ML20053D746
| ML20053D746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1982 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J771 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-168 NUDOCS 8206070279 | |
| Download: ML20053D746 (78) | |
Text
\\
l 2TCC*.IAA RIGC ACORZ COM3CSSICN f-i m * { rr3 7.]q\\
t O
_ $)b d b
c s
P P
- de.v2 r r cf:
COMMOlm'EALTii EDISCN COMPANY DOCKET NOS.
50-373 and 50-374 LaSalle County Nuclear Ganerating Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2 l
"A*E:
March 31, 1982 PAG ~ZS:
1 - 77' AT:
Bethesda, Marvland I
}
A.LDERSON I ", REPORT 1XG
-(
o l
400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Washing n,
D.
C.
20024 Telephcne: (200 554-2345 4
8206070279 820511 PDR FOIA KODNER82-168 PDR
w e,.w:
- .-..~... ~,
a.
-- r.. a - -
w 2, =
.a wau.y
_v._z_w_.
1 l
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 Ia the Matter of a
5 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-273 e.
i 6 LaSalle County Nuclear and 1
7 Generating Station, Unit t 50-374 8 and Unit 2 9--------------
- - - -x 10 Room P-422, 11 7920 Norfolk Avenue, 12 Bethesda, Maryland.
13 Wednesday, March 31, 1982.
h 14 The meeting in the above-entitled matter was 15 convened at 1:03 p.m.,
when were present:
16 APPEARANCES:
17 H. Denton 18 R. Purple 19 A. Sournia l8 20 B. Tedesco i
21 A. Schwencer l 1 f
22 C. Norelius 23 C. Williams 24 B. Shoemaker s
25 R.
Hoefling l
l C%)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L_
..au.ar:.:wa.a.- Jaz x w:..
- w x.aa. =. - s a m aa-L-
- =x I
2 1 APPEARANCES (continued):
2 P. T. Kuc 3
S. P. Chan O
4 R. E. Lipinski 5
J. Bigley 8
- a. Lee 1
7 L. Delceorge 8
M. Miller 9
P. Steptoe 10 D. Shamblin 11 T. Quaka
~
12 K. Kostal 13 Y.
R ekla ctis h
14 C.
Schroeder 15 M. Morris 16 T. Longlais 17
,J.
Goodie 18 19 a
20 21 y
22 23 l
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA NVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
.. ~.
.. +
o. _ A.c
-u,_,..
g u.m.m m2_a A_mi
_.a_
_u
.Ama 3
- [p$
E E 9.C E E D I E G E 1
2 (1:03 p.m.)
3 MB. DENTON.
Let me thank you for attending O
4 this meeting on such short notice and tell you what I o
5 would like to do.
I want to call your attention to the e fact that a transcript is being taken.
We will provide 1
7a transcript to the various parties.
The reason I am 8 taking a transcript is to facilitate our review of this 9 inf ormation.
So we vill assume that whatever we hear 10 from the company today is valid information and we can 11 use it in doing our review of this issue, unless you 12 choose to modify the information you present here 13 t od a y.
14 I received a petition from the Attorney 15 General of the' State of Illinois dated March 24th, 16 requesting that we initiate a show cause proceeding and 17 initiate other relief because of some circumstances 18 alleged at LaSalle.
There are two types of problems 19 that the petition is concerned with.
One is the boring a
20 of holes through important walls in the building or 21 either partially the way through, and the other is with i
22 regard to the adequacy of the roof design on the off-gas 23 building.
Q 24 We have made a cursory examination of what we 25 know about these issues and have talked to the Region O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.a-.: x. w
- a -
..d_i.1-.a.
w.
= _..
.w 4
(((J 1 regarding their knowledge of these ' issues.
What I would i
2 like to do today is to give the company an opportunity 3 to explain its position on the matters of concern.
4 One ceason for not just noticing this for 30 g
5 days and goino with our normal pace in these matters is 6 the pendancy of the completion of the plant and its 1
7 readiness for an CL review.
We have been meeting with 9 the company quite extensively over the last few months 9 in anticipation that the plant would be finished in the to near future.
I understand it may be finished in the 11 next week or so.
12 So the kind of information that we would be 13 interested in hearing about today, if you have it 14 availa33.e, relate to the number of holes drilled, the 15 size of the holes including the depth of penetration, 16 your procedures for mapping the holes that get rebars, 17 tendons, liners, on the general layout drawings, 18 describe the condition of the damage that you might have 19 expected.to have occurred in each case; namely, with a n
20 rebar cut, partially cut, was the concrete cracked.
l i
21 We will also be interested in the load 22 conditions that exist in these wall panels that are 23 affected by the holes.
We would be interested in where
(
(. )
24 the rebar reinforcement is placed in th e se walls where 1
25 the holes have been drilled.
We will also want to hear l
ira (cd l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
--..A.._.
a.
. _1 5
1 about the procedures and acceptance standards that you
{)
2 have issued to the drilling crews and the field 3 engineerings, including the dates for when these
/Cd 4 procedures were implemented.
And most importantly, I 5 vant to understand ycur nethodology and techniques for 6 evaluating the safety significance of any such v
7 penetrations drilled through walls.
8 Let's see, Bob, any other points I should 9 cover at the beginning here?
10 MR. PURPLES Well, we would want similar 11 inf ormation on the design questions rela ting to the roof 12 of the off-gas building.
We are not involved with the 13 drilling of holes, but the questions of the thickness in 14 its design.
15 HR. DENTON:
With that introduction then, let 16 me go around the room and make sure we all know whc is 17 a ttending here.
I am Harold Denton from liRR.
Why don't 18 we turn to the right?
19 MS. GOODIE:
I am Judith Goodie, Assistant 20 A ttorney General of Illinois.
21 MR. BOURNIA:
Anthony Bournia, from NRR.
3 22 MR. SCHWENCERa Al Schwencer, from NRR.
23 MR. NORELIUS:
Chuck Norelius, Region 3.
([)
24 MR. KNIGHT:
Jim Knight, NRR.
25 MR. PURPLE:
Bob Purple, NRR.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
ma.u Js.m.u.:..> \\ &
.. - ~u.a..:.
.a -.a
.l',
D
- L -
6 1
MR. HOEFLING:
Dick Hoefling, counsel for the 2 Staff.
O MR. LEE:
Byron Lee, Commonwealth Edison.
O 4
MR. DELGEOPGE:
Lou Delgeorge, Commonwealth S Edison.
6 MR. LONGLAIS:
Tom Longlais, Sargeant C Lundy.
v 7
MB. SIEPTOE:
Philip Steptoe, Ish am, Lincoln E 8 Beale.
9 MR. MILLER:
Mike Miller, Isham, Lincolr. E 10 Beale, for Commonwealth Edison.
11 MR. BIGLEY:
Jack Bigley, NRC staff.
12 MR. SHOEMAKER:
Bob Shoemaker, IE.
13 MR. WILLIAMS:
Cordell Williams, Region 3.
i 15 MR. CHAN:
Sy Chan, NRR.
16 MR. LIPINSKI:
Ron Lipinski, NRR.
17 MR. SHAMBLIN:
Dan Shamblin, Commonwealth 18 Edison.
19 MR. QUAKA:
Tom Quaka, Ccamonwealth Edison.
Ken Kostal, Sargeant E Lundy.
21 MR. REKLACTIS:
V.
Reklactis, Sargeant E Lundy.
22 MR. SCHROEDER:
Chuck Schroeder, Commonwealth 23 Edison.
()
24 MR. MORRIS:
Mike Morris, Commonwealth Edison.
25 MR. DENTON:
Wi t,h that introduction, Byron, h
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
u-
.w.
= =. u.
J 7
g 1 why don't I turn it over to you to tell us what you knov 2 about these issues, and let me point out that we are 3 pleased to have Ms. Goodie here, and I uill provide you O
4 ar opportunity to comment at some periodic intervals but 5 figure that you are mainly here as an observer.
6 MS. GOODIES I understand that.
7 MR. DENTON:
And don ' t feel tha t we vill 8 expect you to contribute directly more than you have 9 done in raising the issues in the petition.
10 HR. LEES Thank you.
We do, too, also 11 appreciate the holding of this meeting on short notice, 12 but we agree that it is absolutely necessary.
I would 13 start by saying that we are deeply concerned about the 14 potential delay of low power licensing of LaSalle Unit 15 1, especially based on a single construction worker's 16 allegation of some possible concerns.
And even reading 17 the affidavit, it is pretty much an indication that 18 there vere f airly decent controls in place in marking 19 and so forth.
20 We are concerned that the Attorney General's 21 office did not come to us with this issue as they have 1
22 done with several other technical issues in the past, 23 and we have been able to resolve those issues.
We 24 continue to believe that our practices and our control 25 of engineerin; and construction at LaSalle County are ALDERSoN REPORTING CoMPP4Y,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
, ; $ 6 !s i.. '_m5 '.1 's d) bb.,.
2.%.*
hm'E hae.4 2%
- - Mu, -
-s$c -
.a' so
^ ^ __ C h'--
_' 4 O.[..h M'i.m 4 8
1 excellent.
We have had many discussions in the last few 2 months with you on that issue with NRR and with R egion 3 3, and we think that all of tha t has pretty much A
.g 4 indicated that we have had good records.
I think that 5 what we will tell you today will just support and 6 substantiate that evcn further, as we are now into some 9
7 details.
8 One of our other najor concerns is the 9 diversion of some key people, both ours and yours, from 10 the major effort that we have all been at for the last 11 several months.
This does have some significant impacts 12 on our customers and on our stockholders.
We do need 13 LaSalle County Unit 1 for capacity.
It is not an excess 14 capacity unit that we are building just because we want 15 to complete it.
16 So it is important to us in that respect.
And 17 of course, it is always important to our customers and 18 stockholders to finish.
Even our own Illinois Commerce 19 Commission has reached that decision.
As a result, we 20 do ask f or a quick review and resolution of the 21 problem.
And we do appreciate your getting into it so 3
22 quickly.
23 In any event, I think that after today we can
)
24 hopef"lly give you enough of an indication to show you
(
25 tha t there is absolutely no reason for interrupting the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
L ;r
. L i & X T -
x.
w
- =:L
.uu_
a -.
zw.a 9
g 1 issuance of a low power license and th e te s ting 2 process.
So with that, I would like to ask Lou 3 Delgeorge, who is our Director of Licensing who has been
' 0 4 deeply involved in the LaSalle County project for quite 5 a few years, to kind of narrate and handle our 6 presentation.
o 7
HR. DELGEORGEs What I would like to do is 8 review the allegations presented in the petition as we 9 understand them, stating the facts and the information 10 ve have which we think will resolve the concerns that 11 have been raised in your mind.
12 I would like to start with the questions 13 raised relative to the off-gas building because we feel 14 that to be a less complicated issue that can be more 15 easily dispositioned.
18 First, there is an allegation that the roof 17 thickness is eig'ht inches as opposed to the 12 inch 18 design thickness.
I would like to say at the outset 19 that although this building is a non-safety related 20 building con tainin g no safety-related equipment and not as requiring the implementation of our quality assurance
~
?
22 program, we did in f act apply our quality assurance 23 program to the construction of this building, which has th; 24 given us greater confidence in the accuracy of the 25 information that we will be providing to you.
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
m.~
>a.
/.=
u..-.- u.. w.;-. -
-,2.n
. = -
w aw 10 i
As a result of our receipt of the petition we
)
2 made a survey specific to verif ying the thickness of the 3 slab in question.
This was done within the last week.
O 4 We took 15 measurements of that slab thickness and 5 determined tha t the ave rage thickness of the slab was 6 slightly greater than 12 inches.
Of the measured 7 thicknesses, the lowest value was 11 1/4 inches.
This 8 measure was taken in what we believe to be an area of a 9 floor drain on the slab roof and can be justified on 10 tha t basis.
11 We have no reason to believe that the 12 thicknesses that we have measured and the thickness of 13 that slab is not consistent with the design requirement 14 f or the off-gas building roof.
15 The second allegation that was made --
16 MR. DENION:
Can we discuss that one just a 17 bit ?
I have forgotten how big this roof is.
We 18 described it as the roof of the off-gas building.
Is 19 there a separate building called the off gas building?
20 Can you characterize the size of the roof that we 21 discussed?
?
22 MR. DELGEORGEa I will call on Dan Shamblin 23 f rom our site construction staff.
^
f 3.
24 MR. SHAMBLIN My name is Dan Shamblin, I work
(,
25 a t the LaSalle Commonwealth station.
I guess the (a),
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
w ~~wm.a.
u.
a.ax-- ca.;; w.a.-
=-m m m x--
=
=
11 1 simplest way to show you this is with this picture 2 here.
This is the roof we are talking about here for 3 this concrete enclosure (indica ting).
It is roughly 9w 4 dimension-wise, it is roughly 34 feet by 75 feet.
