Tou t t&' Re-thres .= 4 2 u os. t, i l i
j : D A m ^ ci t:.n s'c. .D A ES ~ 7 9es s
. L ., -, ,
' 3rf Nos. V ilS E'E S ^ e A3 4 o- 7s -rn' D ,4 ,1,,z :
b eff s I8 -16 = I6 9
.)
'~T__ l % vt kvs4 -= 1. d' O'ou;Icc D Afe.A oF fusg.A 3 , 'h 6 ,3,73 , g,g,gg, .t.n4j 4Z {
DOE fo f'e 6Ae doJ.'
- FoR) l'-c7 'WIDTri F 61 A 6 5 5DucG Memer" 6PAceT Asx Fy
'_ _ .$$ W fs-6ee CUf.f be,ae*sywm (b x AlxFy ~1to.MXfc/5 s .
@ c o.9 , Spa ci' 4"<h deff-16..d Ms e C M3 Yn
. , b *l 2'f . h s G[o k p d : 4 Icd e 0.b s t. K G o
.. Na ~ o ssofs9xGo (p , l s
(a.s 2x0.lptA xl2~ l := 94 84 K ' 5
' 94'84 c (.y g g,o SAFET)' MARGIN FActcE -
n s Wim p26-r5 AR c_of ' - $3 2'} 9 o
} . bo bl% is 4 bSq uATG ..-
- ' west rsb sumSP cmene wu east c~o sorroer (sa ns kw.e cor 4 sne c.,,ar.) <
., $L AS ic dbequa.7g.
t
.__...i-. /
f/uf ;,' ? I *2
'_._____._..7 . _ ._ - 4 7 - . . _ _. .
. O I l l l l 1 FIGURE 2.7-2 ( STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR WALL PANEL SERIAL N0. 38 l l l l O
I Cs!cs. For \r/z k brja,d 4;tir b , llait I Caic. No. lb SARGENTb LUNDY
.um~. e. 63 gg( g., g,,, o o,,, s/,(/p, C " 'C ^
- v , . ; a A Safety-Reteted Non-SafMy-Related Page [ T b of Client CWA Prepared by N, FM Date 3-J/-J'1
'~
Project MaNg, OWt } Reviewed by dI[ Date 41 2. - 6 'Z . Prol. No. J.f.,66 co Equip. No. Approved by h Date Y- f-d ' ,
.Ca C i$ - 3ll _.. Aks. . .Vjhl WAbL ! %4 Ng of- I
. kih .!go 8hf*I- rd.EU, ..] *M" ?M)N9 N bam N*}#"N *N M'T
! l : T 6 e.e ;
- 1) se use M %r i con s, w c uTs,
. NL t 514. [ N { . 1M'- o" .. @l..( $ l405co.5 31 ar o N ua& 9M.1 er0% RM.)
- . r afo' .
i, i
, w {~ p4s -
hP"b - !
. . f. 4 , 4l l 3C l % j .4% _
.! c.yd.0 . !
. i i .
~+ +--
_ .L r .a _..a a m ga a _! t J. i
, a i i
, l
# @j(@
1 - I -l + . . 1 -l ,
. l. f tt 1. 6:4 o I -
; 1
-, .- . . i r
2.9 ! 1 f i l 9 I i f
- i f ..
i
. : . n6v ,
u g -- ;
-- . J . - i . .
. . @u .mq- &mt o .ahus - du. g e v 36 ,
Ydi <h l- R f bek. cog. @.i& ,
- t t ,
-- &- 4 6- p .
1 f I .. . - . . . i 4- - -* + t - l . . i : <
- . . 4 i
9 . -4 +- -+ . e . . E +
~<-4-- 4 6 e a f .,
t 4
- 4
.--a , - m e A -
+
. , I a
i e' t
6 3 .
! l *
-- j i
- l l
- - - - - }
3 4.g - -_. ..
catcy ror to _6 24_Call ph,d'# . bg, Calc. No. D SARGENT$LUNDY
'e NGINSeeBS . y
- n. %8' 1q4' Au . Ao@- R ev. o cared - l-62.
C " 'C "' A Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page19'? of
. Client (,gCO Prepared by W. MM Date '/ -/-84 Project lz((fc Mit l Reviewed by y _4) Daty . l [d.
Proj. No. 41,,(,6 - 0 4 Equip. Na. Approved by b /4 A' Date 4 a. -/1 4
#14' of. ,
;!lIi!'!.
4 i a i I i . <
. l L' .- g.
FL.194
> , i ,
f p f rbh . , 0
)
l 941 214s d> p4,. te " [i I { pte to
; . os .us M' 315
' g, , g , Q, m,.,.n}
l Q(s=156 OGi-to6 4 'm ,.g>&
- l i
%-tiv vel 251 e
I a*i w ow, . co s
-e -
g 3 -. El .1 Q' l EAST NAL L- - l (R.171 CAL CL6%TtoN I f l 0l'- $65Ad du'fS od fff WSS1~ bo6~ ed 6f ^4ff u' P. {fd 8 I hf. 'Dn%. 5- 624 0 E b 9 D l i t i Of (,f -
> t>f n .
L--...._. ._....,__.._L.. .. . . .- /
-L%
C.ici ro, e-w4 b Wc L khth Cale. N o. Ih l SARGENTELUNDY & J L u /d % d ,m
.n e m.o.. .
R ev. o o.i3/3/F+ y c~c^ao X Safety-Refsted Non-Safety-Related Page /4 [ of Chee.t /J M Prepared by H. Ffew 0.te 4 e- p Froject L45ab - u hi't l Reviewed by d Dated C.fL. Proj. No. 4 4 (pf,-tJD Equip. No. Approved by Oste V- I~-Tb-
. . . o DSr he'd l T: h bb [
ATl NAT siOE, l . 6, M - 1 -- .
.. j
- l. l
..'$He hEuL M wsk ! @ ~fO . l_ l cribs!. ; l i
Id,OsI' l l t ! fele M kt 0/. g t ! _ . ape f .
- 4. . .l .- ! -; AT4 r46T 3 t0E . 4@')' 't98 - - -
h[I . 1..hM *[_. L__ t < Il w.sM a, . . !. 4-lT!4AL. i i :i .Mf*fi f w i. i : .
.; o ; . . . ;
j j L
. g ;I
, . , .i .
I i ' '
' } R *. Asawwd.! horfybal rear cda, yantig
[_ l.. I j.~. __. _ .!. 1 .' . . l V-
%ML .Vetticd es.ku.c#apd i OWL &TW h O @ - Awdes TekV k%.?Arn.rspiG ,
I656 P.197 ! Folt. THE WWNT LOCATicN *F TWII, Ps7@ir4 Hl%5 [m . ryd tak
- I dth,h ur I i Qt d ie/o . Qop h2n IM, - +17 odr,- t t 4 .P93-2+7 Mea.. Vstf i Hat, vo H:1. v s > H.l,vti Hst. Ve i Het vso Hs I, ve o j
. (' $: p y %y )(10 - d. y% Q9 - 0 $ 0 6f O O Q O :
- s .c m,, o v o..e a e..
