ML20128G691
| ML20128G691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1984 |
| From: | Lear G NRC |
| To: | Liaw B NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263A633 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-455, FOIA-84-A-56 NUDOCS 8505300272 | |
| Download: ML20128G691 (45) | |
Text
._
- y,
/* *'%,
y g
UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
t
/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
.; u.s fl2lY+
..yz
.:pJR I o ' B. D. Lta.u)
. s.:
Fm: Ci, Lear D t>,eh Corrosw r=%&on Re Bar NM b M & u r ( 4) b o l v wl e U E ~D 4
y,s g 4 et kInTwd W bsadrcues erel wd%saefne hdA h\\s.d4 %11. {0 d C6KOSIS^ OL E lb
@lJvy cebee-pe:We A tga.pg.c%9-P malsia,.
pua. www afAJ docxyelv
. us n a e uove agesm&e-pass,a w>dr p% nasvxs Mro fg us esq da p wd&L
~k
'I se k A hr avr A d our >y ?
est '
ahtlwst y
ba to & fvilakf no 15 l
$Jyrl I s,Los Ga l; as CC
- Afa a.
r-L,
'4 1
?,,~
]
F,.
~.'
. 3 t
h fp.-$ y - k N
~
6l8,14 pggngggaesmoi GARDE 84-A-56 PDR
i
~
- f. \\.
R.E96REdcES 1.
t.*
can s.., '?.la.4:a l
.'s an e"*<rf 7,_g.,..g
-fa,n iaule.) e :.,en' j A<ceede.<,
j fj[ 3
- ../.'V J
' 'I Tac. Yegnf A30. BJo4 -I, Segf, i ef,,9 py is w^paroes In. SE 5 Aad u s.
- F *^<
- 7 Aun w^T5"- 5**P^dit- "
F#"" *^ T ' 'd . MA7 " 9., l..sisa,i= P "<< ! l 3 + " - ~ 2 xpeap r: er ><a op Lene 47 e reprt k-) 1 6.'. ct4y Tes4/J ~ is a a nJ s.3, aac: 3 iLora-(ory, Inc. i L a d a ct. m e d + = 4 e wLic( ls an '\\ 1' arsfeal rep d ve-(be,4e<J ik ve,
- 3. G oe sh.'.n 3z was given 4. tk l
path *{ Y2d W llce.,see-a.s a wee 4tay ag.J2 kelwe,-,ke x NitC a-a l<e-we a~( '43 c ou., I da.,-- 5
- 4. Adda<:-
>-0 w:it:
- r. L,4,,,,
2-o f clauo l 1 p l L M.-] [ .I 1 { i j C e l 1 l
.. : J Pea.sggycr_ y fO ~ 4 [ 8.0 Corr 6sion Potential ) 8.1 Passivation Mechanism in Reinforced Concrete In order to assess the potential for corrosion in the reinforcing steel of the NPIS basemat, several references -concerning corrosion of steel in concrete were reviewed (References 14-18). As noted in Reference 14, "the corrosion' resistance of steel in Por.tland cement concrete has been recognized for more than'a century.. The protective mech'anism, not des-cribed until recent years, is due to a passivating film of gamma ferric oxide which is formed and maintained in the alkaline environment produced by cement hydration". As noted in Reference 15, " Iron and steel are not thermodynamically stable in water. Either acid or neutral water corrodes iron and forms a ferrous solution. This. solution,. in contact with oxygen, oxidizes to form hydrated ferric oxide -- a major constituent of rust. If the water' is sufficiently alkaline, at pH 8 to 14 for example, the Fe O and F4 0 which form are relatively insoluble and 23 34 . deposit a protective film on the metal surface. The meta'l is then said to be passivated". The passivating mechanism,.therefore, requires an alkaline environment (pH of about 12. 5) and an absence of. oxygen in order to form a protective film on the surface of the reinforcing steel. The alkalinity of the water derives from the hydra-tion of the cement, which generates. calcium hydroxide. - A relatively oxygen-free environment is generally insured by careful control of the concrete mix and its subsequent placement.' Depth of concrete cover is also a factor. As noted in Reference 16, "In addition, concrete of .,I - e 9 w---
,/.. ] low water-cement ratio and' well cured has a low perme-ability which. minimizes penetration of corrosion inducing [ factors -- oxygen, chloride ion, carbon dioxide, and water." 8.2 Job Specifications Section I, Paragraph 7.3 of the Ebasco Concrete Masonry specification (Reference 19) stipulates that: "The aggre-gate, sand and water combined in the same amounts as in the-concrete mix shall,not contain a total soluble chlor-ide ion content of more than 250 ppm watdr when water is ~~ extracted *from the combination after being thoroughly mixed, unless the Engineer allows a deviation in writ-4 ing...". Section I' Paragraph 9.7 of that specification further n requires tha't: "No admixture containing chlorides to an l-extent that the requirements of Paragraph 7.3, with the admixture mixed with.the water, are exceeded shall be ac-ceptable unlese the Engineer allows a deviation in writ-- ing...".- l Section II, Paragraph 8.4 of that specificat. ion also stipulates that: " Calcium Chloride shall not be used for accelerating the set of the cement in any concrete con-i. l i L taining reinforcement or embedded metal parts". The. limitation on the maximum allo *wable soluble chloride contained in the concrete mix defined in the f i L. Reference.19 specification is subsequently verified by l the sampling and testing procedures mandated by that specification. 8.3 Laboratory Testing i In order to deduce any evidence of corrosion in the basemat reinforcing steel, several water samples and a solid (leachate) sample were subjected to laboratory analysis. I .} n -
'.r,- .e e e q The three water samples subjected to. laboratory analysis were obtained at the following locations: a) Water rising in Conduit No. 33074, which rises near the West Temporary Electrical Pit,' runs to the southeast for approximately 90 feet, and At the south end, again rises above the basemat. no water was rising, indicating a blockage to the flow of water. The conduit is located.approxi-, mately,3 feet below the top of the basemat. b) Ground waterEflowing through' conduits which extend from the side of the mat to the East Temporary Electrical Pit. c) Water collecting at a crack in the Waste Gas Tank Compressor B room. The solid sample was collected along the top surface of a crack located al'ong aus east-west axis between column lines R and O, and straddling column line I
- M y
The laboratory report summarizing-the results of the analyses performed on these samples is contained.as Ap-pendix M. As noted under ' Testing Methods and Results' each of the three liquid samples were subjected to analysis for The pH, chloride, alkalinity, iron, - c,alcium and sodium. results of these analyses are subsequently' tabulated on (note that samples designated 'l', '2' and '3' page 2 accord with the order in,which,the'sa,mple locations are defined herein). The value of the pH obtained for sample 1, 12.5, ac-cords with the pH of concrete, as previously noted. The pH of 7.5 obtained for samples ~ 2 and 3 is due to the car- -bonation process.which normally occurs at the surface of concrete exposed to open air. m -e ,_31- ~
5 d As noted in Reference 14, " Free carbon dioxide re-duces pH by carbonation, but only to a depth of a few millimeters'in sound concrete". The report results indicate the virtual absence of iron in the-three liquid samples, a clear indicator that The the chemical constit'uents of rust are not present. r ppm of chloride are also well,within the maximum allow-i able 250 [ ppm mandated in the Ebasco Concrete Masonry specification '(Reference 19), as previously noted. The solid (leachate) sample was subjected to spec-l Iron and l trographic and X-ray dif fraction techniques.- I Calcium are identified as the two major chemical consti-l tuents contained in the solid sample. As noted in the appended laboratory report under f l ' Remarks', the ' calcium hydroxide liberated during the [ hydration of Portland cement will form calcium carbonate l in the presence of carbon dioxide; the iron content con-f tained in the solid sample is identified as magnetite. l L \\ e e O I 6 { l i
water samples and The results of the testing of theconsist osion pro-i leachate are i tection of the steel reinforc ng it should be noted As a matter of interest, In_ general, the top. concrete. large. that the reinforcing bar,s are /8 inches while the bottom reinforcing bar diameter is 1-3 ' nches. i / reinforcing bar diameter is 2-1 4 r perties of the These properties accord with the p otrolled conditions) iron compound which (under properly con f the reinforc-forms a passivating film o'5 the surf ace ofrom Reference ~ ing steel (see the initial extract his ddposition mechan-It is interesting to note that tin' boilers t d in ism also occurs Section 6, page 129 of Mark's Stan 'anical Engineers (Seventh Edition):" At satu dr d mechanism ately low pressures, a seconwhich iron removes oxyge predominates, inwater or steam, forming iron ox ide and from releasing hydrogen: Fe3 4 + 8H 0 his mechanism does not 3 Fe + 4H O 2 p git is noteworthy that t lved gaseous require the intervention of disso ften the oxygen in the water, which is o h mical rate-limiting factor in the electroc e ~ this sub-corrosion discu,ssed earlier in res il'er temperatu section. -The stable oxide at bo
- agnetite, in a non-oxidizing environment is mA normal protec (ferrous ferrite).