5 MR. PURPLE:
Lou, one part of the allegation I 6 did not hear you address was transformers sitting on the 7 roof and cracks through the --
8 MR. DELGEORGE:
I am just going to get to 9 that.
i 10 HR. PbuPLE:
I see, okay.
11 ER. DENTON:
Do you think there is any 12 confusion in nomecclature that the cl'.egation should not 13 be read narrowly to be the off gas building?
Have you
(%:/3 14 read the whole text?
Do you think you have identified 15 the roof they had in mind?
1 16 MR. DELGEORGE:
I will ask for any comments 17 f rom our staff if they disagree with what I am about to 18 sa y, but there is no information contained in the 19 affidavits presented in the petition fror which we can 20 conclude that any slab other than the of f-gas building 21 roof is the slab in question.
)
22 And I am not aware of any additional 23 information that may have come to our a tten tion tha t 24 would suggest some other slab being involved.
25 MR. DENTON:
Have you had this allegation O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-23'45
. a a w.
.w 2 w.a.. ~ =
.w:. :
-a u. -
~ :.w_.
-- -..-. - ~-- wen = -
.w 12 i
i m
1 celled to your. attention before?
L D2 I-2 HR. DELGEORGE:
Sir, it is my understanding I
3 that until the issue was raised through the attorney i O 4 general's of fice tha t we were not aware. of this l
E 5 potential deficiency.
P-l 6
MR. DENTON:
Let me ask the regional
}
f '.
7 representatives if they would like to asK any questions t
l 8 ubout the building.
l
(
9 HR. SHAMBLIN:
Excuse me.
The issue of the j
10 roof thickness was presented to us in early March l
11 through our legal department.
l 12 5R. DELGEORGE:
But it was as a result of 13 information developed through the inquiry by the h
14 attorney general.
15 HR. SHAMBLIN:
That is correct, y es.
j 16 MR. DENTON:
Chuck, do you have any questions 17 on,this?
l 18 MR. NORELIUS:
No, I don't think I have any 1
19 questions on this particular subject.
I MR. DENTON:
Let me ask you how you measured 20 j
21 i t.
Did you have access to --
22 MR. DELGEORGE:
To address your previous 23 question of whether we could conclude that we have, in
(
24 f act, covered the area in question, the specifics of 25 other portions of the allegation relative to the
(,, /
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
___._.....=.n.
=
= =a; - - = =-
. wa -
=
-a m I
13 i
1 placement of a transformer and identified surface 2 cracking, we have in fact identified the transformer in i
3 question and were aware of surf ace cracking in this
)
4 particular slab identified on our own initiative 5 sometime ago.
And taking those facts into account I 6 think we can conclude that we are addressing the slab 7 that was discussed in the af fidavit.
8 MR. DENTON:
Why don't you go ahead, then?
9 MR. DELGEORGE:
The next allegation I had 10 intended to address was the placement of the transformer 11 on the roof of the off-gas building.
It is, in fact, 12 true that a temporary construction-related transformer 13 was placed on that slab.
The transformer has been 14 removed from the slab and it was removed in late 1981 15 before we became aware of the issue in controversy 10 here.
The placement of that transformer did not exceed 17 any of the posted live loads allowable for that slab.
18 We have surveyed the under surface of the slab 19 and detected no apparent damage in the vicinity of the 20 placement of the transf ormer.
We have no reason to 21 believe that the placement of that transformer caused 22 a ny structural damage to the off-gas building roof.
23 MR. DENTON:
How big a transformer was this?
h 24 Wha t was it in tend ed to do?
25 MR. DELGEORGE:
It provided i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
..~,__m..
._.~ _ - =
14 1 construction-related loads and weighed, as I understand 2 it, on the order of 6700 pounds.
i l
3 MR. DENTON4 Let me go back to a question I l
(~)'
4 asked earlier about how did you determine the thickr.ess
~
l l
5 of the roof.
~
6 MR. DELGEORGE:
We conducted a field survey.
7 Given a reference zero, we were able to determine the 8 height of the under surf ace of the slab, and from the 9 same reference zero, we determined the height of the top 10 surf ace of the roof, which included both the concrete 11 slab and surface roofing materials.
In order to verify 12 the thickness at the points of survey, we measured the 13 thickness of the roofing material; subtracting those c'
(y 14 values allowed us to establish the concrete thickness.
l l
15 We have prepared a report which discusses those is measurements and we are prepared to leave that report 17 wit h you.
18 MB. DENTON:
I take it these are measurements 19 m ad e in situ and not taken off of drawings?
20 MR. DELGEORGE:
That is correct.
21 MR. DENTON:
I think we would like to have the 1
22 report.
Perhaps you can give us a copy and we will 23 attach it to the transcript and make sure it is 24 available.
25 MR. NORELIUS4 This may be in th e report, Lou, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASH GTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2.345
.._._..--~.
... _. a.wc--
~ -
~n 15 1 but how did you come to the conclusion that 15 selected 2 points was appropriate to give you a good picture of 3 what the roof thickness was?
O 4
MR. SHAMBLINe The' roof is made up of a series 5 of beams, and I essentially told the surveyors to take 6 measurements between the beams.
Essentially, the center 7 span of the slab.
It worked out to be three 8 measurements per span between the beams, turning out to 9 be 15 measurements.
l 10 MR. PURPL.Es There is yet another item in that i
11 particular allegation.
Are you going to get to that?
l
{
12 (Laughter.)
j 13 MR. DEL 3EORGE:
I am ready.
The last
()
14 allegation suggested that the concrete associated with 1
15 this slab had been cracked substantially.
Commonwealth 16 Edison discovered surf ace cracking of the subject slab 17 through its own site quality assurance department in 18 September 1979.
As a result of the deficiency 19 iden tified, an inquiry was made at that time which 20 included an engineering evaluation and which also 21 included the tracing of the crack depth by chipping at 22 the concrete in the vicinity of the cracks.
23 As a result of that review, it was established
(];
24 that the crack depth did not exceed one quarter inch;
^
25 that the crackiac was, in fact, surface cracking, and as
(,.
,.?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
W-.., *
.-+a..
- .;.n = -
il, L,7 J L-
~~ %
~
16 1 a result, it was patched.
We have no reason to believr.,
2 based on that investigation, that the cracking alleged 3 is the result of drilling of anchor bolt holes.
It is O
4 our opinion, based on that evaluation, that the cracks 5 observed are normal shrinkage cracks associated with 6 this type of slab.
o 7
MR. DENTON:
Now, from the dates you gave, you 8 observed those cracks before th e transformer was placed 9 on the top.
10 MR. DELGEORGEs No, sir, the transformer was 1
11 placed a t the time the observation was made.
l 12 MR. DENTON:
So the transformer was taken off 13 the date you measured, but it had been on f or a l
h 14 considerable period of time?
15 MR. DELGEORGE:
Yes.
16 MR. SHAMBLIN That is correct.
The 17 transformer was placed sometime in 1976.
We do not have 18 the exact date, but we suspect it was in the second half 19 o f 1976.
20 MR. DENTON:
And when you repaired the cracks 21 then, or examined for depth, the transformer was still 22 there?
23 MR. DELGEORGE:
Yes, sir.
24 NR. DENTON:
And you did not remove it until--
25 MR. DELGEORGE:
Until late 1981.
-.()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $$4 2345
.__a
._a
.a.
____..._.x m.ma i
i I
}
17 i
i 1
MR. SCHWENCER:
None of these cracks went i
2 through the support points of the transformer
i 3
MR. SHAMBLIN:
That is correct.
C3 3
4 MR. DELGEORGE4 I am not sure I understand 5 your question.
6 MP. SCHWENCER:
The point at which you j'
7 f astened the transformer to the roof or where it was in i
j 8 contact with the roof, none of the cracks were I
9 associated with that contact area?
I j
to BR. SHAMELIN:
That is correct, none of the 1
11 cracks were associated with the contact area of the 12 transforner.
13 MR. DENTON:
Let me ask the pro]ect manager f%
14 wha t categotization we gave that roof.
v 15 MR. BOURNIAs It is a non-safety grade 16 building.
I have the reviewer here.
We did not 17 consider this an a safety grade building.
1e MR. DENTON:
What is und'er the roof?
19 MR. BOURNIA4 What is this?
20 MR. DENTON:
What is under it?
21 MR. DELGEORGE:
That is described in our 22 report.
The concrete enclosure above grade as a pa rt of 23 the of f-gas roof is a non-safety related structure which 24 houses off gas building, heating / ventilating /and air 25 conditioning, air handling units, HVAC, water cooled i
e N..
ALDERSON F4EPoRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
w-.
- w 2.
T----:---
2,
._a.:
- = i
-=-
18 1 condensing units, HVAC exhaust filter units, HVAC 2 centrol panels and associated motor control centers and 3 switchgear.
O' 4
3R. DENTON:
Does that mean there is no 5 Category 1 safety-related equipment in that bu.} 1 din g ?.
6 MR. DELGEORGE:
Yes, sir.
7 MR. DENTONS Any questions?
We can come back 8 to this, but I thought we would give the company a 9 chance.
10 NR. PURPLE:
There still remains yet one more 11 feature of that particular allegrtion.
Maybe you are 12 going to get to it.
It is the part that says there were 13 holes drilled through rebars in the roof.
I have not 14 heard an answer that you did not have such holes or if 15 you did, what they meant.
16 MR. DELGEORGE:
We did not address the 17 pot ential f or drilling of bar in tha t roof, separate 18 f rom the question presented in the primary allegation 19 which we will address.
You will see, based on the 20 evaluation that we have done relative to the overall 21 question of rebar damage, that we have addressed all 22 slabs.
Correct me if I am stong.
Is it true that our 23 evaluation would have included that building.
{
24 We can verify that for you, but it is our --
25 NR. RECKLACTIS:
It did include this building,
( x A.;f l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
..,x a uwaa..L..w.a-2.
J.lia..J _.:u :J '~ L::
J
-u-19 1 also.
2 MB. PURPLES Can you say whether or not the 3 roof of this building was in fact drilled and did go 4 through some rebar specifically?
5 MR. RECKLACTIS As I uncerstand it, the 6 transformer did not even have any bolts.
That is what I 7 was told.
8 MR. DELGEORGE:
I am not sure we are prepared 9 to answer that question completely.
We will get back to 10 you, though.
11 MR. DENTC!!s What is the design basis for the 12 thickness of that roof?
Why did you pick 12?
What 13 controls?
b 14 MB. LEES Why 12 inches?
15 MR. KOSTALs Why 12 inches?
Okay.
My name is 16 Ken Kostal from Sargeant C Lundy.
The thickness of a 17 number of slabs -- we generally have a minimum thickness 18 of concrete related to structural elements such as slabs 13 a nd walls.
The 12-inch thickness is typically 20 associated with a certain amount of load which would 21 accompany that particular slab.
So I would say in 22 general, the 12-inch represented the thickness required 23 to support a live and dead load attributable to that
(],
24 particular area.
25 MR. KNIGHT:
May I ask, by that you mean there ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
G:_.s w w~
w.x.
.a _-.a w _- _ - _ __..
_.aw-
-. ;,s.a. w 20 1 was a, let us call it, a design live load that is I
if you vill?
2 selected for convenience and utility, 3
ER. KOSTAL:
Yes.
O 4
MR. KNIGHT:
Keeping in mind they you are in a 5 heavy industrial area, you provide sufficient capacity
\\
6 for--
1 1
7 MR. KOSTAL:
We provide a certain minimum 8 capacity -- meaning we provide a certain minimum live 9 load capacity-- to allow for construction conditions, to 10 allow for initial installation, equipment storage such 11 as the example given by Mr. Delgeorge relative to the 12 transformer, and that generally constitutes our initial 13 criteria in terms of original design load capabilities.
h 14 MR. KNIGHT Did you have a standard live load 15 used throughout the f acility?
18 MR. KOSTALs A minimum live load for this 17 particular plant is 100 pounds per square foot.
That is 18 associa ted with all concrete slabs.
19 MR. DENTON:
Can you describe the construction 20 of the slab a bit more?
Is it reinforced?
21 MB. KOSTAL:
It is a typical concrete 22 reinforced one-way slab with concrete beam elements.
I 23 do not know the exact spacing cf them, but it is a
/
-)
24 general one-way beam type slab design, reinforcing top 25 and bottom, top reinforcinq across the beams carrying
,w t.LDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
a
- c-
+
L f
21
(()
1 negative moment, bottom carrying positive moment, and i
2 reaperature reinforcing to account for normal 3 construction and shrinkage cracking that could occur.
(])
i 4
MR. DENTON:
Any other coraments on this part?
5 (No response.)
6 MR. DENTON:
If not, let me ask Ms. Goodie if 7 you would like to comment on this part before we go 8 ahead.
9 MS. GOODIE:
Hy only comment here would be to that as I understand it, someone at Region 3 has spoken 11 to the informant who provided us with this information, 12 and I understand there is a report in Region 3 about 13 this information.