Dt I k,, 7 - M or M m
$ $ h m $ @
6,, i -r e , er ,
! , i >
l t , Ab4b l l
' HIT' ~Oki.-/N D81, . ,13 7 C% - F . - C%, '326 l 9 i ,
E I y, 90 i M- g 0 < - O 9 ,, g 1 O (A Q
] it o -c> p 9 pl 01 - - Q Q , -.- .
Q@ a- - - jj . _ H~. .v. a. . v=( # dup v Ho q'uf , q 4
+ .
,-~ .
e4 . . f
,. . I i
RHip ' t __._...4
.p p _PR-2.9 #do-if'l . Ch.22} D4 - Q A(, - ?, 2,, ,
, j No i i
-g .4 .
-.$ Q 6. . - .g Q g Q gg ,
r $ 0 in A . A. O $ e $ e ' l ( ]t No 688 i u .2 dA t po.<. vsa i o 99. I Mo tiog . I yu -s HoTEY.1. f08. NUT SIDE THE RIE8ARS' f 4TS AM'. LE D . Ttt/+4 SAST 305. 1, 6.H5 . OQM} 'k ,%~ (E U W .h k { f m^p-~~~~~'~~~~ n v%2JskWS Wtk u 1 l zfr./ oO *t'4 t a h .
~
Caki For b- (g 2 4{"l all gfr '[W ~~ d Calc. No. [d' SARGENT LUNDY . (] - , , , , , , , , , , , EL 3 u '114 _n.tLi.ch R". - _o # /A V * ' ^ ' " Saf et y -R elated Non-Saf ety- R elated Page //fofI
?"t. _ M CD _. _- _ _ etevered bv. H ._fMg . oateLJ ?'
Pp p { } p hk- S*, ( L _ _ _ _ _ Reviewed by j; . m __ Oate i f, e,ei No. 4 gc - o O Equip No. Approved by h-.F*5.*-~.' Date W L-r" N 'C et, bel 6 i (9 Mad. itg. M- tbc14 hu & us bu a. ~p s ,- ch eoil ( w dr.wtg as-c.24.)
+
f* gD
/
sfw _.L p* iim' / :1,%<_g7g
< ~ L 4 o f W a ll N hupfe Go fli: u e irr is. 3 o '
vb ti d fp.e. fv= 2s p %i 15f s 7.35 1:w . j ~r3\ httL u.t\_ SC,is Nr,ydd (p , k cc.ur$
.,4 #3 o , ir, i ; c) ,
f ,., . d ( a ,x e evat 4 anu,s h tA w. A Q httat e ce{. baa (f)5 h s,u L, v eya ha sa was n y > R,0 h s% A Act w-d yJ 19. Lo e I ce =- 1 zs pg %* y",... - u,104 w .>pss s.i., u . L , e - I44x oMoh M as" u .
- b *a 2,17 % 3,$ # { L A l1., M
,.a4g = -
- = --e 7- .
e,oi33
,e . (k. '.+Tg \s t (oc,oce>
,, ; r- i -
e f t
/* rsg 3
g , , x
; .L
. /1.3 -. -_ . - . .
%4/'g 'p . _! q R . .
. 1 2 _.;
g, I 2 i 4' : , (
- L /;,-
- :- ,. a , c. 1 (3
l (/ f/!h -l /D
Cales. For 6--) 24 bbd Sb,M al h,s ~bJ Calc. No. \h SARGENT ', LUNDY gt ij y,4. j g g, , ,,. 3 o,,s /, ,p,.
..~m~...._
c m a= k s.y-- tei,-Reiated Non-Safety-Related Page 7.,4 # of Ciieni c.g Co Prepared by N f, M d1t Date 4 -f-M Prr6ect . bpMk Id 6.' C I Reviewed by , j,/ /)f7 Date , s Proi. No. A 1K. pc) Equip No. Approved by b ' Date */- 2-/ b M ff 9cep f oft,' loa <L cu b a % , t e tD 7.3- f, 4 624 , f.H 5 -bet, t$co5 A*-Gt.1 4HL
- a. #7r21 MF. 3,w+ , w v.) H!?, f. Ei } 95 r f.s' f y 5
~
J
- FeV loc 3Tico Of McLJha\ &, & ( l !
(5') exh aca,y n sc ch e ac (. A7 39 w(g} ;
- ew' pe : <;
- Ct'.ighd cab w.%g , 6a tk Et #:ws '
(n, A'l5 f 19'1] etrff sk
; z
- sy yr. r,y:.,per ci cy a h N -e" .j <. -
- V.d 14 4 f. ;g M ' low /-M P-% VEA",loAs 41Hf, Et._e.v ATie N
- m. t.%e T 2-$ @-O @-@ @./@4; GMA4.M v i.e. 'g,o
. a.. ; c $ . r, .; ta -
ij:. y , y vos 1.' ! Vs. l . It.u. V.4 Iw PG&? f y % C"* * '* 7
' 9, t' 7 '- IU'f* ~ #
c .c.m. .. f. f'74 y V.%- , 9.y : 5".'. . ; q e. :. . qp. c. 7 feu.e h! Tv' \ f*%) wq:/ pf,y, 6'c. ./' l't k9 & b, If*' g,3; Q.,, , iSq,5 **Tl st gs l.e f 3t. C. W +A5 Aqqc Gs,41 %.7ef* i (9,n $ p y .. cour. w/ r,vy ,3 e <.wr, tw
.y q! t f y } o. t *f a 2.]
- o. 51 ** 0.28 y y w - . - . .