the underly-0 skin of magnetite is formed from Fe3 4 ing steel" e 9 'e 6 g e w-w -y--, -,,-,.-.-,-.er---.-,i,i----*-+-- -~
.h On the basis of the foregoing evaluation, it is ! therefore concluded that'there is no evidence to infer the existence of~basemat rebar corrosion in the vicinity of a crack. 8.' 4 Steel Containment Corrosion As noted in HEA Trip Report No. 6 (Rdference. 5), an inspection of the annular area between the Containment vessel and the Shield Building revealed some. surface cor-rosion' at the ba'se of the Containmeht Vessel, which might - be due to' the presence of water generated by construction activity. As soon as this area can be adequatelf' controlled with respect to the presence of such construction-related water, it is the recommendati.on of HEA that a program be implemented to clean and field paint the ' base of the Con- . tainment Vessel-to insure that the corrosion process has been eliminated in this' area. t \\ e l l e i 9 34-e 4.
s. -~ a 1 REFERENCES ~ 1. HEA Trip Report No. 1, W3-HE-LP-001, July 15, 1983. 2.. HEA Trip Report No. 2, W3-HE-LP-002, August 1, 1983. 3. HEA. Trip Report No. 3, W3-HE-LP-003, August 22, 1983. 4. HEA Trip Reports Nos. 4& 5, W3-HE-LP-004, August 24, 1983. 5. HEA Trip Report No. 6 W3-HE-LP-006, September 6, 1983. g 6. Foundation Design of the Waterford Nuclear -Plant, by J. L. Ehasz' and E. Radin, December, 1973. ^ 7.- Review of Site Settlements, by M. Pavone and J. L. Ehasz, September, 1978. 8. RCB Foundation Crack Map, Ebasco Drawing No. SK 1564-4.1-G-28, August 17, 1977. F 9. "Ebasco Letter D'oc: CH-039-77, File: 60-R-4, July 27, 1977. ^ 10. Ebasco Nonconformance Report W3NCR-16143, May 27, 1983. ,11. WSES-FSAR-UNIT-3, Section 11.2, Liquid Waste Management System. 12. Compatibility of Large Mat Design to Foundation Conditions, i i by J. L. Ehasz and P.-C. Liu 13. Ebasco Calculation OFS No. 1352.063, Steel Containment Stability, Rev. 1, July 28, 1983. 14. Steel Corrosion in Concrete, by D. 5. Hausmann, Materials Protection, November, 1967, pp. 19-23. 15. The Mechanism of Steel Corrosion in Concrete Structures, by C. T. Ishikawa and B. Bresler, Materials Protection, Marph, 1968, pp. 45-47. e, v, e m .. - -. - -.-,, +. -. - -,, - - -,, _,. -. -., - - - -, --,,,---c.-
s 16. Mechanisms of Ccrrosion of Steel in Concrete, by G. J. Verbeck, ACI Publication SP-49, June, 1975, pp. 21-38. 17. Criteria for Cathodic Protection of Steel in Concrete Structures, by D. A. Hansmann, Materials Protection, October, 1969, pp. 23-25. Cathodic Protection ~'f Steel in Concrete; by R. C.
- Robinson, o
-18. ACI Publication SP-49, June, 1975, pp. 83-93. 19. Ebasco Specification Concrete Masonry, Project Identifica-tion No. LOU-156 4. 472, Issue Date: December 31, 1971. e 9 9 e \\ b g e 9 ) .?v i E e
g +2 -64 .f AL y .a .. 1 I'd_. Md. _.... h) I,1. & ce d, /4 A4- / ~ =- AA-/ __8_ w.. .. _. _2 l A -..vM. W a. k.A...._(_ A c i, _3 A __ _ _M... _ M...
26/R=
r, - - - - t (. - l. / ....%v.. k.. /._...n. ~....,. ... _ a -<+.,- c.,AL._ ... = i., .._.I,..... ....._g..._. ...9.0.. 19 %. ~Md H ~ d. w.. w Ini ,) .E~- Y ~~~~
- l
/, g gi y i ti l I T7 M o ' Vf2-m s i i Fel A -457
- l 6 /8.16
] y w4 4 J i i RECEPTACLE ~ g .m < 00 O/A CORPORATION 1975DEC-2 PH 6:42 X o* ~ l READY MIX CONCRETE DEUVERY TICKET " " "^ "" 7,,,7," '",',',"' M " "^**,",",,,,,'. b l A susse01ARY OF TEXAS INOUSTRIES, INC. CUSTOMER'S COPY # 1 ,' PHONE (214) 837-3100 0100 CARPENTER FREEWAY
- DALLAS,IEXAS i
g gg,gg,* l - A,. -n l A CO SES, 499-S01-6 'O d ust Y*t.. T JoS o
- e. 1W to c g w
, 'it. j - 517 PDA 4 NAw e g4 j m, ,g $ y hdNb Or'qL A1 bd () d %d. M+ g' v l SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Pt. ANT SATCH JOS DESIGN SLUMP MOsST. % THUCK YAMOS ORDERED YARDS DEUVERED NUMBER NUMBER HUMSER NUMSES AOJUST YARDS 439. 123 14 14 -2.1 3.8 9.00 902.0000 1098.000 AGG. CMT. 2ERO WTR. ZEAO SANO ex m.-=r ICE i 2ERO SSI IST SNO 3RD i j i 15 16 3 3 100 100 100 0 I WE80HT See WE80HT S#8 WEIGHT See WEsGHT SaLO WEIGHT NEWL AMOUNT TYPE AMOUNT TYPE AMOUNT TYPE l i l l 9752 1 6502 5 12312 3 4659 1 1492 1 18 1 0 0 189 3 i DATE AND TIME M8MER WATER TRUCK TOTAL WATER WATER ADDED TO SLUMP Huana rui = GAL. [ 12/02/.75 18:14:00' O.0 105 215 WATER ADOED CUSTOMER REQUEST i l 3.5 gals per yard GAL. TIME POUnEO Oui TEST CruMDER TAKEN l YES R NO'R TBE AT PUWET NO. 001116 1
] Anr72oNA~ -5 rre u c.T " * L J. ~/ 3 " " f ~ ' ' " 5'-
- t..te. aad
-C.,. W a'. A <d 3 \\; ,e. -.l c.naat -:x q.e c.' fl<.4 1., a mem,vanJom -fr. l?..F V:ae. [ A. d. w'e va5 -t o T. o. S,+L . O E l a rco, Jab ( /demler. 24, i e 7 3 (Ad:.4e- - A < td ri c m +.n.d o n % A a,,n q -*-ha+ ,I,e. a c L a I concreI<. wei.'a-Io +be., first +kyde. L,l. cb o Jh -de i,,a-( w s d a s:3 a t - L a s AA -I 9 Sauow - A cc <-aCr(Afhrhe' 3 a t Ga rl.e.ryr4 '? s-., u, 9 m.% dash n<..,4a:b Ba. r.a - Ay.e 7c.,:1..L .t. -,4. aec. L,, L g L. Ac-- I a
- -,w.4
~ op AA -1. 'T
- erd <c,
assum</ rA a-t A .-r i.s le. mix AA -l 2 ~ as achaally u s ed -P.c +k e. Ors 1 cen ere --th <e e. L l,c b., @ 4. _ neaY. t [e.