It is my understanding from the 14 person I spoke to at Region 3 that the allegations of 15 the less-than-design thickness of the roof were 16 correct.
I have not seen this report.
17 HR. DENTON4 Would you like to comment?
18 HR. NORELIUSa-We received allegations on this 19 some months ago and evaluated it in-office.
I do not
~
20 have those with me.
I am not sure that I know they say 21 e xactly wha t she said, and I have not read them l
22 carefully.
But we were aware of the allegation.
It was 23 evaluated within our office and I think, in recognition I
(m.
24 of our manpower considerations, we chose not to delve 25 deeply into this a t the field level because of its t
l l
[V l
1 I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2./. _ _ _ - _
.aa a... _.
-- a.
.~
=. a.w f --
i 22 h
/
7 I
1 Category 2 nature.
Ym-U 2
3R. DENTON:
I think on this one it night be 3 voll to just reiterate that Staff silence does not mean 6d 4 consent with the utility's view on this.
5 MS. G00 DIE 4 I understand.
6 MR. DENTON:
It is more the fact that we are 7 trying to get the facts from which we would proceed to 8 do a review.
9 HR. NORELIUS:
Co uld I ask Es. Goodie, did you 10 speak to someone in our office on that?
11 ES. GOODIES Yes.
12 MR. NORELIUS:
Who did you talk to?
13 MS. GOODIE:
I spoke to two different people.
eg
(./~
14 I believe this one was from Jim Foster.
I can check my 15 notes on that.
16 MR. NORELIUS:
Jim was one of our A
17 investigators.
18 3R. DENTON:
All richt, let us move to the 19 second issue.
20 21 22 23
(
24 s..
25
(:
s,..-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
a..,w
...x
..w
,a.
.w
- --.u. a a = l l
l 23
)
1 MR. DELGEORGE4 The second issue addressed the 2 damage to reinforcing steel by the drilling through 3 reinforced concrete slabs.
I a ttempted to outline the hd 4 allegitions presented by that petition item, and I will 5 address each of them as I understand it.
6 We have also prepared a report in this area 7 describing the procedural controls that we have had in 8 place.
That report identifies the controls, their date 9 of implementation, and attempts to describe why we 10 believe this prevents the type of unrestricted damage 11 that has been suggested by the petition.
12 The first allegation presented is that 13 thousands of holes are drilled through reinforced h
14 concrete slabs as a matter of course.
I believe that we 15 can, through the report, demonstrate to you that the 16 process of drilling all reinforced slabs has been a 17 control process, that this program was implemented in 18 late 1976 before the time period at which the contractor 19 employee, whose affidavit is contained in the pe tition, t
20 made his -- discusses the problem that he alleges 21 exists.
22 And in fact, we have conducted an engineering 23 evaluation of all reported structural -- or
(]
24 reinforcement steel damage and have concluded, based on 25 that evaluation, tha t the structural integrity of all O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
'm" Ld a m. -
.wmn:. euwi
25 In the middle region of the slab, the area ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l,_.
A.. :...a^:.~
-. _. a.,. - ___.
_..w.--_
~
39
{}'
1 that is not shaded in, the reinforcing steel would nct 2 be stressed in these cases.
The stress is all carried 3 by the bars in the outer periphery.
O 4
In the case of the reinforcing steel on the 5 bottom of the slab, it is the bars that are in the 6 middle region of the slab, the middle half span of the
~
7 bars, that primarily carry the stress.
The cars toward 8 the periphery are much less stressed than the bars in 9 the center.
10 There are also other areas, bars that have 11 been provided around trim steel for major openings or 12 where additional bars have been provided in the slab to 13 carry heavy elements, to carry a concrete wall or to 14 carry a concrete block wall, where we have provided 15 additional reinforcing steel.
We hav'o called for not 16 drilling in those areas.
17 NR. DENTON:
Thank you.
18
[ Slide]
19 MR. LONGLAIS:
Cored holes for anchor bolts 20 a nd pipe support baseplate assemblies are indicated on 21 the mechanical design drawings.
22 The coring for the cechanical baseplate pipe 23 support assemblies commenced approximately in the summer
^, ' '.
24 of 1980.
In January of 1980 ve issued Drawing M-1100,
%i 25 Sheet 23, which required tha t all the concrete be m.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_x
- :.L.-..,
a :.
i_
2.a.
u z;a r40 1 notched to expose the reinforcing steel to avoid rebar 2 damage under this operation.
3 So for any concrete, any coring operation for
('1 1
4 this particular application, it was controlled by 5 requiring that the reinforcing steel be exposed before 6 the drilling was done.
7 NR. DELGEORGE:
That activity involving 8 mechanical components would not have been observed by l
9 the contractor employee whose affidavit is contained in j
10 the petition, inasmuch as he worked as a subcontractor 11 to our electrical site contractor, and he was gone at 12 that time anyway.
13
[ Slide]
h 14 Exhibit 3 is the continuation of the cored 15 holes for equipment foundation anchor bolts.
In this 16 situation what we have done is we have plotted the 17 location of all equipment foundation anchor bolts that 18 require coring in a separate set of drawings called RHS 19 drawings, rebar hit schedule drawings.
20 Fron these drawings we assess the amount of 21 reinforcing steel that is likely to be damaged by this
.22 coring opera tion.
The assessment which we performed 23 subsequently is engineering judgment on the damage and
{
24 the effects that this likely damaged reinforcing steel 25 will have on the strength capacities of the concrete Q;,)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.~-
a -
11-_: -.= wu L-i.a...a
- -,, ; sa -
ma:
c'
. z a.
e > w=,
41 1 elements.
2 The engineering judgment again is based upon 3 the location of the cored holes and the damaged 4 reinforcing steel in relation to the existing stress
~
5 levels in the concrete elements.
6 Exhibit 3A is a set of approximately 90 7 drawings, which we have marked all the rebar damage, 8 both due to the coring operations and due to the 9 drilling operations at the site.
10 MR. KOSTAL:
There are approximately 90 11 drawings in there that will document exactly what Mr.
12 Longlais commented on.
13 MR. DENTON:
Are these drawings of different h
14 valls and such ?
15 MR. LONGLAIS:
This is all the reinforcing 16 steel that has been contacted.
" Contacted" means either 17 nicked or cut.
18 MR. SCH'4ENCER:
So that is 100 percent 19 drawings of those that have been contacted or cut?
20 MR. LONOLAIS:
Yes, that is for Unit 1.
21 MR. DELGEORGE:
Based on those damage reports 22 that have been received from the field at the time the 23 d ra wing was prepared.
And we are still in the process
(j 24 of verif ying that all reports have been received and s.-
25 incorporated into the drawings.
.~3 Nl ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ _ _ _ _________-.__...63 D E M hl 6 M N N N
.a
~
.ac w
.ww
=u~
w __
_ w:_ -
.x -
42 1
MR. DENTON.
Maybe we can look at them during
- e.,.
27 break to see if we need these.
3 MR. KOSTAL:
I think it is relevant that these k-~
4 drawings have been in preparation over the last 6 5 years.
So they are not drawings that we just made 6 within the last few days.
~
7 We have been documenting these during the last 8 6 years as they have occurred and as we have received 9 the data f rom various contractors.
10 NR. LONOLAIS:
I should clarify that we have this item, the plotting of the core holes for the 11 12 anchor bolts were nade recently.
13 h
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 s'
24 c
A..
25
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. SEE4 $ DSD33_
s -. m -.. ~ ck w -
aa.:.:
a.am -
.a a
.s s
?
43 1
(Slide) g 2
In Exhibit 4 I would like to pursue the 3 engineering review of drill holes for concrete expansion O'
4 anchors.
The engineering control for the drilling of 5 hol,es for concrete expansion anchors began long before 6 the drilling is initiated.
~.
7 By that I mean there are a number of 8 engineering controls which are contained in Form LS/CEA 9 which contains all the specification requirements for 10 the drilling of concrete expansion anchors at La Salle.
11 In Exhibit 4A we have here the entire eight revisions to 12 the specification, which were issued between the period 13 Sep tember 1976 and May of 1981.
14 There are a number of engineering controls in 15 this particular document.
Probably the most important l
1e is the recognition of the fact that there are stressed 17 and nonstressed araas in the structures.
LS/CEA defines 18 the stressed and nonstressed areas.
The areas which are 19 stressed areas, we regttre that a metal detector be used 20 to avoid reinforcing s t e e.' damage.
It requires that the 21 contractor obtain engineering approval prior to cutting 22 a bar and to subsequently report any damage or nicks 23 tha t may have been made to a bar by the use of a metal
[
24 detector.
25 There are areas -- again, I did go through ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, C
. _14sa d
_m.-
- 1. -
.a.
.me-ua ^ ' '
44
)
1 this slide before, but the areas where a metal detector l
2 would be required to be used in the case of a two-way 3 slab would be the shaded area in the exterior quarter (u..
tu 4 span, and the top of two-way slabs, in the middle span 5 section, in the bottom of t wo-way slabs, and in a reas 6 adjacent to penetrations, and to areas where we have I
7 provided additional reinforcing steel on the slab to 8 carry additional loads.
9 HR. PURPLE:
A general question.
All of these 10 control programs, do they apply to all of the buildings 11 for which you have design responsibility, unrelated to l
)
12 whether they are safety-related structures or not?
13 HR. LONGLAIS:
That is correct.
That is 14 correct.
15 MR. DENTON:
If you take a wall that is, say 16 20 by 50, what kind of spacing would you typically find 17 on the reinf orcing bars?
18 MR. LONGL AIS s I believe between 9 to 12 19 inches on center.
20 MR. DENTON:
So when you are installing anchor 21 bolts, then you would have enough discretion to move 22 around a foot or two?
23 MR. LONGLAISs Yes.
Well, a foot or two?
In f.
24 the later versions of the concrete expansion anchor 25 program, I believe when you,get into Revisions 6, 7, and ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
________ _____ _ __________ ___ _ __ _M N @ 3% N f*)A M M N
h_,J a -A..
._ u -~
M-14 5 l
1 8, we have added provisions in the specificatien which 2'gives the contrator guidelines in relocating expansion 3 anchor plates.
If he does contact reinforcing steel, we 4 give him the latitude to move the plate plus or minus 3 5 inches in either direction so he can avoid drilling 6 through and damaging the bar.
7 (Slide) 8 It has consistently been our intention at the 9 beginning of the job to minimize the use of concrete 10 expansion anchors.
However, when a field contractor is 11 routing small bore pip'ing or electrical conduit, he has 12 an option of trying to attach to an embedded plate or 13 existing structural steel or use expansion anchors.
(h 14 We have a requirement in the specification 15 that should he elect to use a concrete expansion anchor 16 baseplate assembly, that he contact us for prior 17 approval before he can use this type of anchor.
18 He have further defined in the specification 19 areas in which a concrete expansion anchor may not be 20 installed without the specific approval of the 21 consulting engineer.
This is irregardless of the stress 22 level.
23 One example of the situation would be the
(
24 containaient building wall.
The last control that we do 25 have, and it was mentioned earlier, is that beginning in I ',
\\;i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~ se.d'Mu -
a.
.~~E-
-,L
.n 11.,ea m..
1.x
- s..
"w' L
g 46 1 1976 with Revision 0, we required that only a solid 2 carbide-tipped drill bit be used for drilling the hole.
3 Now this type of drill bit is not capable of drilling kh 4 through reinforcing steel.
The most damage this drill 5 bit could do would be to make a very small, well-rounded 6 depression approxima tely 1/16 of an inch deep in the 7 reinforcing steel.
8 We have conducted a number a tests.
The 9 Commonwealth Edison Company has conducted a number of 10 tests, both laboratory testing and analytical 11 assessment, and we have proved that these type of nicks 12 are not detrimental to the integrity of the reinforcing 13 steel.
14 MR. DENTON:
What size reinforcing steel is 15 typically used in walls and floors?
16 MR. LONGLAIS Walls, typically in 17 saf ety-related structures would probably vary from 18 number 9 to number 11 bars.
Slabs would probably vary--
19 MR. LEE:
Which is what size, for us 20 nonstructural --
21 MR. LONGLAIS:
Nu mber 9 bar is about 1-1/8 22 inch in diameter, and Number 11 bar is approximately 23 1-3/8 inch in diameter.
For slabs, the reinforcing 24 steel would vary f rom probably a Number 6 bar which is 25 about 3/4 inch in diameter, again to a Number 11 bar k )
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
__CB_UDERID IML RECL'5D3RFfiK@l fML KGFu @TM N
_=
- .a n
.x
~
w.;
.. -. L: '
47 1 which is 1-3/8 inch in diameter.
i 2
(Slide) 3 What I just described is the engineering 0
1 4 precautions that have taken place in the specifications l
5 and are in force prior to going into operations.