- 'Y psy f8' (osf "I' ? 34,q "/,b l j d.w h Im..y.ua ,, y y ag* g g'
- Ma FetMh p, b2 Obb A ['i
..f M u _ . _ _ _ . . _. .... _.
fub %q7 % 17 M.]y 1b.27 +~ n r.r ' W & ~@ l y}' : Y N G,244 0,.9) t/ d,2,4L/ 0fL l l 3
%, Y i
h tb4 v .p?' ap# ag/ og j ( u p Sc r or /2- 3 _ _ - ._. =__ . -. __ __ - - 1 SARGENT' LUNDY Celcs For h- b "M C30 dea b_N - Calc. No. lb s /+ X.; m Rev. C j : m N GING S849 ~% % N 7# 4 1 C ' C dle g Date** 't /r r
*"2^ "
%fety-Related Non-Saf ety-Related Page j / of Client Cg(,o Prepared by H Q' Date b / -g[
Proget b g . Q,_ } Reviewed by 8 Yh
/ Date J . fl Proj. No. d$ f,(;( . o o Equip. No. Approved by b-',V- '
Date 4- A -i'k o, W f b. kg c1> MS- R4% o. :2I
+. %SM;L '
~94iH ..rw. L(.5m)
- c. 63
- 63 0. lok o.}tG (l.O $' 'i# ) W >:.. ins .
tau ' (b.m \ &% . ' t. d) f, ' g,1 6.W/ Co.Wr d y S c,,a.as, w , p, M
---@, p. 3 a- i.10 t1 o I.47- fi.faq ( AA an * - =A **g
.-..,r,,
990 b* u ' ,* :ia 9 \ \ y (c "
- ll Q (/ ' b G \C]:
b.f4 8 L G tt')%
;. ., nw s.n. h2 -i' (*",1gj 2 c, F one f. ~ <.,9 o[nh6 l I
o,s op cx. oy- WW Aci W"' A"% c.,La., WE s fi ., M ic L.co s wehgNE TSR. vagov .esip, . ; V a AT iM7 (-xc cd 14 M . f, '26) % . 91bb , Mu - 88* H l blcu}3% dD. $ hor a)sil (cid, (spremed' ; (da4 c}u. 1 6 b' ~ 1 % ' gr .c He a _2 , A v. $;*t % v.- n) A v l K'* f f. f2W4+%
Cc. i o
%W M4'r 5]hb l% *M its - ; --
j '. .E ' . hl.,.,,- _ .4
, I e v,, , v. + ( i.4..ssy= , L = d)
(,,, &e,i ,,km ,,,$ g L,e L 0 e, - % K*,:;hT:T- YN.,N N Zy % }t,tWm
- 4% N./
. & V* f to F ve-y:'g} h- Gb *1 '.< '} IAs49J 61754 o,0o3p o,cos e.o t nooi4L
- c. A W 6t .
g -- __ a _ O -
- vy e:.tro r A 1 fu s' va . (,. g,,. W*
- QQ 4 ff.vbMs 2 aoso.b e464 'ipi staa sc45 <>>+,4. .W 'o*T- M '"T '
waii um vsA7 Rep.
@ -d) 9vpwvY cF vs54 T4 c,w - 't8~'F..(5t-J %d' s 144' , 3la'J cA N N) g,g., A>
p" # A ** 6'$ N'T b h, R^b*- M' ' ' - j y pg f.Eu m > wn susM. sat v I.41 nip l. 2 h % f 2 **
'l405Co5 t ho' -
s.oel+ a- o. o ci+%
~
(3 - 1 qi , ba4a 844 5%* ; l6 r mrnaw n (6 ' t = c. x 15 .? fra_ Iv , b o +> 0 s.- e ye /') di S 6f l2. .,i
<* rnia.c um regt p ura _54
Cates. Fer .) O ' *y. _c). ba M Ca!c. No. Ib SARGENT%LUNDY y ;.,,,, r.y a m, g ., , ,, . c. o,,, y/g
. ..~..~.....
) *C^" '* Saf ety-R elated N on-Saf ety-R elated Page f d b of Chent s.20 Prepared by -'
. #AM$r Date 4 - / .~>.'
Project g _ _j , (; 't i Reviewed by // 9 $# Date<f . 4-I Z, Pral. No. '.* 4 - r E quip. N o. Approved by Mhp? . Date 1/. -( k 6u rr ;Givj e h ficr. 8,prit'al rei, , re., u.t,tp/nt'
, . = - -
"M',N o.
b Qg Ag g 4. . *@'6 Ag,.gg .r,3%c,g
.n s c Gr<.> .
Sb, n a s co- n r t u a f ,
, ,ob is c:7ts 9 su ~ g u.)
<G % & 4' 42*
=~
o.644 AWo s' '. as ,.,.a ie.,
~ " '7 e u. Ase a c" h
~
< Oac u. Wall (2AUI i; d A A sf. h @ E- (7) ld d (C b'8#
F,w -he Wuh O r p.tq7.tg i re pv't , there's . or(-) uc.3 rebar 'eu t' M t% 23 . pev- p. 2.c l A> pm = 3.12." , AAre s '.t cip marg..,sl k<.&r e sl% aall pp ,< el wo#-- a i
, .' g'd = 1 9 e" **> ^ .
l d' ' h u y, u3ll .UNN be Cu . C0. Ah, 9 0 k & UXtAv Y'O&f b 3*EE* Froni Or ht'ch, C ar f.116 ) e re' prt , tae cani . Conclub t41ets WM bc
! ,os3. d reo, c at> n r-2 :,atlj i max. b rear cc, beer.2ilj J/alf (cn Ja ., (cioj. to (c5M tb ptomed u ck beta c C bu B 4 @ L* n' t'
- ire v' .- rv
- e4 .
l , u-+=+: reb.n Lej t ; < h 4 eall ca.% h. reAWrc wuc.f ,b4 l j * % tual 'hiaj. he.1 !#,@ rOys ale, mwme{, h be udhr@ d;3t" rih &.4L d< l
& w N he% y tis Wall
/
l.@ s :x -~
- L. b L }y. . o,* e he . f crirdc21 h dt > A\ QWb o
r a Hot H'o nted by. kca lc!rf N'ii h t ' 2 #II * & OF L #43
# ftb2 a(f., a%uined E be, adr orrd
.: bral @ W' -b I 33 1.4 f t 1,5b x 1.3 as 2.6 e J #) /j i ,
n.t c<itul diru' Metr ejeined L (Or3ll
$ p/gskre leoA. af1r as-..a t t<ex et ve<e. reb.3<3 4 S' proje c t c.ritevia , ch.:c.K rc.in M6 sis 4 cron c.uo
( ! A) Calctd35 T, Mt t's p.t., hr.s..--f. rc3'd. '35 E. cA* hy l ,
.>i s , 9.s ' - o. s 2 r M
. - Anope p s.,di rreg, ccAdu, d .
l o. o s q ','}
~
' *f ke ~' tr* col F5t
, l 0. f. 4I y 296 c.us-o.55$ c r % l. 2.5 c C,(. H _ j'/ 6f 7 &
Cates. For # 1-btd , M 3kna ed [1. N Cale. N o. lb SARGENT kLUNDY g, g, 4 1 e N GIN 95M S ., A44 BL. 06f a R ev. C Date kl //h c + oc " Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 9 % of Chent C BC.O Prepared by N. PA.MQ Date 4 -/-62, Project b $ af h (Jyp t f Reviewed by ,d Dated , L -b Proj. No. i f. (,(, - @ Equip. No. Approved by bfv ,M e Date 9- A-/k f A(<arra fife /L 37 e4 @ IU M- tb o $4 OcWj Ct M
! oall i
( j: 5,75 (, we f,I4q.$qevche4 y King lccall) > ku. L. , z# fn n % %. W oee m p. MrMc?) mmee# by inethb 4 u2gwP-%cG44x2.A>o.sqq# d) l.: I
. .Crincal morw r. biIwy.{c 3 ME m f*s.3# !