- ng reJ.'eads, s ud
.7 5 2,gcc3a4e. ,. R, + 1 4e .p :u3ead:et.s 4 n~, <a ..s J:#.ce:t -Pr -+.ka-- . P t.a,.s uix A A -i a are. E p @e- & d., 4 .cn.,.w E, a,c., n.,-ora J ga,, q and 7eo v t.le. +L- +v ,,4 :x Aata mix AA - l.a,.2 s,,1 i- .c d... i, - 4.e. Ea a s c., i,. ~, v a,, Ju m. i w era. M.<tde. curre Y I,a2 a4,i,[- f au. 2 4,.7, c Q,u m+,
- u as.t.9..-a i.a,
, - s u,.. r a~t m afdud ec, ad (.ca-.'o ns 12-( w ist Le .:<lde,/en -4 ,-k f,A a r e.. Fo /A-8V -455 6/S. I'7
J. Ha Qurtion on 4/4/94 Provide shear capacity and design shear stress in the mat in two regions: A. Bounded by column line 12M and 7FH in N-S direction and T2 and R in E-W direction. This shear stress and shear capacity is measured along the 450 line from R column line toward column 12M. B. Bounded by column line 12 M and 7FH in N-S direction and column line RP. ~ ~ This shear capacity and stress should be E-W direction. e e- / ef 1 O \\ Fo tA 455 6/6.l3
f al**'bLANT SYSTEMS L{ 5]24 -COiGION FOUNDATION BASEMAT LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3 7.14 The Structural Integrity of the Nuclear Plant Island Structure (NPIS) Common Foundation Basemat shall be OPERABLE. APPLICABILITY: At all times ACTION: With the NPIS Common Foundation Basemat inoperable, perform an engineering evaluation to. determine the effects of the condition on the structural integrity of the NPIS Common Foundation Basemat; prepare and submit a Special Report to the Commission withi,n 14 days pursuant to Specification 6.9.2, 1) Detailing the results of the engineering evaluation, and 2) Justifying the acceptability of continued operation, otherwis.e be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours and in COLD SHUTDOWN within 'the following 30 hours. SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.7.14 The NPIS Common Foundation Basemat shall be demonstrated OPERABLE: a) At least once per 92 days by verifying that the mea-sured differe: tial settlement of the Comnon Foundation Basemat does not exceed 1/2 inch and the total differ-ential settlement does not exceed 1 inch. b) At least once per 92 days by analyzing a sample of groundwater obtained in proximity to the'NPIS Common Foundation Basemat and verifying that the Chloride l content does not exceed 250 ppm. c) At least once per 18 months during shutdown by veri-fying that no cracking exists with a width in excess of 40 mils at the lowest levels of each of the build-ings on the NPIS Common Foundation Basemat. fotA-%-45S g/B.O
m.. 3/4.7.14 NPIS COMMON FOUNDATION BASEMAT 'The OPERABILITY of the Nuclear Plant Island Structure (NPIS) l Common Foundation Basemat will ensure that the structural integrity.of the plant *foundktion will remain. functional during normal operations and in the event of a safe shutdown earthquake. The limitation on the foundation basemat differential and total settlement is conservative with respect to the Final Safety Analysis Report Section 2.5.4.13 3 The; limitation on chlorides in groundwater in proximity to the NPIS is consistent with concrete design specifications ~for Waterford 3 and is well below th4' threshold f6r breakd'own of the .passivating film on structural rebar which is taken as~710 ppm ,in the presence of free oxygen and up to 3550 ppm when free oxygen is not present. ,4 In the event that the chloride limitation is', reached, the effects of. seepage of groundwater into minute cracks in the foundation basemat will be evaluated and. mitigative measures defined as necessary.and reported to the Commission. The limitation on crack width assures protection of rebar against corrosion as discussed-in the Commentary to ACI 318-71 Section 10.6. \\ [ ,e l t 1 l l I ~ l -+. --
~ p6lj \\ I ti - L,h T' CI " )I pj PLANT SYSTEMS (. COMMON FOUNDATION BASEMAT { <h.., 4 -M N l' Med LIMITING CONDITION FOR' OPERATION Ud1/ n rA N u c- _.W y' 3.7.13 The Structural Integrity of the Nuclear Plant Island Structure (NPIS) \\ Common Foundation Basemat shall be OPERABLE. $O -APPLICABILITY: At All Times 4/ l 4 L. ) dl. s ACTION: With the NPIS Comon Foundation Basemat inoperable, p'erform an engineering evaluation to determine the effects of the condition on the structural integrity 4'ce of the NPIS Comon Foundation Basemat; prepare and submit a Special Report to the,, Comission within 30 days pursuant to Specification 6.9.2,1) Relating the results of the engineering evaluation, and 2) Justifying the acceptability of continued operation, otherwise be in at least HOT STANDBY within the next 5 hours and in COLg, SHUI 1XNN within the following 30 hours. SURVEILLANCE'REOUIREMENTS g 4.7.13 The NPIS Comon Foundation Basemat shall be demonstrated OPERABLE: a) At least once per 92 days by verifying that the differential settlement does not change by more than 1" as determined by Table 4.7-2. b) At least once per 92 days by analyzing a sample of groundwater obtained in proximity to the NPIS Comon Foundation Basemat and verifying that the Chloride content does not exceed 250 PPM. c) At least once per 18 months by verifying that no visible cracking exists with a width in excess of 15 mils on the accessible areas of the basemat. l l l l I. l WATERFORD-UNIT 3 3/4 7-44
5- = 3/4.7 13' NPIS COMMON FOUNDATION BASEMAT The OPERABILITV of the Nuclear Plant Island Structure (NPIS) Common Foundation Basemat will ensure that the structural integrity of the plant foundation vill remain functional during normal operations and in the event of a safe shutdown ~ earthquake. - The limitation on the foundation basemat differential settlement ensures that,the structural integrity of the foundation basemat will be maintained ; comparable to the original design standards. The limitation on chlorides in groundwater in proximity to the NPIS is consistent with concrete design specifications fot Waterford 3 and is well below the threshold for breakdown of the passivating film on structural rebar which is taken as 710 ppm in the presence of free oxygen and up to 3550. ppm when free oxygen is not present. The limitation.m crack width -identifies any significant cracks that would require an engineering evaluation to determine the structural integrity of t,he foundation basemat. In the event that any of the limitations is reached, the effects on the foun'dation basemat will be evaluated and mitigative measures defined as necessary and reported to the'. Commission. I i r \\ r e WATERFORD-UNIT 3 B3/4 7-8 am. -- n -_a..--% ,,w..-i--,,,.y,-,--,wm..-, .,a- --m-- '----w--
-,' / 1 TABLE 4.7-2 ?. c FOUNDATION BASEMAT DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT MONI1DRING ACCEPTANCE BASELINE
- CURRENT
- CRITERION
~~ ELEV. AVG. ELEV. DIFF. SETTLEMENT ELEV. AVC. ELEV. DIFF. SETTLEMENT H W 1) ) 1) ) 2) ) 2) ) -3) ) 3) ) ,I X 4) ) 4) ) y 1 (x_y) + in (X -Y ) = (X-Y) (X-Yy 7 6) ) Y Y 7) ) 7) ) 1 8) ) 8) ) R. a Y Base 14.ne is the differential settlement as of September 1,1983 Current is the differential settlement as determined in accordance with surveillance requirement 4.7.13.a. e f i
f/fL J c_ CL e JM - N Y h sT - % m OUESTIONS ON WATERFORD 3 BASEMAT TcfA 3/26 MEETING IN BETHESDA oy -M Allegations recently reported in a GAMBIT newspaper article and in staff investigations concerning the GAMBIT article have lead to the assignment of. additional reviewers to evaluate the base mat adequacy. This transmittal is a composite set of Questions from the reviewers, and is intended to faciliate LP&L's preparation.for the meeting on March.26,1984 in Bethesda. J 1. How many nonconformance reports were issued on the basemat? 'How many g(/ relate to poor. concrete placement practices? What were corrective actions taken? Provide justification to substantiate your position that these practikes could not have lefd to the developme~nt of cracks or. localized porous zones which may be the cause of water intrusion.. f 2. Where was water table when 1977 cracks were discovered? 3. Is there any evidence of convex curvature due to ring wall loading? 4. Provide X-Section maps of nat flexure over time period zero to present,. 5. Provide complete documentation of groundwater control and foundation. [5 '/ heave from the start of dewatering until the present time. Include.the f .f( history of soil excavation and backfill beneath the mat. 6. Provide the. foundation loading history under each block during construction. of the mat and walls. This should include.the distribution of pressure under each block. Include the location and history of loa'ds due to backfilling adjacent to foundation blocks. 7. Provide complete settlement history for each block froni initial pouring J %'. until the present time. ^ 8. Analyse and discuss the relationship of the above variab'les (Os 5-7'above) on the historf of all observed nat cracks and leaks. ~ 9. What basis is there for accepting the adequacy of construction of the first g 3 blocks? 10. If engine'ering judgement was involved in accepting those~ blocks, what was the basis for that judgement? Where is it documented? Y - Q1. What corrective actins were necessary for.the first 3 blocks? What ccrrective actions were'taken, and provide specifics for each pour? Where are these actions documented? 12. Were.any cracks discovered in 1977 outside of the ringwall? Provide document-tation.. If none were' discovered outside ringwall why not infer that these three blocks were poorly constructed? pgg g,gy e/s. n-
c. .2-
- 13. Did Kominsky recogiy illegible cadweld records? Under whose direction?