During 6 the drilling operations should a contractor contact or
~
7 drill through a reinforcing bar with our approval, it is
~
8 required that the contractor submit a rebar damage 9 report.
. hen these damage reports are submitted, ther W
10 11 are reviewed by the structural engineers to determine 12 what I consider to be the immediate local impact of the 13 damaged bar.
Again, we look at where the damaged bar 14 occurred, whether it be a cut or a nick, in relation to 15 stress level in the slab to determine if it is 16 acceptable.
17 Should we not determine it is acceptable, we 18 would have to come back and do some subsequent 19 modifications.
However, we have never found this to be 20 the case in any of the holes that have been contacted or 21 drilled at La Salle.
This review on the part of the 22 engineer was based primarily on judgment, again with 23 respect to location of the hole, and the existing stress (N
24 level-g 25 After the engineer has reviewed the effect of
,m ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
w mu u..
hw-2.-
48 i
a Q
- Q 1 this damaged reinforcing steel, the damaged bar, be it 2 hit -- by that I mean nipped or cut through -- is 3 Plotted on the RHS drawings, which we have submitted as lO 4 Exhibit 4-A.
5 HR. LIPINSKI Excuse me.
Since when did you 6 start this practice?
7 MR. LONGLAIS:
This practice vas initiated in
{
8 September 1976.
9 MR. DENTON:
That includes Steps II-A and II-B?
10 HR. LONGLAIS:
The II-A, the review of the 11 damaged rebars was performed when the first damaged 12 rebar repcrt was submitted to us, which I believe was in 13 early 1977.
II-B, the plots were started, I believe, 14 towards the latter part of 1978 or 1977, the early part 15 o f 1978.
It really was not until this latter part of 16 1977 that we had substantial enough rebar hit reports to 17 varrant studying of the drawings at that time.
18 NR. KNIGHT:
Along those lines, to work up the 19 num bers like 50,000 holes or 1000 or so poured, which 20 makes a pre-assessment, could you give me a ballpark 21 figure for the number of rebar hit reports or rebar 22 damage reports that have accumulated over the years?
23 MR. LONGLAIS:
We estimate today there are 24 approximately 3000 to 3500 reinf orcing steel bars that
,.v 25 have been damaged.
Of that 3000 to 3500 bars, we b
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400EGIN_ LAM W
-.m p -
- m....
_n
-w-
)
i 14 9 1 believe a number of these bars to be only nicked bars.
2 Between the period 1977-1979, contractors were not 3 required to differentiate between a cut end a nicked bar.
O 4
After Commonwealth Ed.i. son Company did the 5 laboratory investigation on the effect of nicked bars 6 and concluded that nicked bars were not de t rim e n tal, did 7 ve eliminate the requirement for reporting of nicked
- 8. bars.
9 ER. KUO:
In making your engineering judgment, 10 do you have any guideline or criteria as to what 11 percentage of the steel could be damaged or cut?
12 HR. LONGLAIS:
The guideline is that as long 13 as you don't impair the safety or the integrity of the
(.n
()
14 concrete structure, as long as you still have sufficient 15 margin to carry the design loads, whether that be one i
16 ba r, two bars or ten bars.
That has to be determined on 17 a case-by-case basis.
That is not a function of a 18 percentage.
19 MR. KNIGHT:
Somewhere in your discussion 20 there is a distinction between a cut and a nick.
21 ER. LONGLAIS:
Yes.
22 MR. KNIGHT:
You show situations where you 23 take about half a bar out sometimes.
Do you have any 24 va y to differentiate?
25 MR. LONGLAIS:
The nick that I am speaking of mj ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 OE]) 554fE!G
~
~ _ <
O
- .s u 50 6".J 1 is the nick that would be made by a solid carbide-tipped s
2 drill bit in which you get this -
3 HR. KNIGHT:
Okay.
When I am talking about OY 4 taking a half-bar --
MR. LONGLAIS4 That would be a core.
5 4
6 HR. KOSTAL:
To clarify, the kind of drills 7 used are like your everyday household drills.
Unless 8 you have a tempered steel bit, I think all of us have 9 been aware of the difficulty of trying to d rill th rough to anything with a typical carbon steel bit that you buy at 11 Sears Roebuck.
That is the kind of drill we are talking 12 about here.
It is impossible to go through a rebar with 13 tha t bit.
You will eat up the bit before you will go 14 through' the bar.
15 MR. LIPINSKI:
Do you know of any cases or can' 16 rou quantify perhaps for us when a remedial action or a 17 design change was necessary as a result of --
18 MR. LONGLAIS4 We have never run across a case 19 at LaSalle.
In any -- we are positive that of all our 20 drilling operations we have not found one place where 21 the structural integrity of any concrete element has 22 been impaired.
23 MR. CHAN Does the driller of the holes know O;
24 whether the hole is going to be in the tension area or
~-
25 the compression area?
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, L
CXn GirdCTG(Xi% Ch"L 1
.._..__.2_:.
.s
. m_a a u an-.
ui_
._[
' f.l
$.id 51 1
MR. LEE:
The driller, you saidh Yh) 2 MR. CHAN4 Yes, the driller.
3 MR. LEE:
I would say probably not.
A' 4
MR. SHAMBLIN: He is given the direction to 5 drill a hole in this location.
6 MR. DELGEORGE:
The driller would not be 7 aware whether he was drilling in an area of tension or 8 compression, the driller as opposed to the contractor 9 supervision to whom that man reports.
Let me paint what 10 I think is an accurate picture.
11 The driller is only aware that his job is to 12 drill a hole The contractor, based on the program we 13 have in. place, is aware that with certain restrictions, 14 he is able to drill holes in concrete elements in 15 certain areas of the plant.
The engineer, Sargent C 1
16 Lundy, has through his design specifications and design 17 drawings identified those areas capable of having holes 18 drilled.
So there is a different level of understanding 19 of what the impact of an individual hole would have on
~
20 the reinforcing steel.
21 We do not believe that it is essential that 22 the individual performing the drilling operation be 23 aware of the entirety of that program or how we reach
(],
24 the point that he drill a specific hole.
25 MR. LONGLAIS:
The final disposition in the
(" h
%s ALDERSoN REPcRTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. Aue; 4 i
_4m _2. L Gm.)
w.-
_.m 2.m.
-4__..,
1.2_ mse
' G 2-1 52 9
1 review of damaged reinforcing steel in the drilling Q,y 2 opera tions occurs a t the time of load check performed 3 just prior to fuel load.
In this instance we are O
4 looking at the effect of the accumulation of all the 5 damage to the reinforcing steel which is plotted ca the 6 RHS drawings.
7 This review again consists primarily of 8 engineering judgment based upon the final stress levels 9 in the concrete elements with respect to the location of 10 the da,maged reinforcing steel.
Detailed calculations 11 were not warranted due to the random distribution of the 12 damaged reinforcing steel in the saf ety-related areas.
13 By random distribution I mean that the density h
14 in any one area is very, very low.
We see the bars 15 nicked, scattered here, maybe up in that corner, down in 16 the bottom corner, but they are not concentrated 17 ef f ects.
We have sub se quen tly performed some 18 calculations in response to this petition and we have 19 substantiated that this engineering jud gmen t is 20 appropriate.
21 MR. PURPLE:
Question.
Independent of the 22 petition, was this review you are discussing, has it 23 been completed?
(C 24 MB. LONGLAIS The engineering judgment has v:.)
25 been completed.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AR fLc?m CMT41T&fiTdPd @L(5L MF23.M.
_ na :
^
.. A
.d. _..
' r..
53 1
MR. PURPLES And documented?
q?
M.
2 MR. LONGLAIS:
Yes -- Well, engineering 3 judgment?
4 MR. PURPLE:
No, I mean but there is a final 5 review?
6 MR. LONGLAIS:
The final load check is 7 completed and documented.
8 HR. DELGEORGE:
To the extent that the 9 architect engineer has received all the reports from the 10 field.
11 MR. SCHWENCER:
That is the tie-in I was --
12 you mentioned earlier you were not sure that had all the 13 reports in it yet.
The only ones you are aware of.
h 14 MR. DELGEORGE:
We are in the process now of 15 verif ying that he is in receipt of all the reports.
16 MR. SCHWENCER:
So Item A is not done yet.
17 HR. LONGLAIS4 Not to the extent that we have 18 received al1 ~ the re ports.. But I believe from what we 19 have seen so far we are confident that it is.
20 MR. LEE:
We are confident tha t it is, but 21 since that question obviously will come up, we felt it 22 necessary to go back and assure ourselves.
23 MR. KOSTAL:
To clarify, we believe we have
,rT 24 every report in the house.
The documents that were just wJ 25 submitted to us are nothing more than a -- we are going 4*T kJ ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
r
--a..--
a..u.
.a :
. aw-Su I to scrutinize each one of those documents regarding the
{)
2 document we have in house to make sure that we have the
)
3 same corresponding document.
I
)
4 That is the review that is taking place.
The 5 review of the final load check has totally been 6 complete, but it covers a lot of other multitude of
~
7 ingredients besides this ingredient of the damage to 8 rebar.
9 MR. LONGLAIS:
What we have done is we have 10 taken a look at what we feel to be nine areas in which 11 the concentration of the damaged rebar has been somewhat 12 higher than what you normally would see looking at the 13 entire sets of drawings.
We have calculated the design k) 14 margins in the slabs both before and af ter the coring 15 operations.
16 (Slide) 17 I should first define wha t we mean by design 18 margin.
The design margin, we consider it to be the 19 ratio of the strength of a concrete element as 20 determined by ACI 318 divided by the actual design 21 stresses that have been calculated in accordance with 22 the laSalle FSAR commitments.
23 What you are looking for is a design margin (v);
24 equal to or greater than one.
You would like to design I
25 for a margin exactly equal to one.
This represents an f~)
D ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
...a....-
ut
- u.u::.ak.
Ll a
n NA, LE ~
u -
55 1 economical and optimally designed structure.
' O 2
Now there are a lot of reasons why design 3 margins do exceed one.
There are many cases in 4 saf ety-related structures, particularly in a nuclear 5 power plant, in which shielding controls a design and 6 structural strength does not control.
So we have a lot
~
7 of concrete elements that are a lot thicker and a lot 8 bigger than required by structural design.
9 So you will see some margins greater than 10 one.
You will see some up here of about three or so.
11 What we would like to see is about one.
12 MR. LIPINSKI:
Before you take this down, I 13 see that in area number 2 there is no number of holes h
14 cored, and yet the design margin is different.
Why is 15 tha t?
16 MR. LONGLAIS 1 am sorry?
17 MR. LIPINSKI:
Second line.
18 MR. -MILLER:
It says 31 damaged rebar.
19 HR. SCHWENCER:
D rilled to the core.
20 HR. LONGLAIS:
These are the reinforcing steel 21 damaged due to drilling; these are the numbers due to 22 damage due to coring.
23 MR. LIPINSKI So the number of bars damaged 24 were due to --
25 MR. LONGLAIS:
Drilling, and this column is l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASkNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
b.;.;_
~
._a-
__ua...II.a1.
56 g
1 coring.
2 5R. LIPINSKIs Okay.
3 HR. KUO:
Can you explain the last item there, O
4 the ratio of margin of holes as against margin without
~
5 holes?
Is that 1.137 6
MR. LONGLAIS:
Well, this is the pe rcen t
~
7 decrease.
The number was put down wrong.
This is the 8 percent decrease in margin.
For this case the design 9 margin without the holes was 3.55, the design margin 10 with the holes was 1.33.
This represented about a 13 11 percent reduction'in design capacity.
The ratio was 12 computed wrong here.
I must admit that when ve prepared 13 these tables, we were pulling them off the typewriter h
14 yesterday as we were heading for the plane, but that is 15 a percent you are looking at.
16 MR. KUOs That is a decreasing margin?
17 MR. LONGLAIS Yes; 13 percent is the percent 18 reduction in the design ma gins.
These design margins 19 that you see listed here are very conserva tive design 20 m argins.
One item of conservatism is the fact that when 21 we do the final load check, we assume a minimum piping 22 load of about one kip per square foot.
In many areas 23 the actual component support load is less than one kip h
24 per square foot.
25 We also have not taken into account any actual O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 G202) 554-2345
- s..-__.
.s.-.._ ha...
57
("?).
1 material strengths in the field such as the actual y
2 poured-in-place concrete strength or the actual strength I
3 of the reinforcing steel.
This would typically increase l
4 your design margin from anywhere from 10 to 15 percent.
i 5
HR. DENTON:
How did you pick these locations 6 for samples?
7 MR. LONGLAIS:
We looked at the density of the
~
8 number of bars in a given area, the number of areas that 9 stand out as looking like it has a high concentration of 10 bars.
11 MR. DENTON:
These are average cored and
{
}
12 damaged locations or more severely damaged?
How would i
13 you characterize t: tem?