' +-.; . . . ! .
( ,M'S h PW s M e is. ) S -.. . S '((cg )
. Coiw\ ate TM w M a\ fernf. rm 'r
._:. .Ma< a ,,ss n o k', - - . mcwa.
M SQu i
, . .. Nu =: lS, %0 '-
H%u Gst-o(-hsss'
.d,:41"-1"l'h,d 40. Ij s
- p l' St v ,p
' ' " +".'AS?
Qi F, izu -
- d. .
itooo
- i. cs24 1*>51
- ID.340 ay Ed * * 'I470 f . . ;
L e S/ . t - 9, ,3, ki-y o.ss 6 1 2 su / x; I , - , l g s p c o.as rc ) l N & lf j CE 000 'E 4 W 4 La$ath Prs witedcd f" E
*
- POSG 67 { l -
l l~ o,siht 10o 0
-) l I
f,
- NOTE' Tnc . CmRt:
i Desy , t' wk ' u ;M kuyoe, e gua b , w e t -
- f. 4 7. efu . C v. 6.4 J t fsg. liw<t W l.o4 A '
l y = 0.os&c7( V ) \- c.ssu fl )' *.5 " ' ' ' o,17o @dt' gjbl=3.so/so'#x is < so. 231 -
= 0.csscn ( \ :- JI- 0.ssa te.z 981, = i .,r71 so
- fu Q 1a.
. t on A""9 - i 757hto"x it < 4.,t is.=o.o 35 Yg,+
1
&. - .. L. . /Mff f f*.
l i Cafes. For '2. 4>14___ld3ll 9 r ' $ . OM H Calc. N o. l0 h SARGENT h LUNDY
..~. .-
gy , y i pgg4 ,,, o o,,, a,/4 C " 'C ^ " C' Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page '2 o 23 cat Date 4/th2,__ Chent d.,g(p Prepared by M . MN C1 ~ 3 Project dgdy f Reviewed by h-_' [
./, Date ,'/
- Proi. No. 4 f,6$ - 0 0 Equip. N o. Approved by M Date 4.k-Ib f) ca k'sw dC(UA \ f &1b;*03WcA9 A8 Try C to) -cN (Wah . M% . ; _
fW %i I e . p. v1) ' i }Fa we. ss w ( Ae3 4 AHro. e )* + c Ap ' e A 8w i Asomr.p-r A p -e Aca/ . l Ar te) . 9 f
. i ,
/, Fi w 4 tit O k s c h l
Ya . $b 04A p +; A p ' u A s ,,,, . ,f At tn ' O.4 A E. ' !.4 k ,
' ~~'E3re : Ir cai. 8145, du.; area et veel skalarcD5. bed.
c u r. n u, e r l
,u>= 4:s A,,
i.21%.p f41.3 Ap e Ap+1,es Ap ,s"u Ap - i.o Ag,[1 ( ta ws %s _. F.*/ GCc102.NGl gw.4(C,. krlu.L .
.j A > re ., = Ao+i. sap .
k es % % & . n n { d. Y s e & a ,sss & h L (rc e, sheat w.s\Ldc.uy j y v.-eba.?.oao) .
% e ) -
%{. area rerg. % seism:c, as %L, l A4 rgo 3v hp 6plee loaA. . . .
j A>g : hj.by. a<ca sea retjd. Ac.fo hhal A pressar+ l. cab. j p
- Ap rw.g. ma n y 1 h 6 1,m t a A A .c out - cf - e b u )
- A %.3.L.. b f. xea n.y 1 d u h lu,qcy od-c[ -ybrxt 102 M ..
j . Ap Re,q. ..;ca rd'J. y Au b acdddCd emure: 14. . 2 Ag . fd.u . seeJ ref'd Ju h pya b'e sic 1 cad 0 . ; Ao bf ',no 63 3l Ju G d:lf celgtt f yltu a4Guoal to f01 m at\. ycye ,ccosa;c au. ! nm (v..wa. kw p Ay du.ag r.cL&. . L:a Stow ses, d f j Y,1 16, p, 4o
' / i
*OAN3b CM k %E. hada o.4cedatg b b . o.bove di pt4Cv,3
@) heh - ce&tsu
___;. . _ . _ e --
Cales. For 3.(p_1_d.Sh d C). . [,.a kl Calc. N o. l ($ Date MIML _ R 'b$~'%Y 4D- FOL% Rev. O
'2 " " Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page '?.o 44, of j l Client (_ c c.o Prepared by W . FA.N c,r Date V -l-b f.
Project Q dc - Q ni t l Reviewed by .._ .[ b Date e$ L. [l-Proi. No. 4 ?_ f,(, - co Equip. No. Approved by fed Date 4 /k-A
- f. 4Y Cch. . Mill. CAC/
**'3')(%4 A H.,,.4 ) \ ( A , f+ A3., + b g,g-A p4 % )'
n(-+mc+Co e
+ o.co + m n s.as , .sz) z
= !.v5'> '" < 1.G:.'^. . faca;.L rsq. 5ee g, : :
- 2. 01_ , g,93y
- q. F. ,
i 3n
) P. ,- 04. 038 c4 recalcdsti . b1e.ch. Lao ,[Me, : Heg M-e,on Ato uo tw a in ces c m ) /alu,aw 9t run e tp, essm. et .
(}
' c.is < e3 , ,,32s 't o O Jo N" ,,, h F. J h c6E. cose, see, c3)
- g gy, p 4; o,5TS p 1,o Gs . t. 6 5 8 Trie, tG.
< n tic d frc 4 .it h3 ,
[* ,J d r K 1,15$ % i) 8 Fl.e 5 F '
- 9I2m > s I,GFf see e c. I,2 s Se .c-n 4s M*/f: bl,4 b .--. *
; j - sou n ( \ - i s - c.ts +1g c ) = 1. su no
- A>,fu ,c,m **. . g
", fW eB6 Ce4 , c.he d q. (*) h) ((c) > gu.Neh 2 Ap . i,4 A y g,g,, )z q.( 3> A<ep q(l.4 Aece - i.4 A7 ,,,p ) + ( g,4 4 3.,
a(l.4 % t o[+(o .