Why? What happened to the original records? 14. Provide summary of actions taken following Hill's_ presentation of OA deficiencies. Provide detailed report on document review undertaken and all results.. 15. Provide LP&L's evaluation of adequacy of Harstead's third report. Does LP&L assert that it represen,ts their views as well? .f 7 16. Provide specific basis for Harstead's conclusion that the doucnent'ation L problems do not affect their pr.ior conclusion as to basemat's strength. What documents did Hartstead review? What did he look at? Did he see 'the Phearson-Brigg memo? Hill's NCR's?. Other NCR's? ~ 7. Provide differential settlement contours for 6 month periods, starting from early 1977 to present.
- 18. According to the settlement cont'ours shown in figure 2.5.118, the curvature is concave downward in both directions. This implies cracks on the. top surface in both dl.rections which would not penetrate all the way through.
i In view'of the above why did the water seep thru? Why dosen't the crack pattern match the given differential settlement? It is possible that there are localized convex surfaces on the mat' which are'not,shown in the figure (the grid is quite rough)? 19. Please provide all soil properties (re. results of soil tests, reports ' confinneds compression test results, boring records, shear modulus etc). 20. Provide all concrete property data, rebar data, placement data (ie also detailed.as built drawings of mats). - $YW gl. Provide 'any revised calculations that include settlement effects.. [2. Is the Phearson nero accurate? What kind of actions has LP&L taken to respond to and resolve his allegations? 23. l' eros of inspectors Hill ar.d Davis, as reported in GAMBIT, stated that they found a broad range of deficiencies in virtually every record packaoe examined and the situation demanded a complete review of all. civil / structural records. What is your response to this allegation? b - - - ~, -.,. - -. -. ..--.,----,,-n-.-
a 3- .24. GAMBIT reported that there was falsification on cadweld splices of reinforcing bars. What is LP&L's response to this allegation?-
- 25. What were the problems in the seven NCR's on QA-deficiencies in concrete, as mentioned in the last column on page 28 of GAMBIT, and how were they disposed of?
g
- 26. What were the problems of soils, waterstops, cadweld splices, and the placement of concrete, as mentioned in the third column on page 22 of Gambit, and how were they resolv'e'd?
- 27. Do the allegations described in Phearson's memo and the Gambit articleIf gp g
reflect generally what happened during the construction of.the mat? yes, how would these non-confomance of QA/QC requirements affect the M-f1 structural integrity of the mat? If not, identify those allegation which are unfounded and the basis thereof. 28. In light of the allegations, documented NCRs, and QA/QC deficiencies, what has LP&L done or what does LP&L intend to do in order to resolve the allegations and deficiencies?
- 29. Does maintain that the mat possesses adequate capability to resist the t
design. loads and confirm to the criteria commited to in the FSAR despite all th'e deficiencies and allegations listed? If yes, provide the supporting technical basis. If not, propose specific means to resolve them and thus render the mat acceptable to the staff. In any case, the "as-built-mat" should be shown by the applicant, if feasible, to maintain adequate safety margins to perfom 1.ts safety function ind maintain its structural integrity. ~ A quantitative demonstration of the "as-built" mat' capaBty, including adoption of test, monitoring and strengthening programs, if needed, should be provided for st.aff review.
- 30. What is LP&L's technical rationale for explaning what has.
happened (including, water seepage; pctential throuch-thickness cracks, predominently one-way cracks within contairinent.reginn, uneven settlements, etc) to the mat? What monitoring program (s) has been implemented is underway? What are the results of the'se programs? Did the monitoring data show that both the cracking and water seepage problenis have stabilize'd and there is no. sign of continued degration? What improvements, could be applied to the on-going programs? .31. Are there any known voids of some significant size to affect the nat structural integrity? If yes, what are the sizes (best estimates) and extent of these voids? What is LP&L's suggested diposition to the issue of voids. If po disposition is needed, what is the technical basis? e
4 p3 ' D 32. Conservatively ass'uming the existence of extensive through-cracks of the b mat, assess the impact of'the presence of water on the long-term stuctural integrity of rebars and mat capacity. Also assess the same impacts due to.other potential corrosive elements. O e eb o G 9 a e e e G G e e a s f + ,e e g \\ l I p e l l e I i l = e o n n-- - - -,. .---,,-.--m.u---
- n-
..e n WATE.R FoR3 E BASE MAT 2-1 F \\Nt T E. E L E met 4T lA O D E L_ e 104-2 mod E.S e 30o PLH ME ST9E31 ELE.tAEyT c (t= 2 66 n) i 40 E t.E. mtMTS WlTH p.E. B A R. L. t 61 Sot t SPRtHGS e l961 A?Pbsu_b, Lo Aba e D.'3, Boug.bAR.1 C oM S T Q. A INTS e M o D E t. S W ITH Ar4D \\c\\TEcuT Vo\\DS VotDs. WttH 5, Io A ta S 15 Pr A.crNT ReirJ5c n'\\ .DI:TR I B U TION o
APP u es> Loans l. os reita x - mispu ge e me sT.s app x - gor aviog s, 2 t AT v A n s o u.s N ogy & CM THE. STR.fP. l l 2 114 T E RP o\\ 67 E. Dts PL.Ac tmE NTs /lf9 floTaT t 0 N.c L Fo%
- T c fL mest ATE H ots.s.
l' i l 3. Asse mbt.E. THE CLoge L STt FFM EES MAnp i . k. Fo9. THE 2-3 roops t.. l 4-CETAt R Cl011. AL SoDi\\ L. Fo9 c.E. S. AS 'Lk){U} {Fl = s M e 4 l l l I l I e i
e* *.6
- w t
- 9a8 = # Y 'W D {##
6 e
- %~
,,y " 8 4-ee 6 a e O 9 4 9 e w -,W\\ - N a-e enn. m' J" - \\ \\ a e k. n n 4 A N =
- \\
- 2 4
= \\ ~ e W \\ b \\ - g D ^' g' g s -\\ - \\ ? \\ z .; \\ _w e 5 2 \\ a - s s g \\ e e O e
h h -.e J. g 8 O. E f. e. 8 't e e I I i mL.. i e 4 0 l i .pem.ma O .g 8, 1 1 l l l l I g 1 ll l l l e I I I I .e .M e * *. .g a g g gp ~% .z a l l l n.,. >. s. . p. ;.. ' r. I l -( .; d. *.. ;. r -- +.- . 48.... w-... .. (*.,;... l I \\ s. f n., 1 1 g a i 1 1 1 Ob I t N-G NNNN 4 e y
- 74_,
.y. O* i M o e i 1 .~ h \\ g e e g e i .1 fil_l. il l al - l I ll 11 I n ll l 11 Il I I i si 1 3 ll Q, s o I j' I l l E O il 8, 2 ll e tllt I I \\ 11 I il b-z ~ i 1 1 1 u u a i i k, a1 1 l l o a a Ill 1 l'I 1 1 1 \\ \\ l l' l M u g I' 's I h m
a g -O e*. p' 4 j i l I ' l i, Il I I i l o e 1 I I 1 11 I I ll l Ns p 1 I zk I l u u \\. e l A j . g 1 'l I t l l l ~ l 11 s i i 1 <lf l 1 ..m.,1, I 1 I i I- -11 1-6 a 6 4 e 6,, m .,,---,n -,,,w- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r-,- -,v.,,-,,,,.- n,--,,-g- ,-.,-,-m_
+'... + g 9 h 9
- 'S
1st - C.s y 1 %. 4- . - t h g,g 253 2 56 839 0 - 139. S e73 /<.99 _ rn.i
- H 't.