('%
\\
(V 14 MR. LONGLAIS4 I would characterize these 15 areas as having a greater density of nick bars.
is MR. KNIGHT:
Take in item number 3, this is 17 probably just one bar.
How does that fit into the 18 f ramework of what you were just saying?
l 19 MR. LONGLAISs This one bar happened to be I
20 w h a t we consider to be a critical area.
It was in a 21 highly stressed area.
22 MR. LIPINSKI:
So just to pursue this line a 23 little bit further, did you give any consideration to
- )
24 the stress concentration of the given particular area 25 that he selected f or this, or just density of the holes?
f-(gJ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
c.ur
- .-..__~,..: 2..u.:.w n.w
~o
- -aww
, m._r:
l 58
[]}
1 HR. LONGLAIS:
Density was the primary one.
2 In this situation here, stress was the critical one.
3 HR. LIPINSKI So both factors were considered?
(
4 HR. LONGLAIS:
Yes.
~.
5 HR. LIPINSKI:
Density of the holes and stress l,
6 concentration?
7 HR. LONGLAIS:
Yes.
8 MR. DENION:
How did you go back and calculate 9 a margin with the damaged bar?
Did you assume that the to bar did not exist analytically?
11 HR. LONGLAIS:
Yes, we had discounted the l
12 entire bar.
13 HR. DENTON:
And the concrete, or does it 14 matter?
15 HR. LONGLAISs Concrete has no effect.
16 HR. NORELIUS:
Even on the damage basis you 17 are discounting the entire bar?
1 18 HR. LONGLAIS:
We assumed in this case the l
l 19 damage to be a cut.
As I said, between the period 1977 l
20 and 1979, the contractors were not required to 21 dif ferentiate between a cut and a nick, so unless we saw 22 specific notes on the rebar damage report that would 23 lead us to believe the fact that we did have only a
()
24 nick, we considered these to be cuts.
25 MR. DENTON:
How do you do such a
,m ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
.w u ~ x...?'.
~'
.,z-4.MA;;;
aa
_ -. w :.~
w_.
59 1 calculation?
You have otherwise uniformly distributed 2 slabs on a bar and one is cut.
How do you go about 3 determining the margin?
4 MR. LONGLAIS:
Let's say in the case of a 5 two-way slab you divide tha t slab up into middle strips 6 and end strips.
You calculate a design moment for the 7 middle strip and then subsequently the area of steel 8 required for that design moment.
If you knock one bar, 9 or two bars, or three bars out of that middle strip, you 10 subtract that area, recompute a new moment, and compare 11 that with your applied moments.
12 MR. DENTON:
So it is as though the bar was 13 not there a t all.
14 MR. LONGLAIS:
That is how we have done that 15 calcula tion, correct.
18 3H. LIPINSKI:
Perhaps you can explain why you 17 said that the area of concrete removed has no effect.
I 18 will agree with you that it is in the rone where there 19 is a tension, but in the case of compression, concrete 20 is the vital element.
21 HR. LONGLAIS:
The concrete area removed would 22 be so small.
23 MR. LIPINSKI:
Depending on the diameter of
("s) 24 the holes.
If you have a little hole, that is fine, but 25 if you have holes, say, 12 -- we know the diameter of -
A
/
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 n~
p.1.. a --
w
--~. w -
' nw -
60 c.S 1 the holes was up to 16 inches, right?
,+.J 2
HR. LONGLAIS:
Typically in these plants, and 3 structural considerations for the most part do not 94 4 govern the design.
It is shielding requirements.
The 5 reinforcement steel ratios that we have used are very 6 low.
And subsequently the concrete compressive stresses 7 are very low.
So if we drill out a 16-inch core out of 8 a slab, the stresses could redistribute itself to 9 adjacent concrete elements, and there would be really no 10 eff ect on the slab itself.
11 The stresses are very low.
The compressive 12 stresses do not govern concrete design.
You have to get 13 u p to very, very high reinforcing steel ratios before h
14 compressive stresses govern, and we are not anywhere 15 near those reinforcing steel stresses.
18 MR. DENTON:
Are any of these walls or floors 17 pressure bearing, and by that I mean pressure-retaining 18 walls or floors?
19 MR. LONGLAIS:
Do you recall off-hand?
~
MR. REKLACTIS:
We had some holes in the 20 21 containment wall, a few holes, but they were not true 22 through holes through the walls.
They were for 23 expansion anchors up to 6 inches deep and maybe one inch 24 in diameter.
25 MR. KNIGHT:
How thick was that wall?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
a u..a./.
_c-._..
..u._ L..
(
61 l
1 MR. REKLACTISs That wall vould be 6-foot oO 2 thick.
3 MR. DELGEORGE:
And those were all on the pd 4 outer surface.
5 MR. REKLACTIS:
On the outer surface.
They 6'did not compromise the boundary of the containment.
7 MR. KOSTAL:
That is a post-tension element.
8 HR. LIPINSKIa In the affidavit there was a 9 statement that the drillings were holes maae in the 10 reactor building at elevation 710 and 735 in the reactor 11 building wall.
Now in this presentation you do not show 12 an area -- these are internal walls.
Is that right?
13
.MR. LONGLAIS:
These are all the walls and h
14 slabs.
15 MR. DELGEORGE:
On a BWR containment you have 16 to be sure to distinguish between the primary 17 containment boundary and the reactor building walls.
18 Those are two dif ferent surf aces.
19 MR. LIPINSKIa If I remember right in the
~
20 affidavit a statement was made that it was the elevation 21 tha t I indicated, and in the reactor building and the 22 primary containment.
Is that correct?
23 MR. DELGEORGE:
No reference was made to C.
24 primary containment that I can reme:nber.
Q;r 25 MR. DENTON:
I had assumed the reference was
('~ Bc/
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.?.s.
.. ~...
-a.-
.....~
.. ~..-
t 60
~,-
1 to so-called secondary containment,. not primary 2 containment.
That is a good point.
~
3 MR. SCHWENCER:
On page 4 of the affidavit, (D
~
4 the affidavit says reactor building, Unit 1 a t eleva tion 5 below 710.
6 MR. CHAN:
In that table in the last ' column, 7 do you think the numerator and the denominator cught to 8 be reversed?
9 HR. LONGLAIS:
Yes, that's right, it should 10 b e.
That is why we are getting a number' greater than 11 one.
Yes.
12 HR. DELGEORGE:
One piint of interest that.We 13 might comment on is that there are two specific 14 allegations in the affidavit' by Mr. Garrison with
^
15 respect to his activities in two areas of the plant.
We 1
16 believe, because of the record-keeping process that we 17 have had in place, tha t we have been able to-identify 18 the records associated with those two areas.
19 In fact, I believe we have one of them-here.'
20 You vill remember from the affidavit an Indicaticr. tha t 21 the phalanges of a beam were contacted ~ es the result of 22 drilling through a floor.
We have identified what-we 23 believe to be the source of that report.
There is, in
\\.)..
24 f act, a non-conformance report written and documented
/
25 evidence of an engineering evaluation of the reported h,m ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,:NC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
aw. :.
au.. : :.. a...I
~
Aaa '
N A 2wi.i L u - - -. u a
..a.,~
i t
)
63
)
3 i
C.N 1 damage.
'g) r a
Ncu,-given the vagaries of the information
- ' ~
3fprovided i:i' the affidavit, we cannot be certain that (5
' l ')
4 what we found was what was alleged to have existed.
- r 5 Howev reit appears tb us that we can find the damage
!~*'
c-r l
6 suggested in the affidavit.
7 This is true of the other instance as well, 8 but I am reluctant to talk about that one in more detail 9 because we have not confirmed it ourselves, the point of 10' the discussion'being that we believe our records are i1 'very complete.
4 I
12 HR. NORELIUS:
What confidence do you have 13 tha t these hits 7.nd all have been put into the record?
p, QP 14
-3R. DELGEORGE.
As we indicated earlier, that 15 have been b'oth audits and 'furveillances conducted by 16 site contractor and Comme:nwealth Edison OA personnel 17 during the course of drilling and coring of the holes 18 initia ted in the late seventies through 1981-1982.
'd e 19 have, because of the ec:phasis placed by this petition, i
20 gone back to assure oursel'ves by requesting each site
{
21 contractor to identify all damage reports so that we can t_
22 cross-correlate those records received by tne architect r
p,3 engineer versus those records prepared by the site i
-.(j 24 contractors, and we are in the process of verifying that l
25 we have in f act reviewed each of the reports developed ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 Elr.GINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 _
U.. a. h...
...- -_ ww.I
.- _i:.. -L -
_w._2
"[
lu.,
- \\
,, i '
)
g
\\
.sgg
\\
.,i, 3 g
.,A
,( A y
1.
{}
.s 1 at the site.
g
\\
2 Eased on the re view tha t has beeO c'onducted tc$
3 date, we are not ware.of any discrepanctes l'n that i m
Q)
'l
' "p ;)p * \\
4 process.
(,
4 *(
i 5
(
5 MR. NORELIUS:
You mextioned that ttie, program i+ 3 6 started in 1976, t h e co n t ro l prd'g r'a m that'you have.
How.
f s
1
. o, i
7 does that relate to the drilling that has been.done?
.j i
.x 8
3R. LEE:
Dan?
s 9
MR. SHAMBLIN:
Yos.
We vent back and took a 10 look at where we stood en' electrical and mechanical q, -
s 11 installation from our rcegress repor*.s, an igthe cost control r'eport for the,,j.
\\
12 electrical area froc 2
- sti, 13 period ending October 20, 1976, which is air,eri61-of.,
14 approximately when the first revision IfiLSC came.out, y,
we had (4;pk 15 the first draf t of it.
Cable pa in stalla tiop,w,;
s-i 16 11,260 feet of cable pan out of 119,800 feet of cable 17 pan installed.
The 119,000 we.s based,on two units.
18 That represents 9.4 percent of the cable tray D
'~
- g
- g q 19 installed.
~
I f
20 Exposed conduit We had no exposed conduit s
.r g
.s A
21 installed at that point in time.
Lighting:
Vd had' 3
i 22 2,163 of o,876 fixtures installed at that point ilt \\
i
\\]
\\
23 time.
I think we used.the shorter anchors on the q+,
24 lighting, quarter-inch anchors.. We had n'o crible pulled,
b 25 and this again is consistent?with if we didn't have any l, 3 i
\\
,)e p%
, ' M'
\\
c S\\
Q '-l
.J. f ;
t i
' t
. _, )
',A,
%i s
' AicERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
, J.-
400 VIRGIN 1A AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 y
4..
_. w
.a
__E__._e. a 1--
_ _.a -
w m_
'" c n
65 e.
Q 1 exposed conduit installed we wouldn't have any cable 2 pulling.
3 ~
In the area of piping installation, for the O.,t 4 period ending December 31, 1976, piping supports, we had S'
5; 1,917 of 17,7t45 piping supports installed.
- Piping, 4
6 2.1/2 inch and larger, we had 51,657 feet of 310,926 7 lf eet installed ; and stainless steel piping, we had 3,909 s
I ',. ^
'I
/
8 feet of 79,269 feet of stainless steel piping, all 3-Y-
r.
9 sizes, installed.
Now these numbers include the whole 10 plant, both safety and nonsafety-related areas.
11-In reviewing one of the progress reports at s
12 that point in time, we did find out that the HVAC 13 contractor was not working in any safety-related areas (b@,
N 14 a t th a t point in time.
This was the progress report 15 dated December 10, 1976.
He was working in the 1
16, nonsafety areas only and he had not started work in the 17 ;saf ety-rela ted areas.
18 ;
MR. LEE:
Primarily in the service building?
k 19 MR. SHAMBLIN:
Primarily in the service
'20 building, and the lower elevations of the turbine 7
l
21 building.
The main electrical contractor was installing 22 lighting in reactor number one and number two and in the J 23 aux bc'11 dings.
h 24 g
9 25 g
O s
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, h.
i a.
a.u.a.
2-.-
w'
-.l Y' ' Y 2.22 a.
c_
66 1
He was installing cable pans in the reactor
{)
2 oao turbine and aux buildings, and he was installing 3 communications, which is a -- the type of anchors you 4 may use on that is similar to the lighting in the 5 reactor area aux building, service building, and it.ke 6 screen house.
7 The piping contractor was installing service 8 water, cycle condensate, clean condensate, closed 9 cooling water piping in the reactor building Unit 1, and to he had just started the installation of Section 3 high 11 and low pressure core spray and residual heat removal 12 h ange rs.
13 You have to remember that the amount of 14 expansion anchor work that would have been going on at 15 tha t time would have been very, very minimal, because it 16 was a clear building that the contractors were able to 17 g e t into and hang from the embedment plates.
So we are 18 concluding that the amount of concrete expansion anchor 19 work that went on prior to September 1976 or the fall of 20 1976, was very, very minimal.
21 MR. NORELIUSz Thank you.
22 MR. DENTON:
Let me return to the slide that 23 you have shown.