+ o. :.e 3 + o ) ' = *d'lI ~ < t.foz "
M.p, . 2f = 3.1d p Aq. , 0.a % a us A,..g A ( tzg,, + Ap 4 1.= Ao.,w -us% h .o A#
"[G.md,~g1 o )* , c o + o.s34 o + i.zstur+in.azf o
- I7'O {-58-J n
. d. . $" /l 1. I e.1 i- M,f,= J:;9 -^ = t'4 6 R W_ M%G
)PMF I, cr/& '"/ A O_ 4- o >; it 4 t: > r t1 f ,1 f ;. . ,
(
^A I?
~ ' ' ' '
0"b N '#c "*- l SARGENT% LUNDY ,% immaiseases "Ib9 % 1% k(x bLlh R ev. S DatE*~#"/M I s N c. .c acac,
,g Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 2 , b f ent du Prepared by H . F .N N cv Daie 41 3 2 eM '.,
Protect MMig .ht i Reviewed by .- Date ,f Proj. No. 'i M G - co Equip. N o. Approved by bM m' Date Y- J -O 4 CKtapp L. As u/o c4 -b 5 5.11 ,, A S r2[a = 1. 74 o " c'6 f. c<ift<t ! Call p3<e) .ub (5 % LO M f. = * ' %. 7 to s *7n - S /o cars H f. 24S/t.76 5 l.e el . w/ c4. ucia: H=t~rd N a et24 4 6 4 AWd,
/ :aut s2 o.,e\ M . ed. k (D 4 m aa. is6s< Wasu '
Fr. .. . th +u tch on equ m t MS, oc can cenchde ear cham 't w s com at or ve,ta Acc r rm 4 3 r4:w cJ, at wg>W A% .
. N6. C6 a t b f. r Area t of t > Wd : d-o", ' fa 'b 612 i h wh- -.
;ra w>-* ,o.m 3.** 4 2r'c rk;m we cd % :n. rn tu ve z.
- trt L' m w % ***' s t.:ss ia ce p.,. *o luys H-M+M m,64. x $kp(h Sw..d k.& ky h.h : % 3\n d, *be st", -
u &q s-aq - 3 Ted u re io , .. J o a n p R~l = 0. w l ". oe p , as ru ste cee - ve cap Av p g Ae>+ A Np )' + ( $ + Ap - Aw w, - A r < Ar.)' \
=
^
(gy , e,f (o , o.cro / .c ' .. a
- c. O = ' ' % "
< 4, t .,i e. } '2'20s
- l .' 3 NJ M,f v = f.to.4 o
/
${ 0 U4,A
- W15U%
p *s [ %s.# p O lea $ M, F, = ga &.141
% 4> 25 ' ' 25 ., ,)2, p c,3
, e,, e tg ,, t 4 i,e u,y)' - I M 75 < 2 4'*'
im pa me.q;;;;,,.m
. , . nw - - ,
w,.- vi AY !' C ' l
li Cales. For 6-hq[,lhnhShmej,b M Calc. No. lb
, ,, ,, .%J[,y w 1Ty LA hC2M Rev. 8 Date M ~f <h
"C"'
/s Safety-Re!sted Non-Safety-Related Page '20 [) of Client G6CO Prepared by N, f Date4 -/ - 64 Project dg . -. Ohif l Reviewed by . . 1 -
Date /-2,.f2 Proj. No. 4266 oO Equip. No. Approved by Date Y" A **O k a s . O d e i 8. J , j s "" l _%lnEu1_-. A3.um u ' l pau pa w ( v.c - % = I.vu 2 -- - v/. e : i ck, w G A 6 1 g7, , 2,uy . .--. ei es j
- s. cm
, imp .
i e (.) M 55 E e4w, - d.en p M _ 9 8 t d T" .O O +0 7 Q) 8
#s N b #,hh ]
o.GS7/ ? W F. =
/,,py I. s. i) , j e n ose ~- L r; y M r ,
- ~ ~ . . ~ . . !
og , , N t (O+Q+ uf
- O. b h 4 0.h h qp ""k ]m - i Sir is u r e.r u o
% s A,1 G. 7 * *) + ( a + o- o < o),
wqs < 0,e sy , o.n, } ' ((. /C $ :n? r'~ .hg a b t' * l d M]$ g A0Y
/ '
O c w y i, J p f w /> c As= o. m i.
.a
,,,u
- A+7 e
37a-4..; mM \ sail whs. M F, - M,s - zq . ..... w/. c4
@ Y @g.wi n r. **T/c. m , 1. u , . . . . . y a, ,
o O pu p. e/u se-
_ . . . . . . - -. ~. . - . - _ . - . . . .- - - . - . . .. _ _ . . . . - . - . - . . .. . _ . _ - - - . . ____. _.- f a I i a i FIGURE 2.7-3 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR CONCRETE BEAM
- l l
l 1 1 i , l l l 4 J
Cales. For bckkCd ' j SIh-G Il Calc. No. k /hk SARGENT$ LUNDY
..~.,~...._
g,g'@4 g. 29 V Rev. D Date3/4/h w .c ^ Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 36 6 of / Client oQ Prepared by 6i duW, Date2 ,. ;cy, ,gg Project Q,_'j # h. i t ) Reviewed by @ ' Data f-l-[ A-Proj. No. 42/f/ f..no Equip No. Approved by v- Date E*l- O V
---..g.7_.....,-_.--
P" , i l- &--- I g bb h .M. D . ..[_ , . , , _ , . . . . . . _ . , a ttv. -so "*" VM ' C MW deso. Fe w &5 i wevos.T Mtoo68. (4df 4&a(C %>Las i I %'t -C" !@-511 %.\7 19/l c . s ; /Ec:xd7ei IO I
~-
o' . - { hwx.h$4s . . _! . j l
" 2,5Jk p ,! _
!1 r !
*>.1 7 ,
I I ! _L_. l j ..,.4_. . _ . _ _ _ I l f l .
.y .-9 .
- y. - w.
j . 1
; l i i j .
.p.-_.p___
i i 1 J _ . .,i__l_____.;_.._,.__. . fann th sbwo ! j eJt.fh%n.Mha_ E. MA (, .41 7 es I , , sfc .xL4 ml a v i s . r. -
. . .i _ .. l :
p_.i_ 1 . _ _ _ _
- _. q- _ _.. _
1
; .f ,
i , :
; } ._
.! . f[__
t
.-{: i. ; , .; . ~
' l j r l
- t 7
. e._..._+__ _#._ . - _ . _ _. . . _ . . . . . .
t j j
. . . .. 7
. !. l .
n o
+
0 l E i !
. 4 h
. s i . .- - .i .--
i b t E ~
. i .
7- .- d . l t. - -
. . . . j ! . .-
i
; i
- i. . .
_ ._ __._._u f$ / '$ 7
1 cates. For 6 - 2is I c6 - 911 Calc. No. h((4 SARGENTh LUNDY g, w. g o
,,,, p o,,, q.j,5 v anonneene.