A-Yt - t t. 4-s- -5cI.o 4 t 4- - 152. 3 + g g. a-D ~ 11 ( 1 4.? 9 4-t t *1 O e D 89 e e t ...n,, +.. +, - -...,, m.....-
e t.J t 17 cenasc..) o.s is 9I t e zS9 M y e11 2 0s'IS'[ll'ti) 4-c. 2.b 9 / TC. l 5 j g g. cy.g (s.,- 6 6t + (62 32- = t St u & dc 4 (15.r) [ z. > midd ) 93 =r-2.e g )et g ELJ tr3 (g y.c.) ~ qg = No st& (st38 4) .g.. e tb9, 115 2. 3+.T -fl4-fsi s.
- 19.*19 y
I EL M 372. (23 M) 78 ksi gg 9 I e O w .-...n_,----,,,,.-r.,,.,.-. .,-,-,...,,._.,__.-e..,_ -.. - -,. - - - -. -., _ - -, - - - -.. -. ~. - - -.
. -7, EA.J + w-(se, As e. ) 2ST F 49(3-7Qg =
- o. 57 S
- i8.55
+ 7a 59 + I4348 "214. l*J t e n \\ 4 2 su. e O 9 9 1 4 6 e P ,,,-,,,,,--e. e,- , -, - -,--%...e e.- .m. -.--y--- --,---..e..y ,w--.,w-e--,.- -w -w --ex-=
. W R 2 M W 5 Y h .0 $ %. S [ c. '.%; wen $47 35SWW m&WE wh..w. m d w % ~;j;:% Vy,u. e %v. vh:;.. w ; r. W's4 %e.. m em m am .%.'t e' P. rw%g W~, Ly.. a.u. kv m .g# Mili 9"... , $.+ s l" T #qM)Of':'$4. ;T'@'MJ"W:L'%.r!b:l Mf ..)?%.. $h'.N35F.F
- 2 w)
M MJ '.&M.Y4*. 9,V ~ rd A h3 kid 3. ..,db $ '... -g$!.I'. 4ff <?Siy%%Qf,.Q?$cW.N:@.k'ATh b i, % @;[ > " P ri^ ~
- ' - ~
S T L . ".0fSE IU.g [ ~ khh h:h'*%k{, ^l,l.Ip:..b'.'&.f;M.h. h. '.Qp.4,:. si,h g Nw +.7.m kk. W,f.w.%rw1" ..n p,v,.s.-4 W. b w;4.e.. y%...',M.3.. -M. ;.H, - -6,4. :m a.c %.?"w a Q W-p e ,&'ta.6 ..~: W.
- .?
W ( 's Q 7 -- e., 5 r . k ... h h,.sry.gh.- dg..,,%g,',dk . Y;. ..p e s:- m.-% t L.e.3,gw.m.. t 9 hh'Qp h h.h..,[. ~Y. c. n~ c.,.:.g.#,h.,.w[h. !/[n+.' g Ef' S h. (.! h h j;;.:'*.4.;'. ::y f@y. ; y:*yQ:.;.l,y.qy.4eg-Qpa , n.r y I. ((p.@c(.y...'M...h. a. .. [c.ga.v.?, . ~~x,y, y..a., <(: hb',. a. f , s ;.. ll;~~d.>;.:,.;-.. s r <- ypy. y ,g.g.png.g.o Mh;h;*g.-:p[%,y&y.g.sg&,yqp c.. -:,y. M ; M ;.T & n:'d @ W @Li9 Q A.3% Q Ph @M i ' N hh N ^" J .i,'
- .y4pi y.y
> Th*.f,li$@ll: tisi5h~Q.l.d$ 5. & ? i.
- .f M?
1.::. b l YQ-r.b,~:k.b*:G.h.2:
- ..r.... mg,. n..c.s.~9. I'N~g_ $.* h -
k h $,hSG h I h. ~ $ - f ? ' fW$h'. r..g &e.,h+
- h4-h.
4s y"4 ~ ,.M4,y4g, a.., q..y:,. n. .y - -.. m u
- Ed I M /.4. 5. D M V % " ;"~s
... %,e %. .. v..s m !-?g., Mr%[w.g>rpTP.khy,., M7 M.i.M.p ph,;.. Q. 4 -Q e.-g 47 i e-w .A h.Q *4 p m y,; i E[s h. . N / h t'.k.h-h E h,.,,r.. AME:_ 53 h%f hh gy,y @9;..:: @m.+f.;.... :.;,. #y&v~ W' P: W!!is. . N i g.r % gP. Q g,Q & y- .r...n:w p u 9y .c. e
- c$,..
- Lp;'-a5?-Q. 9,A2Vf,3;w.i:Q -yhDh . g 1.;;.. 2 n 6.e. p Mnk. 'i.&. ,Mr. ...v -
- f.U..
- -l7/. '.;j.pc./..,.t
- 3.*;mgy..s-g( g.p,g..u;.~,u&,, g.a%
^ g 1 3,.h gD d J p .g. 9, ;. p ~. u,- -- y,;q*:'aq:.g . l8' s Q y. g,.Ew, N i> h,.j g. a e< g, .,g ..y ; :. :. Acre {e,'8y; .g tg. b,;; ..g qf.g%,tg p,... Q,> Q @,3.;.S.y g dg$g,g h.o h..<{e[: My@, 4s f.g.w,gdf
- g..
.y g ' Q"J,
- p s. m..r.; a. w ;. m. m.:.
. 74. - -. '. r.y. -f. p s; .-.. w m,
- ...s y &.,,,.y. w. m; w ).s;.u ;v,s., w>. m.a
- n;,n y
.a w y. p. , p, . T g w f,..y ; w a .B .. ;, y.,;. s.,..q. e m. t ; J.s .g;+: -y. ., o .,... :.n...c. u..... i 2... u,, .... (.. ; a.~ q.,.y r.s,..; s .; e r(: W s.. .s.-, . t b ',!.'e.ili.;:%~.C.1
- .;l,*=;a..(,..b..D94 q,'.,~m%,9...~..9.E**4...w g~_,,.
. 2.m... q.a.,.,..... ,......... n...y_;n... ... A.,,, --.,',...,,,..q..J..s.c p,w.% y'
- r. '..,. ty,..
8, M. .3 . v... dy;.e.== ... - -...,. ~. *. p.
- w.v.
.. o.,q sy;p;.l%.,,;q.. qa f,yg,p,y.,,..
- m..
.,...,.,.r..., f f.j;- Abw;nafs p.. ,,r. 4,...4...s,., ;, s.;. e,m.p ,r'.', : 't;;9 ... ;. g.y ,.;,,,4g; .c..c..,,. rg *..,;g.,1...... ;%,_.w, e:s,;,.a :$gs 7,c, ,,, g., y;. J.'.c.. es r.e .o.. p 3...,.,.
- s., %m,...1.,4..,,;,..
... 4. ;r p,., 7,s u., c. j ,,,.s, e, =:urff.,,.. !Ma*',Q <r.p,**g,,r y [, ; pyg,qeyp.)$g...,,.,,. p .. ' /?'",,f,; s,.,*g: -. M a e, - ..r-. q. .y .y s* 4-?m.i .,p,{.; $,,. ..;q:%-.' i's :.'f.na. .a:e,- *a.,o ; .r, {;q'% f= m.g,g,pp 3'.',y,gfjy Q, f64,,,.g J . ".. r M. '.. O d~ *Y. N.s.:t s'U.,..w.. r,W '~...w. 3,;m?.i:.3..,?.s,;oN r. h '. 2: Ein: :. ' *:y., ; 6.; r l = ~~ ' 17; :*,n' e.w.;W~a a ? '.; D,. -i ..,tp ',G..f..i.g'*,g. p, o, .. : e; ,,;r; tr,*s 1 ~.