The lowest margin appears to be in area
( 24 num ber one. That is down to 1.05. Your sample is 25 actually ra ther small. In view of the large number of e,. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
L : .a iYs '^ .n. - a.- a 67 ([) 1 potentially damaged bars. How far do you intend to look 2 for rem 2 dial action? Are you goiag to look back, wall 3 by wall? Do you consider this a sample to base a 4 judgment on? 5 MB. LONGLAIS: We feel satisfied that our 6 initial engineering judgment was adequate. We feel that 7 ve have picked out nine critical areas. We have 8 demonstrated that we still have a factor of greater than 9 one. We do not feel it is necessary to go back at this 10 point in time. 11 MR. DENTON: It is not very much greater than 12 o n e. Your sample is -- 13 MR. LONGLAIS: All ve need is "one." 14 MR. LEE: We have been accused of overbuilding 15 there, or some of the utilities have recently, that we 16 have not paid enough attention to quantities, and what 17 have you, and that we are overdesigned. So "one" does 18 no t mean he re tha t if we go to.99 the building is going 19 to fall down. 20 MB. DENTON: Well, I was trying to relate to ^1 the number that Jim Knight raised where he said the re 22 may be 50,000 holes either drilled or cored. There may 23 be a thousand of those that are greater than 2 inches, (i 24 or some such number. Of those 1000 holes that may be 25 greater than 2 inches, how many of them are sampled in ) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
I.i l l e cc..; ._.m 68 7'- 1 this table? It looks like (O 8 2 MR. LONGLAIS: Maybe less than 1 percent. 3 MB. LEES There were only 3000 that had any O 4 kind of even a nick report, let alone a cut or an actual k *, 5 rebar replacement. So out of the 50,000, only 6 3000-and-some had any indication of contact with a i l 7 reinforcing bar. i 8 MR. DENTON: Well in the column labeled l 9 " number of damaged rebar locations," do you assume all 10 these are cut? 11 MR. LONGLAIS: We assume all of these to have 1 12 been cut, when in fact the number may have only been l 13 nicked. 14 MR. KOSTAL: I would like to clarify one 15 thing. that 1.05 in Tom's earlier comment regarding the 16 margins that exist, if we took the actual concrete i 17 strength, that number is actually 1.2. It is not 1.05, 18 because we typically have 10 to 30 percent increase in 19 capacity of the concrete and steel that exists out in 20 tha t plant compared to the original design. So that is 21 not even taken into account. 22 So when it says "from an engineering point of l 23 vie w we feel we have adequate safety margins," there are h 24 additional margins on top of that 1.05 that are 25 available to us, if any additional assessment was G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
A. _. a' s..t -
- u. --
69 1 required, which we do not believe is needed. { l 2 MR. DENION: Are you saying then that these l 3 calculations of margins with and without holes are using 4 design strength, not -- MR. KOSTAL: That is design strength, not 5 6 actual naterial strength; and it is automatically 7 required required that the actual ma terial strengths 8 must be greater than design strengths, and we have-- you 9 know, Edison has documentation to show that the level of 10 that increased capacity range is well above the 15 11 percent range. 12 MR. LIPINSKI But that depends on how we 13 define the margins. If the margin is defined on the 14 basis of ACI 3.18, then we are using the code 15 allowables. ~ 16 MR. KOSTAL: The margin is defined based upon 17 what is committed to in the FSAR, which was reviewed and 18 agreed to by Staff. 19 MR. LIPINSKI: Fine. Then we are talking I 20 about-- 21 MR. KOSTAL: Which is greater than ACI. Your 22 margins are less than what is allowed for ACI. 23 MR. LIPINSKI: No, but you bring up another (}) 24 poin t. You bring up the actoal concrete strength. 25 MR. K3SI AL : I am saying that it is available () ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGT@N, D.@. fEi83 @@ G23 MtG
, 7- -u = z .w._ w ' -~.. a a. ~...--;. .a- -... ~.. 70 1 if it is required to be called upon, which is not taken 2 into account in this assessment. 3 ER. LIPINSKI We are aware of that fact, but O 4 if we are assessing the margin on the basis of code 5 allowables, then this is o'ne thing. But you bring up 6 ano ther poin t. 7 MR. LONGLAIS: The margin is based upon the 8 design strength of the concrete element. That design 9 strength is calculated per the applicable requirements to of ACI 3.18. That is divided by the design stresses in 11 the concrete element, which were calculated using the 12 committed-to design requirements in the LaSalle FSAR. 13 MR. DENTON: I want to get back to statistical h 14 confidence just one more time. The number of damaged 15 bars fo r which you have done this calculation cannot add 16 u p to much over 100. 17 MR. LONGLAIS: That is correct. 18 MR. DENTON: And you are saying the number of 19 bars actually damaged is what? 30007 20 MR. LONGLAIS: Approximately that, yes. 21 MR. DENTON: And then you tried to select 22 these, picking ones that you thought were more likely to 23 show deterioration than not. But still, what level of () 24 confidence do you think this represents where you have 25 identified holes that will actually keep the structure (1 %:) ALDERboN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
w 2 4._ - i.: w .A 71 a 1 from performing its function? r. 2 HR. LONGLAIS: I personally feel we have done 3 a complete job in this assessment. I believe we have O 4 been very conservative in our engineering assessments 5 throughout the entire program. And in all the areas we 6 have looked at in selecting highly congested rebar 7 damages, be they nicks or cuts, we have demonstrated 8 that we have a factor of safety greater than one. 9 Again, I think the proof of the pudding is in looking at 10 the drawings and looking at how sparsely most of these 11 reinforcing steel damages do occur. 12 We have tried to select areas that appear to 13 be congested. One area here where it appeared that we
- h
-14 had a stress problem, we did isola te tha t and showed 15 that we still had sufficient margin. 16 MR. DELGEORGE: The point that needs to be 17 made is that the engineering evaluation is 100 percent 18 complete for all concrete elements. That is, we have 19 reviewed these drawings and performed an assessment for 20 each of the concrete elements. We have done an 21 additional analytical assessment to verif y the 22 evaluation that hss been done for all walls, and we have 23 found that there is nothing in this analytical {.) 24 assessment of the nine walls shown to suggest that the 25 100 percent review that we did was inadequa te. ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC. 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WAShNGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
= .. _ ~.. - - -. _. - - 2, a. L.u.w. , z. - -. u 4 72 1 So on tha t' basis sta tisteally we have looked []) 2 at 100 percent of the elements involved, and we have 3 done an over-inspection of a limited number of those O 4 valls, or concrete elements. 5 MR. DENTON: I propose that we take a break in 6 a soment to perhaps mull over what we have heard; but 7 before we do, let me ask Mrs. Goodie if she would like J 8 to make any comments? 9 MS. GOODIE: Not at this point, thank you. 10 MR. PURPLES One part of the petition speaks 11 to asking us to not allow fuel to be loaded, because if 12 fuel would be loaded you would be unable to have access 13 to areas that needed repair, and so forth and so on. Do ) 14 you have anything to provide on that? 15 MR. DELG"0RGE: Yec. If you will remember, I 16 asked that we defer that, and now looks like a good time 17 to talk about it. The petition does say that immediate 18 attention is required prior to plant operation. In 19 materials that we have submitted to the Staff, you are 20 aware that our low-power test startup program involves 21 certain hold points. 22 From the date at which fuel is started to be 23 loaded into the reactor vessel, there is a period of (}; 24 approximately two months before the first criticality is 25 reached. During that period of time, we do not feel O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
a wn.a --.u.- .u- _ _a w
- ax
- -
73 1 that there is any jeopardy to the continuation of an I evaluation, and there is no radiation level that needs o l l 3 to be addressed anywhere in the plant. O 4 Beyond that, it is our viav, based on the 5 experience in starting up sinilar reactors at Dresden 6 and Quad Cities, that over the full course of the five 7 percent power license that we have requested, that the 8 radiation levels in those areas of the plant subject to 9 inquiry here would not be such that a continuing review 10 or inspection would be precluded. So it is our feeling l 11 tha t the immediacy suggested in the petition is l 12 overstated. 13 MR. LEE: And I guess I would say that in f act W 14 af ter 12 years of operation on Dresden, it would not, 15 f rom a radiation standpoint, preclude evaluations and 16 inspections. After all, we do naintain all of that 17 equipment. 18 NR. DENTON: Any.other questions anyone would 19 like to raise before we take a break? 20 (No response.) 21 MR. DENTON: Let us break for about 10 minutes 22 and try to get back a few ninutes before 3:00. 23 (Recess.) (f;) 24 ER. PURPLE: Let's get started again. 25 (Pause.) O ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
w_ -. a . _ w. f U: a.2 ll L.w i ' l)I 74 1 Harold was unable to come back. He was ca13.ed 2 away. He asked me to continue the meeting -- continue, 3 or close the meeting, I suspect. I think Commonwealth 4 Edison has presented all you intended to present today, 5 I trust? 8 HR. DELGEORGE: I would like to supplement the 7 record eith one fact. 8 MR. PURPLE All righ t. 9 ER. DELGEORGE: Early in the discussion a 10 question was raised relative to whether or not we had 11 performed a reinforcement steel assessment of the 12 off-gas building roof. We have verified by 13 conversations with our consultant, and we have in fact .h
- 14. performed a simila r evaluation of the off-gas building 15 roof to what has been described here.