C '-"C ^
- Safety-Related Non-Safety-Relat:d Page ~3fd of (m
G)
\ Client C,gfA Prepared by N. Weir Date 4 Sg Project bf,b-Ug& l Reviewed by 6.I'2h6RAc.IV.v r. Date d i.'8'i Prol. N o. di,[, / . 0 0 Equip. N o. Approved by -
Date k- A-b
. . . -e . - . . . , . < s . r.,
7.-
. o i
. N" Y . p s 5 y; .. ith r4 % aA a : 44cacu,,oobata2+p/>C. '
ethvlhrt : i 84,p : v e . w p a<3,; i
-j 0
- 9 f 4 s ,. " ,
i r , ,
. l l i k rl y J
o W j $.g o d ooo;
._ qqsg -q_,_g _. _.
, q, .
H ! +-p. F A : #:W l p. : o A o W (1
.[ .
i ! l l .
. (9) 1 n
. . u t ,
for. a\adak,w.follN)Mg b,j . 3. Ju4U . . ; Q .
--gg i,l g
, .l GJ , t .
in - % lc p. V
% .....___, ; .. . .. -. 1 ! .
_l
; h4? k S%A9 ', (49- Sb, S$M C . ~W "
I--~ k 'c
.2 . ,
- (C, . CM .
. 4"Ch>f. Vak Vf . ;
a
. l A
~
i 1 y. pat . g , je mxpd fukas
- p. ar i
; em
[
,n <
m i 4 i.: ; l \eb -sol l j - - N-M7 y . ! 9 , WI I' ' u 8 n . {s'W - 0 o ( ,_. 4 . . J,
, hbb .@MMN
_--. a _- - ----;.. , j 4 .NTb .j
. J l
. . j l
5 i I L_ .. _ _ . m _. .
/M&E 2- V7 ._.
Cales. For E V A LLb P Tesd o." ( F ?> 4 /? c e* 7 Ca!c. No. $lbA
'3 SARGENT hlUNDY ,, ,, g ,, ,, s .,,, g,,g g 3 2,g ,,,_y n,,, g,y,s y (Q : e NGINeeMS .,
**'C^*"
N Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page @ f f" of Client (6 re Prepared by J. d Le */'t Date 3 - V il F/
~
Project b/*J 4 C C C Reviewed by '4 . f ~r *
- h v < ' i r. Date 3 - -
Proi. No. .d 2 (( - c (, Equip No. Approved by Date 3 ,',o-(L D1' se .. l - 10 6 - G il ( 3c x43 ) Type 2 , _ .
,U. j ,,[ ) k gem T. c. @
r, ,t4 ) i (- .# l * ' g . ,,e i 6
$ l er.t o' :-f 'f i ! ,* we s t.
3? f ;, s ' l-rs.sc) . x .,a e - . t1 g 4*1 ;
, e i. 7r 6 '-d' ;*1
; r") 4.
- 1 ,
t ' t 1 . / 7 c t ( _ 2 j 5 ..- , ,,.
/ , t e. ' ^
**t j , -- 2 s q c.
'637
)i iLc" i'
- 1. .. . - ,
; i j (j,i , N i
it- 3 1 3 , 6 e { :; cuy i. te u s. 6 L, .. f o,- lo . ,, i s e'
- p. t v'
, o/em ,
f L' a j g If e _ F 'I i ,a s ' f,7 r' t-4 ,-
, , / ,
j 14 ,- t> e, - lo '- 6 , 1 7 et sc
*~ ~
fer/ . Wa N 3ckw
, act, a m u p m , w j ,
f f ,F
= - - - '
) I- p9 M 4 p deia 6 l j l 1 Hang-loaru ccma f=1 l ; {
; Jru,wd Hl.5-3oi s ,
) ijw l
l 8 L / e . ,
- Q c w% g Q l
i a e l N' 3 4 0
!, . _, - , a ._
(-
.M - - -
, ,]- g
, , ;_, ,M-9 y 1 x .:s ,
< ( c..s' - -fA$f .5 05 f
~
1 Sg ( ft 6A/ 47 NWl( <# f/ 4^/
y Cates. Fer G VA LLsA 7*od of AE6AN Cl4 T Calc Mo. $lbA SARGENThLUNDY op ieNonneenne - g, cut. 1-n - st/ @fD48 s-2'S Rev. O Date &214b C " 'C ^ C l Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page3d/, of v Client CEC. Prepared by J. JUNet Date Jay-/2 Protect /Egd 6 #/ Reviewed by 6 . P_ h c, t i Gch a 5 , c Date 3- L.Y 'c Proj. No. A g/ ._ o 3 Equip. No. Approved by b - Date 3-30, W
.g_...~_ _ . . . .
_7
$ [JRb 4 Af . ' C~A TI O). t
. 4-
. . , i i
. l i l la -
.i -
t. NCG . tkl of Pfq AGM r estr *T a j , .;. . .
; 8' ThM . sp A e 4 M. Att e LiscA T 6 0 ,
~
. _! i
[ l Mhx. t bek4v cufo C id' F CE4N. , AJJ v ~/ s < A/tr . I
\ Is$ .h.'YG4. W ; k h . id4;rI cM T fr strTT*H k i
,, (th vjcuS3 / /c t ! !6 fevo J ./ree.
!J4h"'Nov ! .
, 4 .
1
! 4/.%t + - -d, 1 (/JE df) u # ?! ; g. 2 4 7, 6 ad !
1
. . I < Leper . UD2.1 ks : 0 x 1.0 = fo i t
I bY /ryNcn/Ne. r c o H p s es n..J e As: or l TV
- p; foSITivE McMeHT cAmctTy Y' ,
. CAfAf IT Y 9 REAM , .6 M/orle .
.y.
~
eso r . y 8/q e f = o,7x [x to 4r. # - 3 %.
' - p j!-g :
l . Mc p h Fy ( A.- % ) . .
,~
[6 l , . us. 3.qMer N.A, ;
.to < 6 o" .
I o. = .. a= n 3;n
; a.sg.