- ...... '.,. a ;,.1.. *'.g-y.
- ~* < - r :.....*.g
, m. g* 't .V.,s g.. s..,.,.. -. ; 4.;;.7...q...p-.. ep.,'),; . p..'* ..g. t '. >;g;, ns 2..:: ...;g r ..g;yj.y d'.'n',< g h. '.sd.,.'.'.,@ i,'fr. M... s.(.,.s.f ,g,,.. t.77.c.;,y.R. %.,.,9s..;.,c,g3 g + $r m.g.s. e ,c..:.g.;,g v g. a . v. s.k' g. %.t,...-w...- .m., ,j c.. ,n <+ ., $k 4.yg '.,.g, Q., ;,. 3...ypj p, l,. dg M a.;. gg.. gr.: p,.. y Q .~. 9.n.; 5 : );y.D, y ;g...c. h.,,x*f ~
- ,. M;
.. re,- .~.:.
- .,(...
. %f,, t..r. ,.3,_.,.y..>.v.,.. .i- .;r. ..:3,,., A.: - , 9.,,,.p.7 p.i.g qa ,. w.-z;. n v. n. p.2. p, g ; p : a
- Y ; w' y ' y;~!t.,h ; x
...:.,g.. s.. y ',, w. ; :........v a, 3 . s.;.- .,.,..3 y;.g,g.e... %,. w.3y.w,U.S.$pH%yj'Q'hll:?f v:.... . : AP. ' &: fyyW. :... n <r.'~ ..t '*:.W4fs?,4;h,h:t%i l w@.M.M..;... ..l ' ?.t .St r- .W*"*:.5i5}sSN.6i% M @ g h N h g B M dj. g N M g)) k N %a pm.,e!%q,.>.4 f r.,: e.
- m.. s-
,g,... ~~r,e.g. q,.. m..u..;Q,., q.;.%,h. ,n.t. [.Q... q;'h: "f*5 . a,w.., r .,. d.vc. .,4 .....n p' ;<m.,g. :.q e. .p:p -."~ },pfe.l.-h..w.%%\\.2 n......: ..,...,;'. r ..
- i.v, g ' *,6 m..
.g g.r.. .y ; v.- 'l "...f..j. &.j.y. y, .,} ,,. {,,, .}'*Q [;f s. ..Q %QQy.ggl. y< O f A... M.d.p *g y g y. g.g $. q+,3 g &*e g g. w, v: K. g:.g.gs . u.y.p.m .,?. m. e : n. h.
- 1m
- * /')w0;. au.6 s.pw., ? =.:.
.: w w e.- l. m,4":;D.Q W. rQ $.f Q- ,/-*- .m a y-j W d.2.W?::;.u ww. G.,.%y. - h.. *: ' & .- ' ?,n. 3:t; 2 t' '.* '.Q - :.. s Q;M;;y.". m: m wx,:r!r;y;: 4. x~:: r.
- e
. m;. ~. ? 'g.:.. G
- . 3.
.V . q' ym,;:;g %*4p.y,,,;g,+m.;q' W . q;m,.'.; w,,Jr. 3 *. "y.. 17 5 # k!". *..R,~n:9,qgp 'j- *g"; ' +, .'?* J I4 - l#.7,.,; * .. :. :p::s.,. m..., m. u.m.._.
- n. :,,..n.... s... m,.,
7 q;y: . : r,.,.. n. .. v..
- v....
n.. n . n .a.
a-EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED Ht na.i= ii
== ,,,,, tl or om cuno.er /4 N okta 4" lla 'l'L-EI ors no. (,,, cusuT t rV ff0 A M A DAWED A l ifMT f*nMD A MV WAMRFORD STEAM B.ECTRIC STATION-UNIT No. 3 enosser F L O A T IkJ Cr R. A F T F P bd susaser ._. M u. M. vwoce %*c o*t. Bl.vGr _. -toz.coch Tc rA. weic a, er Re.<-c7e.a. BLt s. . lB,'j o =.P J ' _A =.T1. .T1 p .e 1 c ~2 oo= _.s. 3. ysr .4 is- _._.__.._.....__._.__/..=.=.______.. ... f5'em..p., 5 6 wostr L o1*%e^pwc=..<owra.. "NON G !*mME550REi-U H DT 'R 76M-W H Dlt #LA }... -.._ 7.o24 C.EO C. J42,. K r r. 4 mcLustwcn 2 i ,L,43 5.q,e .,.).5 (,, %w (nq wres, c =. +tq l 'SUPPcRTEv n'{ uusFoRM PeessuRe-ovse tepree- \\ BREA, uuteenr. Lea.o ev a <. uc. w3s c. c acol.A P. l A W m... s 4 " 4 4 ", A a o a o o o o 2 g y i W Poiss.9's ratio l*** h1. ~7 y b3 W I (mt) Ecq '. 4 4 (m 1)() 2 1 b ATCe,r;na; 5 a.' I 2rr et' .3 f (r,. g i.) y r S 7 1.5, 3. it 2. coo f g i f l I, {8 / -l a l.. ~T 7 i let et .e k lot * / / d Tl 0.17 g g y,, t,t,, \\0.1 T L 'l = g3 15 is i'9 '. c. s hi.m,. me (.4i9) (s .I 6.&t"1 0.2
- 15 5 4. l.2'2.o (. d t 9 )
,, i.,, im,. p.
- c. e s
. a. s o 3 t* Ab9 dor $ a 782N'h, S kG 940fa. s.- {et2 V. s e i g t' c t /.
~ ESA$CO SERVICES INCORPORATED N sasav $ 2 or %m 20/7g N Y**" o.vs ev ..iui.. es u o.v. c ib. w
- 1"-
o,.... (,~ cuent ' n euiitiAuA pnwnr a tic.HT enAApANY WATERFORD STIAM ELETRIC STATPON-UNIT No. 3 ,, osse, suoster F L o 4 T w cr tit Aic.T Wow . _M47.Uwoen.RexTo n otp's (cow'T) Al So. M e* Yo ^'*
- MM ETS
(. ASE I -E= pGe5 SUPP85M'ev Deip.ee 1-e^sr N Sm + l evee t-wTiite SveFAce. 87t r^t.' [\\ 5 p.5 8.J-6.ya) Tl S9. W V.be. G 2af.1T a.'._.. s y . &25 Tr. 77 ) r i, y/ ~ ~~ 3 6U.I .1*..._(. T O7 .._. g., _____, -9 4. H.,i(>>f.. d u tw . a. 4 nt' 4 '..t'._.. t ' 44.sc>o s y t' s= G YA AT C 5 H T** * .., y *,J *_ s a.n,,, n, 4i,, 4 e t,.._. ,,g* . - ?... '.. V - 4450 yG. 7sso % + 7371'*/, (. J. ~ ~ C est
- c s t>c es 1 we r AT c.OTER
',. u w,,", g,. 3 W ( yn.4 I) ,-; y s Sir
- t.'
i 'N .f. 3 ( (. 2 5 w.n * ) ( yo.n t ) g'e w-g Q 6 Ti.^ -t. ' ri.*T emie. WIT ** F sy Ep EWPS , 'd s. If,3 00 M t2 s.GM /.t.5-8 I M. k.3co/ = 2-(17 2 47 cm m:. s o G ' W "' TM IL c o u ce. E'.cc.x, v eces Tae 9c Ac ree P.i.w, wiu. Ave T= Ta s. Rtc.ivnz f u s-c A2:> ery casc
- 11
( 9 91 ') 4 ULE-C-A t u-- 1 'M v 4 t, E-- e w rHI5 pac 4.
