ML20101F023

Proposed Findings of Fact Re Contention 45 Concerning Matters Raised by C Stokes in Affidavit Opposing Summary Disposition

ML20101F023
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	12/21/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:
Shared Package
ML20101F012	List: ML20101F008 ML20101F014 ML20101F019 ML20101F023 ML20101F026
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8412260479
Download: ML20101F023 (4)

Text

- - - - -

• -1

.. l o )

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ngn  !

December 21;"19'84

NUCIEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION '

_A Ec: 24 gg,.;9 ERE THE A'!OMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDDff ac;g., .

Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter

" %!?Pm :-

t Janes L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of J Docket- 50 400 OL

~

CAROLINA PJWER Aht LIGHT CO. et al. )

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, J Unit 1) ) ASLBP No. 82-468-01

) 8L Wells Eddleman's Proposed Findings on Contention 65 Under the Board's Order of 11/15/84 (Tr. 7367-7369) Wells Eddleman hereby files these proposed Findings of Fact on Contention 65:

1. This contention was brought to trial on natters raised by concrete expert Charles C. Stokes in an affidavit opposing summary disposition. Stokes was qualified as an expert, Tr. 6158-59.

2. In his affidavit, Stokes relied on pour package infomation submitted by Applicants on discovery. Stokes affidavit, following Tr.

6177.

3 There was every reason to think such information reliable.

Witnesses Strickland and Woltz (of Applicants' QJ/QC organization, see Tr. 6237 in the light or Tr. 6222 re seating of witnesses and which are QA/QC) testified "If we have a signature on a pour package, this is ox go our responsibility to make sure the information is conplete and no 58 accurate prior to our signing the document." Tr. 6237-6238. Strickland on recorded field test results and requirements (specifications) for j g

vo Sg matters such as slump, temperature, and air content. Tr. 6225, 6240.

NC h Woltz did concrete compressive strength break tests and recorded that wo data on the QA forms. Tr. 6226; b M .

. -2

-Further, witness Sealey, a concrete inspection sunervisor, testified "As a first-line supervisor, we also check the work that l was done by the inspector and the information he (sic) gave on the form and check that for completeness and accuracy of information."

Tr. 6238. Witness Sealey also said *We cross-check the information 1

i within the report for consistency." Tr. 6239.

4 Witness Breedlove, in response to Board aloestions, testified i

the " pour package is a reasonable place to look if you were out to l find defects in concrete." Tr 6300-6301.

5. Nevertheless, important information is not in the pour

j. packages. This includes the correct slump and air specifications t

(Tr. 6300) and the nonconformance reports and corrections of problems l (Tr. 6300; Tr. 6302, witness French: you *would have to go back a

to nonconformance report"'to check out of specification sitaup. )

l There are errors in the information reported for slump specifications in the pour packaget themselves. ( .Strickland, Tr. 6299; compare Tr. 6252, re Exhibit 22, pour package ICBSL 216002)

6. Stokes relied on Concrete Test Report data from the pour I' packages (a 5% sample at random, from the Harris containment building)

Stokes affidavit, following resumes after Tr. 6177, see e.g. pp3,5, (2 pours on p.5), 8,9,10). Some changes in Stoked affidavit as testi-mony were necessitated by correcting such errors.

7. Applicants also corrected their profiled testimony (Tr. 5760-5762) to conform with that of the Staff (see Staff profiled, following Tr. 6320, at pp 42-43,45,47-48) on out-of-specification slump and air content in the two base mat pours (Applicants ' Exhibits 21 and 22, identified 5758-59, admitted Tr. 5766). Since Applicants had the information before the Staff did, there seems to be no good explanation for Applicants' panel's oversight in this regard. Applicants' panel

, did not correct itself concerning compliance with ACI codes of tests

.t o

of concrete cores reported in HPES attachment to PW-C-3769 in Applicants' Exhibit 14 (admitted, Tr. 5766) concerning pour package ICBXW 290001. There will be more mention of this below.

8. Witness Stokes ypt inted out that insufficient clearance from asbestos board to cadweld existed in pour ICBSL 216001 (affidavit following Tr. 6177 and resumes, p.8), and dae " correction" was not to do it again. This pour package is Applicants ' Exhibit 21.

Nevertheless in pour package 216002 (Applicants ' Exhibit 22) the ,

same problem is documented again. (Stokes, ibid, p.9). There is no evidence this problem was ever corrected; inadequate clearance can lead to voids as aggregate will not pass into the tight spaces created by the . inadequate clearance.

9. Witness Stokes testified that in pouring concrete you generally do not want the slope below two inches (Tr. 6140-6142).

Nevertheless, slumps below this occur in several cours including the base mats (Applicants' Exhibits 21 and 22). Although other witnesses testified slumps below 2 inches were acceptable, this is not convincing when large volumes of concrete have to be consolidated.

10. The Staff testified (Tr. 6326) that of the five cores I tested due to below-strength break tests in pour ICBXW 290001 (Applicants' Exhibit 14), one tested at 2440 psi and one at 3620 pai (Tr. 6326, witness Harris). This is clearly below 75% of the design strength of 5000 psi for that pour (see e.g. Tr. 6265, Exhibit 14 of Applicants).

l In fact, the 2440 psi is below 50% of design strength. The ACI code requires that no cores be below 75% of design strength in such tests.

(Tr. 6329, witness Harris; see also 6322-26). This error completely j escaped Applicants, and is very disturbing as it indicates an unacceptable pour is in place in the Harris containment wall.

I Nondestructive examination of this particular pour is clearly in order.

7 t

-y. .

11. The Staff witnesses did not know if the ACI 318 code required the average of 3 consecutive pones to be above 85% of specified strength. The Board takes official notice that ACI 318, 1981, requires the y' -

cores be consecutive. The 1977 ACI 318 appears to also have this consecutive requirement.

12. However, the consecutive cores (see Tr. 6268, witness Woltz who did the core tests and reported daem on Applicants' Exhibit 14) do not meet this requirement. The first three don't average 85%,

nor do any consecutive sets including either of the next two.

This problem simply adds to the seriousness of Applicants' error 3

in accepting this pour.

13 Applicants' Exhibit 14 on its face dhows 3 consecutive test breaks averaging below 5000 pai (see Tr. 6265 & QA-24 on Exhibit 14 l (13)?). Witness Stokes pointed out this problem and its lack of resolution in his affidavit, p.7 (follows Tr. 6177). He is familiar with ACI (American Concrete Institute) recommended procedures, Tr. 6139. ,

14 The Staff witnesses testified (prefiled, p.29 following Tr.

6320) that " Occasional test cylinder results below the specified design i strength are anticipated and are acceptable as long as the breaks are within the allowable specification limits which are determined in accordance with the criteria in ACI 214 and ACI 318." However, in Exhibit 14, package ICBXW 290001, one test break is nearly 1000 psi below design strength (more than the 500 psi allowable), and the

" correction" by test cores, as noted above in Findings 10-13, simply l

l comppunds the error.

l 15. The appearance of this many documented errors in a 5% sample 1

(3) of less than 13 pours, indicates that a pattern of widespread errors in Harris concrete containment pour testing and verification may have occurred. Nondestructive examination of other pours in the

, containment, expecially the base mat and dome, is thus warranted.

- _ . - -_.