. has., <fe, h. h>
., o.Kx4 x 36' 1 i
n f = GP "" . .+ I I 'l 2. 6 0
- t ' .
j l 3 4"' , 7 =t Hrf-h4 g I g
, b = 36 " e ; 9e4Anvs MoueNT eM%cdy g s } =
u CArfcLT Y or. btA M, 6 WEST GND. ( W* cut.] k ' [ ' l en. v . G kn ,, g, n o"/ bo e} ~k' is
. s = Go } x ('2 4' S - -
egl g" q # l _w f , f' i [~m j t < n o, dEx f x 3C , i xi l
" = -2 2 7 1. 2 /
, P& E y of 7
( -$$-
Cales. For EUAluA rred =r pessx c<rr Case. No. 9l/A SARGENTkLUNDY
=.e. - ..._
o,. ,,,g , n _ g,, g y , j,g ,,,_p ,,,,g2943 x c.4 c Aoo M Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page -3 /:,') of b) Client C6 Co Prepared by J. J U We Date 3 f2 Project L 454646 -" / Reviewed by 5 . W.h<> t't a c.h r- Date 3-30-92 Proj. No. 4 2 gg - 0 o Equip. No. Approved by h f-t M V Date 3-3o -b g Rli()u-kflda@.il Nestne somT aeary r
; c stuir'r : or. se+n a enr eo. ot. cur.)
i,.c(..,e
,(
r x . .. . . . . a, . c~ m . _ -. m -
- gy , , ,o,7x 3 ao y, ,, _
,. 7z 1
A.h 4 i , i k . e g , p o, ,1
-- -* - c 4 g ' 4:t = =Jfa
; e, tS>g i.y f 3 4:, , .
I I. p : [ } . =:a-/ S 78, 4 l '
?
V ' g ACKudL HoM gr/ fJ.. ,
! O L#MS L4 D t 1."7 L g .* [g MVQ '
I 'Ibc Blwe 1o.24 'ceadr. in 3-0d4 F f,')f me ek r , ff*f.0)y/.'/0=2.f)f'Vog Cec
- Vc lie IAkg p,pe.'lb,,y ot. $.Io "" qg Squg. ips; .<as /, c'< tY$ * 'Q x1. 7s = 7. a V'
. , . .gW =1.gr 1 ws e 0.01 x r.n . o ar = , sr'Y Ad7 rf, ,
s a. e. e , s t. 8 e i sem (afx.is. x i.rs ) - a , si j .'QSE kM.> 5 1.o pt i.c> L4+ l.063rl.c5RV 9 e Lo co ' pT44 -6&6 ldg - /c, & ^!'i
!% olw. La ca. In 3-val 4 Li .qn n
8 +
" e,,
l o oeA" L'H. ) S it/ M l'FC /* r
'l P' = o,*/f i .
-/ n + 9'
- 1,1Lb.b i
( SL4b ( /. 5 X. /6 X g /,hb = J,y 2) l' (.M 't. 4 4. ,4L .9s 4) AEAM l'3'x 4- x ./Y' X / ]lb = $46'
- Ts T44- JSE Qu = fo. t/o or daus la. "* * "s l'xt.'lu -
I,pff) ;
% - f<Acect h,e L,4 .
- S%= 3atey U;ef vbe An-Quese Gocka m ne ciwexxS. ;
Q & =. seism.'s bal
!c.- amat~oam % m t.ool i
i-fb .$' O? l 6' _ .. t rig-
r~ l. Celes. Ftr El/A l.M A7s* Cf %6 5/M t* ti T Calc. No. $lbb SARGENThLUNDY
..~.,~. ..
--y ,, fu _y,j, g cg _4p ,_j,f g,, f) o,1,3 333 C " 'C ^ X Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page 3 & N of 3 -
Client ( 6 (o Prepared by J. JuW Datej BI Project LASM(c -/ Heviewed by 6.o P hollochov ic. Date 3-30 8P Proi. No. 42 d'[- 0 0 Equip. No. Approved by h^ f-^^ ' b Date 34, -p Q l l//LS - 5.I . O&T'Ph . . i i i-l 1 . waux: 3.w seis c c s e. . u -se .). , I
#p (ecp)'* # f i(2 ,1 5 W ' O d) i 4pg&
ind.g
?
-qp
- g o. ns5 l* y m
'P -
_I
' , r.,
._ ..-4. t '
a
/p pI
' A.q8M. . A..' .i .' ,/
;/-, . ,> ,! ; 2 i g . **
g i.- , s. . g 34 . w, i. i s
, b),$f . u '* t' s- y it.> i c. n - 7J n..H' a.e
- 2. 4a '
2.37" , 21' 3,91
- i , % _g 24.s z (
g) ( ! !42.h .
- M 2,.b P -
s_ . . , 4 . 1 ,. ,
.- ; ye > -
yt? ; i.9 ,,,,4 *
,.h
/ n,tr
,' i' ,
,eerAF. -
- j. :
PtbqRAM .! M
,i t
} {
, zw% 3 n,w e i4 0 2
~
j som, 4 [. i 4 ' _4 us.v'
- i
+
s i n . ! , 6 t i ; FIx-r up M. Y ?^!T W Ao r. , i : 2s.11(#1)* + s.za(i>.' r)(A7r),p.y&lif ( . M. e g = /0.N(2/)* ,
,,, t ,,. ,,. .i .
' g7,y / 4g,ro : / a ub <
l f Sf "l i , . . g + 4 64 r 6gr x 6%2s*
,= 4T/.0f ,/ _
19 { 19,5 r / . t gg /., 3( /) 26.%/4l['7)4 4.2b(!) T)(f.fr)4 26.931 j . N/.7; /4.17 < 13.70 4. 4 ' '
; .= 4 g,77 t' j 364 x /t.!t x '.E * !
. ._ 2
-gg7-b?. f. #f 7. .
.8) ' . . .
Ca!cs. For & l/A l.u t* 1r .O ef Lt6AN Ce tY of Calc. No. $lfA SARGENT%LUNDY
..~.,~...._
yy , a , ,, g g,g , .2 , c , ,.,_ p o,,,9.y,,53 s C " 'C ^ *
/ Safety-Related Non-Safety-Related Page % of Ct.ent ( 6 co Prepared by J. dVWe Dated #2 LAf4CCC 8' / Reviewed by b . Ein c. dach o -r Date 3- 3 ', -
Prciect Date 3- } e- p Proj. No. 12 k .oa Equip. No. Approved by D ( t r c, - s " c.47's). r ilAx. Ho o~f Fn7 /17 M "' F l G . f 'l= 0 l -I 50$, *jg -- l 72--lC S UIO N a c. y n == a f 7.ob N2.% bo.s9] - %1[{t,cW) + #!' # .2. o 7 7.t
~ % W( ). PIP)
- 608.03 c-M < iuc .p y w/, car. ; .
,ita, e. _ , . i s 7,. u + - 7 tau . ,, yi. . ;
A'f i s ' t '= / S 7 6 W '
~ F Ac Tett t' 5 A ' E 9 Y. ', .
w ' V ' '-
@o n+ nierte rr e. suer A 114' 2, a 7 h'
g,f c c o *Jz ; /S/l.V 'n' Jl H */ n 7 /. 2 497os <a o s. os " +1477 - j
= 3. I t - M i,pt 4, 6 D ?/*
[ r L l kl< c;,7 y /F7 M 417.*4 '
/57If t*t. *3T "'
22741 y'74 7l n - i
?
y i
=
- 3. If
=
1.Sf3 = +.4 0 )(O
? !