.O . ' ~ EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED [ N oAva 34aw. 22.'77 NEW M ,,gg7 M,, ev cuno.ev $4 H .Avi 4. t& ~79 n." h'y,, cus.t ino:UANA POWER A Itt.HT (OAADANY WA10tFORD STEAM RECTRIC STATION-UNIT No. 3 sussect f-l o ATIMG RAFT { -ryg U wom Re$ crea es t yc, M o M E-w ] t w' E-W 'b tR e c7to w [ cow' f ) Moueu7 A7 cgg7egt: EDGES SuPPenlev M = 7360 'b E D&E 5 .F-or WP..._. : .Me 2*j 17 A Co*J 2eR.vATIVel.} A&50t45 2 0 )g.F.uctT y f 13 bpeAta, ~ .. t w 3 eft P ot A t op M =. 75ec - c.2o ( ~7560-27 t -f) = c 4 4 7 ' "z O = \\ %Ce fa. I6S Kg G4d7 - J/,3 As 'Ad7 i t.2 n2 ,j, = 4.23 m 136 Use 2 L43ees e, 4[S q S As,12 ;w ggggg7 g,7Ac,T, 99 g ig 2 W t/bI ~
ESA5C0'"5ERVICES lNCORPORATED ~ ' ~ ~ .., f3 h 0 // "E3 *" cv v. ..... J ef ve d'/P/P / 1 C LIE NT b Pft. JECT _FL u 7s a q' A4FT Fed .u.anet b 497 swbrx~.Aswe1d k~og. (desf.]. ~ ~ ~ ~ E.D ca.t,Fves ~ ~ gyggg $, )W W J Oa in n y ') une 2797
- s
~ ~ Lt. 9". viti "4 m: c i ( Eant.c Lpparev m-o, s ffWf[} M A E.$ $$ / $ bMW O 2 n. ,o S 4, 4s W. z$ x /Ed E-~ Mit @ d + "n (dit S.&}n /Tp 2ew A: 4.s t a " > v. o r. - ek l A/- C-a ,f g g " Fo / A 45' N 6 fb.I i I . a *a=**'asv't u
Y. ~* - 1 / i. 5 U.1111 d U11 0 a Ora P56 ............e,6 M CHEMISTS ENGlHEERS ^ lir' I ~ ^ .%AN*~4 n.- r-n, nmaw ?#N %N O ' ' 'O,79 ~ REPORT OF sinaw n, urr nrarmt J EBASCO SERVIC$S. INC.. P.O. BOI 70. mima. TatrTntava vnnM p OR 03 WATERFORD THRZE, _ GTPA? 77PCTRIC STATION. T3_PP _ YairinTatta AMPLE FROM _.__ BATCH PLA.T BY MOV-W moWom M-OURCE OF MATERIAL II)UISTAMA TJDUrrwid - PRTM PTT nrDonTP ActT:r'rtAPPM W3-AA-la v"d3-AA-2a ' W3-3-12 - W3-AA-3a-k000 PSI 4000 PSI 2000 PSI 4000 PSI CC: PIAIN EITSA CEIDT PLAI3 _ ADMIX ment TXI, Type II, lbs. 587 pl) 687 517 564 4 st:r, sanons 33 51/pl 33 33 '31 'n3 assmaste, lbs. 1269 ep 1235 1295 1277 '4" aggn gste, lbs. 586 s a w. 570 598 589 " assm gate, 1bs. 1155 .39f n24 1179 u62 3 os. 39 k.6 3.4 25 h/A, %,os. 0 0 0 24 .unqp, In. 3 3. h.25 3.5 $$6 .r Content, % 35 4.8 5 25 6.25 iit Wt. fresh, pef g I p. 2. tuotube Avg.) 142.6 14.8 14.0 142.h I W3-AA-ka W3.-3-2s W3-AA-Sa W3-AA-6a 4000 PSI
- 3000 PSI 4000 PSI 4000 PSI l
ADMIX ADMIX ADMII PIAIN EXTRA-CDENT RED. AIR 30 AIR ment, T E. Type, 1bs. 664 - 494 (564., 600-t:r.gan ans 31 3L '32 36 na aggregate, 1bs. 1260 1319 1304 1387 48 aggregate. Ibs. 582 608 601 566
- " aggregate, 1bs.
ukT 1200 n8T n1T A, CO. 15 1.0 0.0 0.0 A, os. 28 21 2h 0
- ump, in.
3 75 2.5 3.25 5 75 l r Content, 5 k.5 4.9 3.T5 2.25 it Wt. fresh, yet m sek.nha Awar _1 ikt o ikk n iLf a shA e 'EMARKS: Cement Type II test results reported on Barrow-Agee report No. LR-83819. Price ?it Deposit fine aggregate test results reported on Barzww-Agee report No. LR-83912. Price Pit Deposit soarse aggregate test res to reported on Barrow-Agee
- optEs To: rePCrt N#. LR-839M.
6-ABOYE kkhEhWED BY y _,3sucong A ^ ^ ' =~. .A.o.4ronno.
8 ARgIHgF Am i.e......, ~ [~l CHEMISTS ENGINEERS .( LETLE ROCK ARKANSAS JA3UA2! 9, 1975 REPORT OF SUICE3Y 07 MII DESIG3 OR EEASCO SEVICES, DC., ?.0. BOI 70, IILLONA, LOUISIANA 70066 00 M*02D TE222,. STEA'{ ZCTRIC STATIO3, 'O.IT, LCUISIANA. > AMPLE FROM GE E .30U-A C W E D E, m. OURCE OF MATERI AL LCLIT.d'IA DELOTHIES - PRICS PIT DEPOSIT A00REGATFE LP3ESSIVZ ST."2fGT3, 7SI 22: '43-AA-1s W3-AA-2s V3-3-la W3-AA-3a
- ' Hours 4
1290 1330 1380 3 Wa 3150 3180 3270 f Dars kOT5 4330 3k50 4780 4050 hk90 3500 4530 4420 28 Ders 6370 6150 59ho 6190 5980 6900 6010 6490 1 6830 Unit Weight, yet (Sonotube Average) l l 3 Ders 140 93 1h3.32 Ik2.40 141.14 e T Dars 140.53 142 95 141.82 140.T9 tk Dars 140 53 1k2 99 141 73 140.66 28 Days 140.53 143 00 141 75 1k0.65 i I Cement Type II test results reported on Barrov-Ages report No. LR-83819. Price Pit Deposit fine aggregate test results reported on Barrow-Ages report No. LB-83912. Price Pit Deposit coarse aggregate test results reported on Barrow-Agee -83811'
- 3
- OPIES TO: *
- ED
- mn u s,1 CO [C. CIVE M aA. . ABOR ATORY NO. \\ ::#A, La-83818 Jiv
r ~~ O\\ '"" CHEMISTS i'"""' "" g',0, ENGINEERS j LITTLE ROCK, AN1GNSAS ~ MARCH 12, 1975 ,_,,; >s.a u * ~ ~ - - REPORT OF sinemRY OF MIX DESIGN (CONT.) tor RRAECO RFRVICES. INC.. P.O. BOX 70, KILLONA, LOUISIANA 70066 10 3 WPERFORD 'fMREE. STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, TAFT, LOUISIANA 3 AMPLE FROM BATCH PLANT SY BARROW-AGEE LABORATORIES, INC., IOURCE OF MATERIAL LOUISIANA INDUSTRIES - PRICE PIT DEPOSIT AGGREGATE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI In U3 -AA-la '-73 -AA -2 s " U3-B-la W5 -AA-3 a 90 Days 7870 7750 7250 7960 7430 7960 7690 8530 7700 UNIT WEIGHT, PCF (SONOIUBE EVERAGE) 60 Days 140.60 143.25 141.87 140.65 140.96 143.25 141.86 140.77 fgAys. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI MIX W3 -AA-4a W3-B-2a W3 -AA-S a W3 -AA-6 a 90 Days 9340 6970 7530 7250 8880 6720 8140 7320 l' 8840' '6970 l UNIT WEIGHT, PCF (SONOIUBE AVERAGE) l 1 ,60 Days 146.65 143.00 144.47 146.49 90 Days 146.80 f.i. 1 4 3. 0 5 144.43 146.13 REMARKS: MEN [EC,N / 7 [' COPIES TO*- EBKSCO Q.Y Clyld 4-ABOVE g .,,h )"* " A'A $^- N w *, 2
- '.3.."._....._.-_.--.