And is it true 18 that a drawing like this exists for that slab? 17 MR. REKLACTIS: There are two cuts that were 18 noted, and they were observed, and there are several 19 nicks which are not detrimental. 20 MR. DELGEORGEs The point being that although i 21 only safety related concrete elements are addressed in 22 the package we have provided you today, we have been 23 able to determine that the off-gas building roof, which (} 24 is a non-ssf ety related structure, was also evaluated in w-25 a similar way. u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
ww ..-._.. ~.- u.= w.-;..., a.x2.: 2 _. -....:_ =.aaa a. 75 Q 1 HR. PURPLE: Okay. Well, I bring Harold's 2 thanks for everybody who came on such short notice. The 3 information we have received today will certainly help '~ 4 as kick off our review. 5 We will accept those 90 drawings and turn them 6 over to the Staff for a subsequent look. We are, and 7 have been I guess from an earlier notification of 8 possible problems with holes at the site, the Regional 9 Office has initiated its own inquiry into the facts, and j 10 that is continuing and will continue. 11 We cannot identif y today any specific 12 additional information we need from the utility to help 13 us complete it. It is possible that we may ask for 14 some. If so, we v'ill certainly get the request to you 15 promp tly. Recognizing your scheduler needs, we 16 certainly would intend to put what resources we need to r 17 finish this up as rapidly as possible. 18 Harold did ask me to pass on, in follow-on to 19 the question he asked a couple of times, his concern 20 about the last chart we saw with statistics, and whether ~ 21 or not that really gives you and him and us sufficient 22 statistical confidence that you really have found all 23 the places. I think if there had not been one number ( 24 that came as low as 1.05, he might not have been as 25 concerned; but again, I do not know that we are going to (v~::, ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 $8) 954 f000
I .m-.u... - a - ~w - ~ as L -,a 76 ({} 1 ask that you do any more, but you may want to be 2 thinking about that. 3 I think you have delivered today all the O 4 reports that you centioned? Do we have all of that 5 information ? 6 MR. DELGEORGE: I believe so. Before we leave 7 ve will check with whoever you think has a complete \\ 8 package, and we vill -- 9 MR. PURPLE: The Project Manager, I hope, 10 MR. LEE: I might just say, by responding to 11 that last concern of Harold Denton 's, that in f act, I { i 12 think as Lou has said, that we have looked at we think j t 13 100 percent. 14 MR. PURP'LE: Yes; I understand that. 15 ER. LEE: It is really only a sampling 16 verification, in a scrse. So that a look by your 17 experts at these prints hopefully will give the same 18 conclusions. Again, we can only make the plea that we 1 19 have spent a lot of time on this effort. l 20 We, just on a kind of a back-of-the-envelope 21 estimate, while we were having a quick sandwich before 22 ve came over here, estimated that we probably spent more 23 than one man-year worth of effort in five days, and tha t ( )- 24 is not counting all the effort that is indicated here by 25 the people who have come who should be back at the site ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG1NIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20054__(6MB _GD3-MKO
~. - - 77 Q 1 trying to move that facility along. l 2 If there is a problem, we would be anxious to 3 get into it as quickly as anybody. We are convinced 4 that there is no problem here, and that we ought to move 5 as quickly as we can. And there is certainly no 6 justification for holding up lov-power testing. 7 HR. PURPLES M =. Goodie, are there any a comments you wish to make? 9 HS. GOODIE: We certainly appreciate the 10 prompt response to the NRC to the petition. We 11 recognize that the decision is yours to make. 12 Unfortunately, we were not able to have our consultant 13 here, so there was very little, or nothing that I could 14 say technically, obviously. But he will be looking at 15 all the information as soon as I can get it to his 16 office. 17 MR. PURPLE 4 We were very glad to have you 18 here today. 19 If there is nothing f urther, the meeting vill 20 be closed. Thank you very much. [ 21 (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was 22 adjourned.) 23 A(_) .24 25 f ')A ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASH NGTON._D.C. 20024 (203) 554 2343
.....x......-.-.-........- .. ~.. -.. NUCE.AR REGULATORY CD."ESSICN i
- /
Ihis Is Oc certify that the a;; ached prcceedings befarg ;33 / ) 4 'in the :: tatter of: Commonwealth Edison Company (LaSalle County Nuclear ' Generating Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2) Date.of ProceedinE: March 31, 1982 Decket flu =b er: ~50-373 s 50-374 Place of Proceeding: Bethesda, Maryland were held as herein appears, and that this is OP.e crisinal transcrip therecf for the file of the Cccmission. Jane N. Eeach Official Reporter ( Typ ed ) f".d/ I l f / O icial Repceter (Signature) 4 e e ' b e b
- \\ u,9
.: _.....a w '* ~ S %:im.iLillNA-a ' '50 ~ EyAv8/7k 4 3.. k 9 } March 30, 1982 r f 0FF-GAS BUILDING ROOF REPORT 1 0 PURPOSE ): [. The purpose of the report is tu present information f* rega: ding the second allegation (Page 6, Request to Institute a Show Cause Proceedjng and for other Relief - Tyrone Fahner, Attorney ? l. General of the State of Illinois) on the Of f-Gas Building roof. 0_ 4 BACKGROUND The concrete enclosure above grade as part o f the Off-Gas Building is a non-safety related structure which houses Of f-Gas Building HVAC Air Handling Units, HVAC Water Cooled Condensing F Units, HVAC Exhaust Filter Units, HVAC Control Panels and associated motor control centers and switchgear. The specification concrete compressive strength is 4000 psi at 90 days. While detailed quality t assurance requirements were not required due to the building being I non-safety related, they were applied as part of the overall f Commonwealth Edison /Walsh Construction Company quality e ffort. FINDINGS The Off-Gas Building enclosure concrete (walls and roof) was poured on November 7,1975. Walsh Construction Company (WCC) Q.C. Form QCP-9A (Pour Checkout Card) was signed by the appropriate construction and Q.C. personnel and countersigned by a Commonwealth l Edison Company Field Engineer. Additionally, WCC Q.C. Forms l QCP-6A(Reinforcing Steel Placement Audit) and QCP-9B(Concrete l Placement Control Audit Form) were utilized and signed by WCC Q.C. personnel. Concrete testing during the pour by A&H Engineering Corporation showed the concrete was within specification requirements for slump, air content and placing temperature. The concrete met compressive strength requirements, the lowest cylinder break was 4670 psi at 90 days. On September 25, 1979, Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance pointed out some surface cracking in the bottom of the Off-Gas Building roof. The area had a high density of concrete expans on anchors. An inspection performed by WCC Q. A. Supervisor, WCC Ger.1ral Superintendant and CECO. Structural Engineer found the cracking to be surface in nature and no futher action was required. ('J) A temporary construction power center transformer and V switchgear were set on the roof in 1976. The unit weighed l approximately 6700 pounds. The unit was set over a concrete beam in the longitudual direction and one end rested on the east concrete wall. A check was made to insure the roof would take the unit loading prior to installation. The unit was removed in late 1981 as it was no longer required. cr f c c m~
-_ _ -_ZL 4 -.w - 4.'_. ICE - 2dd$A _ ;. x._, ~ ! The slab thickness has been checked on two different occasions. On March 10, 1982 a single point check showed the slab ({) as l' 21/4" thick including roofing material. Roofing material is approximately 1-3/4" - 2" thick. Additional slab thickness j checks were made on March 29, 1982. Fifteen (15) points checks showed the slab plus roofing material varied from l' 5/8" to l' ' 3/4". A check mace effectively eliminating the roofing material showed thc slab thickness varied from 11-1/4" to l'- 1-1/4". i A visual survey of the roof underside was made by WCC Q. A. and CECO. on March 27, 1982. The survey showed no abnormal concrete cracking. The area under the former electrical equipment showed no abnormal concrete cracking.
SUMMARY
The Off-Gas Building roof concrete is 12 inches thick per I specifications. Tiere is no abnormal concrete cracking due to concrete expansion anchors and/or the electrical equipment formerly placed there. The roof will serve its' intended function. G 3759N (_
-~ .~- a-~,-.~..=. =..a--. G4,U i TYPES OF CORED HOLES k n ,e A. Holes passing through concrete element to allow for passage C of an electrical or mechanical ccmponent. N r Pipe or Conduit, etc. n .I 5 e .l 4 D: 2" to 16" t B. Holes partially penetrating a concrete element for a grouted anchor bolt. Grout g
- c Anchor Bolt
\\ i i 3 t. y. f l l D: 3" DRILLED HOLES FOR CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS C Concrete Expansion Anchor 07 Y ex (:< } 3 c v .d',b I D= 1/4" to 1" 'M g,3 f
.c t E d.b. + 2-l l
SUMMARY
0F' ENGI NEERI NG PEVI EW"0F" CORED"H0i.ES ~ ~ ~ '"" ' '^ " " ^ " ' "'" " * "^* '"* '""" ' "'"' O ELEMENTS FOR OFFICE ROUTED COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED ON l STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE DRAWINGS, AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT IS MADE OF THE EFFECTS OF THE I REINFORCING STEEL LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED BY THE CORING OPERATION. THIS ASSESSMENT HAS CONSISTED OF ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT BASED UPON THE STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENTS IN RELATION TO THE LOCATION OF THE CORED HOLE. l II CORED HOLES FOR FIELD ROUTED COMPONENTS ARE REQUESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR VI A A FIELD CHANGE REQUEST (FCR).. AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT, SIMILAR TO THAT PERFORMED FOR OFFICE ROUTED COMPONdlTS, IS MADE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FCR. THE LOCATION'0F THESE CORED HOLES ARE Q SUBSEQUENTLY INDICATED ON THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN DRAWINGS. ~ III SUBSEQUENT DETAILED CALCULATIONS RECENTLY PERFORMED FOR A SAMPLE OF CORED HOLES HAVE SUBSTANTI ATED THAT ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT WAS APPROPRIATE. IV CORED HOLES FOR EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION AND PIPE SUPPORT BASEPLATE ASSEMBLIES ARE INDICATED ON THE MECHANICAL I DESIGN DRAWINGS. A. THE CORING OF HOLES FOR PIPE SUPPORT BASEPLATE ASSEMBLIES, WHICH COMMENCED IN THE SUMMER OF 1980, WAS CONTROLLED BY DRAWING NO. M-1100, SHEET 23, WHICH REQUESTED THAT THE CONCRETE BE NOTCHED TO EXPOSE THE J' REINFORCING STEEL TO AVOID REBAR DAMAGE. THIS REQUIREMENT PRECLUDED ANY REBAR' DAMAGE.
- . r
.\\ .x:,, -.aa: ._au ,"--t bl,. A. J s ,B. . CORED HOLES'FOR EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION ANCHOR BOLTS ARE PLOTTED ON THE RHS DRAWINGS. AN ASSESSMENT BASED UPON ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE. REINFORCING STEEL LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED BY THE CORING OPERATION IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENTS. t O I 0 [ t i 1 'k_ h-1
u -.--.-.~.-.- w a. .. -. = ~ -.. x JL.l. LLC L' : m Lw s 6 I r f i
SUMMARY
'0F ENGINEERItfG' REVIEW'0F DR'II.L'Eb H0'LE'S 'FOR"E0EfCRETE"EXP' NS'IO'N ANCHORS A
~ !O ~ I ENGINEERING CONTROL ON REINFORCING STE'EL DAMAGED DURING CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR INSTALLATION IS INITIALLY EXERCISED VIA FORM LS-CEA, NHICH: ?: .A. DEFINES AREAS IN WHICH A METAL DETECTOR MUST BE USED TO AVOID REINFORCING STEEL DAMAGE, AND REQUIRES THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN ENGINEERING APPROVAL PRIOR TO CUTTING A BAR AND TO SUBSEQUENTLY REPORT THIS OCCURRENCE. l B. PROHIBITS THE USE OF CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CONSULTING ENGINEER. O C', DEFINES AREAS IN WHICH CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS { MAY NOT BE INSTALLED WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC APPROVAL l 0F.THE CONSULTING' ENGINEER. 1 l Il INITI AL ENGINEERING REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF DAMAGED REINFORCING STEEL REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR A. INDIVIDUAL DAMAGED REBAR REPORTS WHICH ARE SUBMITTED ARE REVIEWED BY THE CONSULTING ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE IMMEDIATE, LOCAL IMPACT OF THE DAMAGED BAR. THIS REVIEW, IN MOST INSTANCES, CONSISTS OF ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT BASED UPON THE EXISTING STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENT. b; B. THE REBAR DAMAGE REPORTS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY LOGGED IN, INDEXED AND PLOTTED ON A SEPARATE SET OF STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS (RHS DRAWINGS). 4
me ~ uik gli, t.,, +.s uno.w..T o t.u e:v S ptember 30,197g .we .Rev. 3,, 7-20-79 -d - . ~, C-Or ,Q m.. _. m.w l i no metal detec:or tw e'.'% , j i '.:;.;I _ see Articta 3.2.11 p 4,g ,. 4,1,3. ,."s Expe.s te=s Aachers &}1c'ed .t @ Use.stal detector b d, sa' l l .Y:
- df,w,;"*2. 'c. m; s,'y..:.),
I l m __2 w.:
- _.9 m
j li' ;6W f,y
- , g g,,g 3,,,
3 fe
- QFD r - stort spas y'
c.3 stia. c
- j l
- f '
6'-o-3 7, m.. 2. o.e..,.1., m i ~ o.. +-~..sp y g w ez.c$;[ l l iii 81^"* ** I ~ t ] .3.M*'.' W wN N b' . l 3. he way slab indicated.e e d, pl.as as ...... ~
- j.1
-.l --.2%4 l l .r. u.I C
- c. -
/ a t..* A-I f,i . a. u I ' It For Sean Width plus I**"-***""*' I" 2'=0* the eriteria befellmed.(Typ.T) j i= '58='* "-* 'u lt R3 = g, L. g, 4La F04 L > 2La - See llote 2 n, een O. lo 1 ..i r_a. - 1 i 1 D., - .s-
- e...
- '.ffy f.,'.$,
i 10*-o" Mtn. I l d' m) '.3 l l "[ p a a t> i \\ 7 O. 4 l .p. p (l . p,.Yx., l i s .!. 1 ., l q [ j l l 4:a.+0ush l I I l 3-p: M *-
- .e r.><
.s..-: Q. . y_ f.r l l I ~ M'.'8h~ E. 1 .I'~ t i t .j u I ;ct t. 2 u - s.e... 3 .I u_l. -w w. i. t. su m i. > 2 u - s.e te 2 SOTTtw P'd O= =j Q I Additto.41 retafarci.g shows q 7.,r.o. ,1.. <,or.oi -.t. i _h. 4..__ 7__ i 61.a..u. C 4 - +I.*j [ [ 'd'*I N ' l [ ~ / f l I Q.N,, l 7g ,) p. 4
- s..1Mw 1
l 1 s,.. 3 l. .1 M j Q Y. -] l ,2 b'h i d' I [ F'--- tectangular er circular ,g 3_,,,, g, open tes '8 P _ y __ u..__ qi_y _L g ,b .w Md t ' f I
- I t I i i?*.0" r
3 ~ s' TOP 4 W M PtAM (TYP.) ftCt*Et 38-7 C1tTTRf A PCs te tLLtirc or untts roa t1Pagstene A*stmies ti coas. afft Stats = som.