} RTa : q adual nsaMAl Straog N. a'utrplj' r.3f.a 1.1M (see g, 94, wt qir, A) l t,9(,I
- l.t01 a 1.t f 0 u a,c : n . m e. a e t NR
- 143,3f.** V _l
\ $= c.es, b= d, .G as W l J l p
, tr, , ---
t+t,M < toop
. . . . . -- - . gegp g p .'
# k et o,es x % < As.7r hLsk p het cok=2 ( c1Etav= I2 6 f > t02.,o L
.*. O, Y-
,/Nf I s*,5~7 -/
2
- - . g -, ,-,. ._ s , - - , . - . - - . . .- , ._ , , - . , . , . , , , . - - - - , + _ .-- -, . - - - - -
O O O TABLE 2.6-1 SLNMARY LOG OF REINFORCING STEEL DAMAGE REPORTS RECEIVED BY SARGENT & LUNDY BEFORE AND AFTER MARCH 29, 1982 FOR LASALLE COUNTY, UNIT 1 AND _ UNIT 2 REOUIRED FOR UNIT 1 OPERATION Number of Damage Number of Reports Received by S&L p " Total Number of Cut Bars Contractor 3[3sRepote} t Received Received Toul Missing Associated with Reports by Contractors Prior to After Reports Received After 3-29-82 3-29-82 3-29-82 Received Unit 1 68 Walsh Construction 79 Unit 2 11 0 79 0 0 Total 79 Reactor Control 88 87 88 1 0 1 h' Unit 1 43 Commonwealth Electric Company 55 Unit 2 12 0 55 0 0 Total 55 Mid-City Company 6 6 0 6 0 0 H. P. Foley 2,584 2,442 142 2,584 0 298 M. C. C. Powers 9 None 9 9 0 36 Morrison Company 687 681 6 687 0 6 The Zack Company 62 None 58 58 4 249* TOTAL 3,570 3,350 216 3,566 4 590
*The number includes assumed cuts for four missing reports.
d TA3LE 2.7-18 MAGIN5 IN SAPPtE AREA 5 WITH COV.($TE0 #CBAR HITS FOR L A5ALLE COUNTY. UNIT 1 r of Total Maalmum N rain Margin Margin with d Nunter wi thout with Holes
$1ab/ Wall Lo t on br "Wj" Nunter of Holes Holes Considering
#'" of Damaged based on based on Actual
"* Building (Panel flevation Slab Locations Rebars 5tae) Panel due to Dama9ed 8'" P" E"# # * '*I Nder Ort 11tnq Hole % due to Min tmm Mln f mm M t en')th due to Operations, Ort 11tng Cored Material N tertal Determined Holes Strepith Strenoth by ACI Code 2 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L)
Ofagonal I 7'x56' 4* 12 8 7 24 1.250 1.050 1.170
) C C
, 1 14
$6" Slab 2
2 'a32 740'-0* J8 39 15 0 0 1.300 1.013 1.150 g 12.8 Beam at Line 14
- 3 l 4,$. 786'-6* Between 5 2 0 0 2.590 1.960 2.170 Column D &
}
E 51 b 0 1 1 4 1.710 1.430 1.460
' Reactor 4
(5-2M) 10'a26' 820'-6* IRS l719 Each l720 3 3 0 0 1.620 1.370 1.410 l Betw*en 11 Reactor Wall Above & 13 and 5 14.7'a33' 820' 6*. 16 17 1 4 2.130 1.130 1.160 (5-219). Column J & t G
\ Between Colten Row C/ 5 itini na2i' g;::::5 3,s:ty;ea a 'a 2 * < o* 2 o= 2 2'o I & R w 15 10 10 0 0 2.850 2.530 2.740 23 ) .17'm23 At Line
- Between 8.9 e
8 aj7 7., 7 673'-4,* & Between 22 25 0 0 1.730 1.030 1.110 694'-6 Column J & G At Line 11.3 Aua111ary Wall Above Running 9 10 15 0 0 1.280 1.070 1.160 (5-572) 18'a25' 731'-0* Between i Column J & L s These areas were presented in Bethesda. Nryland on March 31,1982. The detemination of actual material strength utt1tring material test reports from LaSalle Station is based on ACI Code (318-77) provisions, as delineated in Section 4.3.1.
'All these bar's damages are in top of slab scattered in the entire bay.
*When the damage in Column F enceeds the damage reported in Column G. it indicates that a reinforcing bar was damaced bv more j . .. than one hole. This would occur in a concrete carinston axhor basentate assembly where one reinforcing bar would be s cof ncident with a row of concrete expansion anchoi ..
l w-, ---- a. . . . en , - . -x- - ~ . . - - . . n.,.--n---,-. - , , , - . , - . , , , , - - ,-..,.n w, w--,,-.~-,v,,,,,,,.w. ,.n-,,-.,,,..-r ...,c,.m.. ,.,~ee,,. ,:
pJ C\ (_) TABLE 2.7-2
SUMMARY
OF NUMBER OF CONCRETE ELEMENTS FOR WHICH DETAILED CALCULATIONS WERE i Total Number of Concrete Number of Concrete Number of Concrete Elements Elements Where Rebar Elements Reviewed In Percent of Damages Are Identified Detail Concrete Concrete _ Elements Elements Unit 2 Areas Unit 2 Areas Unit 2 Areas for Which Rg uired for Required for Detailed Unit 1 Areas Unit 1 Areas Required for Uni t ,1 Unit 1 Unit 1 Areas Calculations Opera tion Operation
, Uni t ,1 Operation Were Made S1 abs 894 81 285 50 285 50 100 Walls 390 76 170 36 170 36 100 i
Beams 308 22 38 0 38 0 100 Columns 214 20 68 0 68 0 100 TOTAL 1,806 199 561 86 561 86 100 t { l-4 4
TABLE 2.7-3 ; O
SUMMARY
OF ALL REINFORCING STEEL DAMAGE FOR UNIT 1 SAFETY RELATED AREAS AND THOSE UNIT 2 AREAS REQUIRED FOR UNIT 1 OPERATION Total Total Damaged Bars in Damaged Bars in Unit 2 Safety Unit 1 Related Areas Type of Safety Related Required for Hole Areas Unit 1 Operation Cored Holes Passing Thru 3632 584 Concrete Cored Holes Partially Penetrating 512 4 Concrete Drilled Holes for Concrete 3498 213 Expansion Anchors Total- 7642 801 I l t l l i O .n.
. . . - . . . . . - - , . . . . - . . - . - . - - . . . . - - . . . - . . - - . - - . - . . . . - - , , - , _ . . , - . , . . - - . . -}}