~ _ -~. D D R II H ~fl D.~.~ aborakried CHEMISTS ENGINEERS ~ LItTL2 RcCI, AaAnSAS JAHUARY 9, 1975 REPORT OF SEO M OF E X DESIGH FOR EBASCO SERVICES, INC., ~P.o. BoI 70, KILLo3A. LOUISIAUA 70006 JO3 OS M, M MRIC m7. 03. N. I,0UNA
- SAMPLE FROM EATCH PL.E 3Y 3ARRo'4-AG:D LAEoRATORIES. IJC.
SOURCE OF MATERI AL LOUISIAHA INDUSTRIIS. - PRICE PI* OZ?IT AGG"3 GATES 00 GRESSIVE STKGGTH, PSI 22 W3-AA ka W3-B-23 V3-AA-Sa V3-AA-6a 24 Hours 1340 1430 1560 1k20 1610 1360 3 Days 3930 2920 3960 2940 3940 3180 T Days 5750 3500 4510 35T0 5390 3290 4950 3840 5610 .k140 28 Days 7T20 5840 6900 6720 7500 5850 59ho 6370 7610 6010 59ho Unit Weight, pcf (Sonotube Averaga) l 3 Ders 146.87 143.'ll 14.99 146.89 i T Days 1M.59 143.20 14.60 1M.60 14 Days IM.k5 142.87 14.43 146.27 28 Days 1%6.61 142.89 14.M IM.37 \\ REMARKS: g g g gg Price Pit Deposit fine aggregate, test results reported on Barrov-Ages report No. LB-83912. Price Pit Deposit coaroCaggregate test results reported on Barrow-Agee I" COPIES TO: [ i S*"* REVIEWED. sy M. ,.v. - r N J/ // w e w - aL ,..m.......-
- q '
+ h P.l. ~, ~ 1.s~ = MEMORANDUM November 24, 1975 4.0 '!D J'. O. 3 och . Vdas/r ' H. Wern: a h4).w an A.- FROM: R..' ^ SUPJECT: LOUISI.C4* PC'n*IRANDLICHICOMPANY WAIIRFORD SIIldi ELICTRIC S*t.ATION 1980 - 1165 W INSIALLATION - UNIT 2D. 3 ~ ,**v-CONCRIII DISIGN MIX Se following concrete =ix is to be used for cIoncrete in the . Combination Structure Mat. - r Master Desien Mix - 1416: (Quantities per cubic ' yard Aggregates SSD) Ce= ant 517 lbs. Water 232 lbs. Fina Aggregate 1316 lbs. V,' Aggregate 707 lbs., - 1" Aggregata 1074 lbs. AEA: Protax 2.0 oz. WRA: Protex PDA
- 21. oz. (4.0 oz.,per cut) 25 Type D W/C Ratio 0.45 De water cenent ratio used may be lower than the above mix provided
-adequate workability is achieved and it may vary up to.a maximum of '0.50. This will provide for vari:.tions in the workability of the concret's and to tailor the workability for the specific location 'where it is being placed. This criteria is based upon the following design /trinimixes. t Mix 14A'9 utili=ing the some ratios of ingredients as 14A6 with thi exceptied of water whi.ch was 238 ~1bs. resulting in a W/C ratio o.f 0.46. f Mix 14A10 utilizing the same ratios of ingredients as 14A6 with the execption of water which was 231 lbs. resulting in a4g p, W/C rat;io of 0.45. sl8 3 ... r. % -.w. ...,t I';t D M m v.*'t s A N. g :, -( 4 -^
di ac, 3 .I I. J. Booth. aovember 24, 1975 ~ 4 "Hix 14A11 utifiring the same ratios of ingredients as 1446 with ' the exception of water which was 258 lbs.~resulting in a' W/C racion of 0.50.. l Mix 14A12 utilizing the same ratios of ingredients as 14A6 with the-exception of water which was 243 lbs. resulting in a*W/C ratio of 0.47. 1his six and the allowed variations thereon ara' approved based upon i tests showing the following properties: Mix 14&6 14A9. 14A10 14A11 14A12 Air Content 5.0 4.8 4.0 , 4.8 4.6 Sluny _4-W' 2-3 /4" 1-3/4" ' 7-3/4" 7-W' Wat Weight 145.7pcf
- 146.1 148.4 143.7 144.8 l
Strength 24 hr'. 1473 psi 1603 1928
- 1210 1150 3 day 3637 3831-4498 2446 2258 7 day 4456 4728,
S318 3219 3607 i 4 28 day (6037) (6406) (7205) - (4361) (48S7) Test data for 28 day strength will be available prior to first concrete placement. ~ Data from'si=ilar concrete placed for the barge dock and can'erata weights indicates that the 7 day strength averages 73.87. of the 28 day strength; the 28 day strengths are extrapolated based upon that data. The 22 day strengths for the barge dock and concreta i 'waights _ averaged 6103, psi with a range from 5509 psi to 6516 psi.- Specification requirements for laboratory trial mixes are a specific. weight between 133 pcf and 147 pef with an average of 138 pcf and a 28 day concreta compressive strength of 4600 psi. The dry specific weights have in previous tests on similar concrete been approximately 3 pcf less than the wet weights. Therefore all of the mixes are - expected to meet specification requirements., I It is expected that the master de* sign mix (14A6') and mixes 14A9, l 14A10 ind 14A12 accusi 28 day strengths will meet or exceed the j specifiestion requirements for trisi mixes. Mix 14A11 may be marginal ~ , in meeting this strength. All of the mixes are expected to' meet tha requirements for compressive strength for Class AA (4000 psi) production concrete which are: . a = No individus1 strength test results ' falls more than 500 psi ~ ' ' below the required class strength at 28 days. 1.. t 4. ; _ - 3
- .
- ~.-
'..C J. Booth Jovember 24, 1975 b - The averages of all sets of three consecutive strength test. results equal or exceed the required class strength at-28 days. '!be cat placement may be considered as a reinforced footing, a slab and, in portions, unreinforced heavy mass construction. As such the 10 batch average slu=p can be between 4 inches and 1 inch and the single batch slu=p can be betweerr 5 inchss and 1 inch depending upon.' the portion of the =at being placed and the workability desired. For the. mat the first paragttph of Part 10.9 of Section I of the concrete masonry specificatios shall be the guida namely: " Concrete shall be a consistency and workability suitable'for the conditions of the job". RFV/11s ' Attachments: ~' ~ 1 - Design Mixes Lab Test Smy Sheets 2 - Productica Concrete St==ary Sheets 3 - Trial Mix Testing Schedula 'Qiixes 6 througli 9), 4 - strength vs.' Time Charr cc: J. M. Brooks R. K. Sta=pley W. L. Sheehan P. C. Liu J. W. Seaver
- r D. N. Galligan se:
12-4-75 C. R. Satterfield (2) R..W. Zaist ~ B. D. Tovier R. A. Hartnett W. C. Criggs / 1 m..s. u e h -w v .. - - -,.. ~ -, -. - - --,-e, m . --- - -, ~.
.s. r. August 5,1977 COR-LN3-77-55M. To: F Grossman A W Peabody /M D 011ved l Trom: LOUISTANA POWER as LIGET COMPANY Sub,jact: WATERFORD SES UNIT 3 CORRDSION OF REINFORCING STEEL AND STEEL CONTAINHENT VESSEL FIATES IN CONTACT WIII WATER In accordance with your telephone requaist, we have asialysed a possible situation in the comanon met where supposedly ground water weeping from comergte cracks found on the surface of the met could corrode the reinforcies steel rnd the outside bottom plates of the Steel Contain-ment vessel. It is a proven fact that concreta by its alkaline natura passivates carbon steel embedded in it. It is also kamen that water in contact with concrets becomas alkaline l and senseguently its corrosivity to s' teel
- decreases considerably.
In addition to these factors, assuming that ground water is left inside C the crack network to a certain extent, this water will be near stagnantCons& and without replenishment of orySen. This applies under the above aircumstances, if any, will be negl41 bit. to the rainforcing rebars as well as' to the outside of the vessel bottom plates, in case the repairs presently being sonducted do not fully prevent the water from reaching the vessel., MD0/hn se R K Stampley J O Booth /3 D Fowler D R Galligan
- L Skoblar W F Gundaker o
Fo tA -N 45SinA 6 / 8.6 1 .}}