- e. '; _
{ m-~~-. m u - a. .~ III FINAL ENGINEERING REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF DAMAGED REINFORCING STEEL A. TH.E ASSESSMENT OF THE OVEPkLL EFFECTS OF THE ACCUMUL Q OF DAMAGED REINFORCING STEEL OCCURS DURING THE FINAL LOAD CHECK, JUST PRIOR T0 'INITI AL FUEL LOAD. ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT B'. THIS REVIEW HAS CONSISTF_, BASED UPON -THE FINAL, STRESS LEVELS,IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION OF THE DAMAGED REBAR. DETAILED CALCULATIONS WERE NOT WARRANTED.DUE TO THE RANDOM DISTRIBUTION,OF,THE, DAMAGED REINFORCING STEEL IN THE SAFETY. RELATED AREAS. ' CALCULATIONS RECENTL.Y PERFORMED IN RESPONSE TO THE PETITION HAVE SUBSTANTIATED THAT ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT WAS-APPROPRIATE. i O e e W (.. '
y f Margins in Sample Areas with Congested Rebar Hits for LaSalle County, Unit 1 Table 3-1 No. of Ratio Area Slab / Wall Wall Location or Damaged No. of. Margin Margin Building Elevation Cored No. (Panel Size) Slab Panel No. Rebar Without With Margin With Holes H les Locations Holes Holes Margin Without Holes f;: Reactor Wall Above Diagonal Wall at 5 2 1.25 1.05 1.19 I (S-201 ) 19.67'x56' 673'-4" Col. C & 14 56" Slab between i 12.5 ' x3 2,- [- a 2 740'-0" Col. J & II,11-2 31 0 2.24 1.23 1.82 & 12-8 t-Reactor Beam Beam at Line 14 [ 786i-6a 1 0 3.55 3.13 1.13 3 (S-21 5) 3'x24.5, between Col. D & E i Slab 719 2 1 1.71 1.36 1.26 i Reactor I 10'x26' 820'-6" IRS 4 (S-219) Each Slab 720, 5 0 1.88 1.50 1.25 If' Reactor Wall Above Between 11 & 13 ti 12 1 2.16 1.27 1.70 5 (S-21 9) 14.7'x3a; 820'-6"- & Col. J & G jg y. Between ii Reactor Wall 673'-0" Col. Row J 19 2 4.00 3.00
- 1. 33
[ 6 (S-223). 21.2'x27' between 14 & 15 694'-C" P-c. [p
..Between l. R; actor
- l Wal1 673'-0" 0
2.85 2.53 h 1.13 Row 15 h9 7 5 (S-237) " 4.17,x28, 3 694'-6" .i i Between i. Reactor Wall 673'-4" At Line 8 - 9 8 6 0 1*73 1*34 1.29 (S-274) 19.17'x27' between Col. J & G 694'-6" i g Auxiliary Wall Above At Line 11 - 3 9 0 1*34 1*22 1*10 (S-572) 18'x25' 731'-0" running
- All these bar damages are in top of slab scattered in the entire bay.
I {g. h e h. b Table 3-1 '(Continued) Ic b t 1 J-i. 1.
- i. L I. :
' ' 2.x- -x;_.:-- a :- 2.2-w _. : ~2 - -.- ] ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i O RESPONSE TO PETITION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLINOIS, IN THE MATTER OF REINFORCING STEEL D AMAGE0 DURING 4 THE INSTALLATION OF CORED HOLES AND CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS LASALLE COUNTY, UNITS 1 AND 2 Commonwealth Edison Company Chicago, Illinois March 31, 1982 1 4 sh pp (j
- M i k * ~ ;;^','_ .9
- s ?X -
'i'-? & L wa 5 L % u -- ~a.;.uumibia- - i 'ku : 4 4 ? TABLE ~ OF CONTENTS Section Title Pace No. 1 1.0. Summary of Allegation 1 2.0 Response to Allegation, 3 i.
- 2. l' Introduction 3
2.2 Disposition o f Cored Holes 4 2.3 Disposition of Drilled Holes for Concrete 7 Expansion Anchors 3.0 Conclusion 11 J -4 ^3 s } 1 ^ Y. i G t 4 L 9 11 i. ()- 4 l / + n. cs.y,.. a y .w,-,,, - g 4
2 :
- l. i i i C w w k
- = = " = " " - " " "" r 0 4 .f 1 J i,- 1 1.0 Summary o f A11eidation ThIT0ffice[of the Attorney General, State o f Illinois, has - () brought-forward information alleging, ...that, during the construction of LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2, certain practices relate'd 'to the drilling of holes in the concrete l walls, floors and ceilings o f the Units 1 and 2 buildings have created a potentially hazardous condition which, upon the operationL of either unit at full power, may be injurious to the public health and safety." 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 Detition, which is based on the affidavit of h' Ernest Garrison, indicates that records o f these situations were made-at the time the alleged practices occurred, and that the practice of drilling through reinforcing 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 tnat any engineering approval l O was ever obtained from Commonwealth Edison Company's engineering consultant prior to 1980. A second affidavit by Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh states that, if the reinforcing () steel was damaged or severed without .d ,1 M i 1
~.-,.-.L-..,w -. 7....a, -- a g ... -.~. ... -. ~ - -. u-4 il' f 4} \\~, \\ 2 \\ appropriate structural, analysis, and i f the drf.lling' - 3 i i s practice was wioe-spread, "...it seems nearly certair 3 that i some safety related,;tructures...would have been a f fected."
- e t
4 6 t s \\' i \\ \\ I N f-y s 'k f f ) 's sx = (I t' \\ 1, i,,- a 4 S 4 .U 9 4 n'O3 Q) 7 k N
.,w._ma w La C n m ,W u-wi es u% -.;~-~ ~~"--. -- ~ ?
- ---.h
~ ^ ~ ?. ,k ~ tv i% 3 s 2.0 Response to Alleoation 2.1 I,6 t roduction ([I) Co.mmonwealth Edison Company, throughout the course of the LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2 construction, has controlled ,the drilling through concrete for either cored holes or the installation of concrete expansion anchors via appropriate j, quality control procedures and has documented and assessed ,, reinforcing steel reported as having been contacted (hit or , cut) during this operation. ? A distinction is made between a cored hole and a hole x drilled in the concrete for the installation of a concrete expansion anchor. A cared hole is one in which (a) the O p, hole passes completely through the concrete element to allow for the passage of a mechanical or electrical ~ component, such as a pipe or electrical conduit, or (0) the hole penetrates only partially into the concrete element, .and in which an anchor bolt is set and grouted. A cared hole is typically 3" in diameter or 3 trger. Holes drilled for the installation of concrete expansion anchors, on the [ other hand, vary from 1/4" in diameter to 1" in diameter, with the corresponding hole depth varying from 1-1/4" to l 8". Holes drilled for concrete expansion anchors do not ()s pass completely through the concrete element. l l I i 'n
~ - ~ u-.L-x. mm._ i 8 4 2.2 Disposition of Cored Holes 2.2.1 Cored Holes Passino thru Concrete Elements ({,) The need for cored holes is determined in either the initial design phase during the routing o f mechanical and electrical components, or by the contractor in the case of field routed electrical and mechanical components. In the first situation, the cored holes are located on the structural design drawings, and a conservative structural assessment is made by Sargent & Lundy for Commonwealth Edison Company of the effects of the removal or damage to reinforcing steel due to the installation of the cored hole. This assessment is made prior to the release of the drawings and the coring of the hole. In the second O situation, the contractor is required to submit a Field Change Request (FDR), requesting permission to install a cored hole for field routed components prior to the coring operation. Commonwealth Edison Company, on the recommendation of Sargent & Lundy, approves this request only after a structural assessment has been made of the ef fects of reinforcing steel which may be removed or damaged during this operation. These cored holes are subsequently indicated on the structrual design drawings. It should be emphasized that, in both these situations, (}]. engineering approval is obtained prior to cutting the reinforcing steel. Where the engineering assessment has determined that it is not permissible to cut or damage
r; ._. a., a._.. --m-- w_ _-_- -w-u -u 2-s I 5 I reinforcing steel during installation of cored holes, this requirement has been specified on the appropriate (]) structural design drawing. The following are some examples of this situation: A. General Note No. 44 on Drawing No. S-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 interferrence with rebar, holes may be cored in alternate location within +3" radius from location shown on drawing." 8. Drawing No. S-213, concerning the Reactor Building O floor framing plan a t Elevation 761'-0", Note 11 requires the use of metal detectors to avoid cutting of reinforcing steel in this area. 2.2.2 Cored Holes for Grouted Anchor Bolts Cored Holes for grouted anchor bolts are indicated on i either the mechanical or structural design drawings. I, Grouted anchor bolts are utilized primarily to anchor equipment foundations or pipe support baseplates to (]) concrete elements. These cored holes are, likewise, reviewed by the consulting engineer. This review consists l of' an assessment of the effects of the reinforcing steel
a - = - - - --- ~***~"~ ~ ' ^ ' ' ~^
- ~ ~ ~
6 likely to be damaged due to the installation of the cored hole. O The installation o f cored holes for the support o f pipe support baseplate assemblies essentially commenced during the summer o f 1980. Mechanical Drawing No. M-1100, Sheet 23, issued in January, 1980, controls the coring o f holes for these baseplate assemblies, and requires that the concrete be carefully notched to expose the reinforcing steel in both directions prior to coring the hole, to avoid damage to the reinforcing steel. The location of tha cored holes for the installation of grouted equipment anchor bolts are plotted and located on a _ separate set of structural design drawings for the purpose of assessing the effects of reinforcing steel likely to oe damaged in the coring operation. The structural assessment has determined that the structural integrity of the concrete elements has not been impaired by the coring operation for grouted anchor bolts for mechanical equipment foundations. ,4
r - i ,,_,___a,,,__. . _,,,, _ n,_ _, ii i 7 2.3 Disposition of Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors The drilling of holes for concrete expansion anchors is () controlled by Form LS-CE A. This form was initially issued in September, 1976, ano contained the following strict provisions for the protection of the reinforcing steel: A. During the installation of concrete expansion anchors, drilling through concrete reinforcement will not be permitted. For nuclear safety related work, contractor l shall use a deep magnetic detector to locate the reinforcement in concrete. B. ) For all anchors in a connection, drill holes into the concrete with carbide tipped solid masonry bits. (Carbide tipped solid masonry bits are not capable of ~ drilling through reinforcing steel. These bits can l 1 produce only a shallow, 1/16" deep, smooth and v711 rounded depression in the reinforcing steel), C. Concrete expansion anchors shall not be used for any other work without prior approval of the Consulting Engineers. 3 Form LS-CEA, Revision 1, was issued on December 7, 1976. This revision relaxed the requirements for the use o f the metal detector in non-critical areas, based upon a structural assessment performed by Sargent & Lundy for ~
- 4 e , w
- a.__
- + e -.~ w. a _ - - -- m - : m - ---+-w-~ a c i 8 Commonwealth Edison Company. Soecific guidelines were given, defining these areas, and required that the () consulting engineers be notified of all cases in which a reinforcing bar was cut or nicked where a metal detector d was required to be used. Sargent & Lundy has reviewed for i Commonwealth Edison Company the damaged reinforcing steel a t reports submitted by the contractors in accordance with this requirement, and has determined that the structural integrity of the nuclear safety related structures has not been impaired. Revision 2 to Form LS-CEA was issued on November 29, 1978, However, it did not alter the reinforcing steel control provisions of Revision 1. Revision 3 to Form LS-CE A was issued on July 20, 1979. I This revision incorporated a standard form for reporting i cut or nicked reinforcing steel during the installation of concrete expansion anchors. In addition, the contractor was also required to document the location of nicked I O reinforcing steel in those non-critical areas in which a metal detector was not required. The contractor was also permitted to cut one reinforcing bar in these non-critical <w I (jy areas, the extent of such area being defined by the spacing of the reinforcing steel. Additional requirements were I also given to the contractor to permit him flexibility l l i -~ _ _
u_. - - - a-...~...,--.wa.~..-,~- . i L.. -. wc- ' -- axx '. A I f 9 in relocating concrete expansion holes when reinforcing steel was encountered. O Revision 4 to Form LS-CEA was issued on September 7,1979. This revision differentiated. The documentation o f the installation and inspection requirements by the following f categories: i (a) Safety related work in safety related areas (complete I documentation of installation & testing was required) ) (b) Non-safety related work in safety related areas I (documentation of inspection was waived). (c) Non-safety related work in non-safety related areas o (most documentation waived, cutting of rebar not O permitted.) Revisions 5, 6, and 7 to Form LS-CEA were issued on December 10,.1979, February 13, 1980, and October 27, respectively. However, these revisions did not alter the reinforcing steel control provisions of Revision 4. 6 { During the period 1978 through 1981, Commonwealth Edison Company conducted extensive investigations to determine the effect on reinforcing steel which is nicked during the () installation of concrete expansion anchors. These investigations conclusively demonstrate that reinforcing steel, nicked by a carbide tipped drill bit during the installation of concrete expansion anchors, does not impair
10 the structural integrity of reinforced concrete elements. This conclusion was based upon both laboratory testing and analytical assessment. Form LS-CEA, Revision 8, was subsequently issued on May 13, 1981, deleting the requirements for reporting of nicked reinforcing steel. \\ O e t We
- u : ._w...' J' . x.a __ _ .w l ) 1 L 1 l 11 i 3.0 Conclusion j In summary, the drilling operations performed at LaSalle C /]N County, Units 1 and 2, has not degraded the safety margins \\ of safety related structures, and has not violated the ( quality requirements imposed by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation, 10CFR, Pa rt 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, and Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants. Commonwealth Edison Company has implemented appropriate procedures to control reinforcing steel damage and exercised sound engineering judgement and due precaution with regard to the drilling of concre a for cored holes and holes for the installation of concrete expansion anchors. 4 0 31 3762N}}