ML20129B430

Submits Evaluation of Results of Insp Rept 50-322/72-02.Only Three Site Activities Being Performed.Quality of Rebar in Place & in Storage & Loosening of Compacted Soils Should Be Resolved Prior to CP Issuance

ML20129B430
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/20/1972
From:	Varela A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Howard E US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20129A436	List: IA-85-281, Responds to FOIA Request for Results of Concrete Cylinder Tests & Concrete Test Borings Made During Plant Const. Forwards Documents Listed in App A.Documents Also Available in Pdr.Insp Repts Listed in App B in PDR ML20129A432 ML20129A466 ML20129A488 ML20129A506 ML20129A558 ML20129A589 ML20129B430
References
FOIA-85-281 NUDOCS 8507290160
Download: ML20129B430 (2)

Text

- - _

'8

'\ '

q UNITED ST ATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

$ DeRECTOR ATE OF REGULATORY OPER ATION$

REGION 9 l

.=l(T,~

},

970 BRO AD STREET NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07102 OCT 2 01972 E. M. Howard, Chief, Reactor Construction Branch Directorate of Regulatory Operations, Region I INSPECTOR'S EVALUATION l

SHOREHAM REPORT NO. 50-322/72-02 INSPECTION OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1972 1DNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPAh7 Of the eight (8) areas of site activities permitted by the DL letter to Lilco of August 16, 1972, only three were being performed, the maintenance dredging, site de-watering and erection of security fenc-ing. These appear to be on work not covered by the S&W/Lilco contract.

The other five areas of permissible activities are not being accomplished because a new contract between S&W and Lilco is being negotiated at this time. The original contract called for S&W to be restricted to the role of construction manager for the project. S&W's new proposal for a " force account" contract (which has not yet been accepted) would make (S&W) the prime contractor with first level QC responsibility for all site con-struction. Any subcontractor under this arrangement would supply labor only. The above is stated for guidance on QA Inspection.

From a technical point of view, I have little concern for any of the Shoreham activities permitted or presently undertaken, but what does concern me is a matter for DL to consider before a construction permit is issued. This has to do with about 900 tons of rebar presently in place for reactor foundation, about 300 tons ready, but not installed in the mat and another 2000 tons in open storage. All steel is unpro-tected and in a salty atmosphere, already about one year exposed. Nor-mally some rust is preferred to no rust for better bond in concrete.

ACI states: " metal rebar, at time concrete is placed, shall be free f rom loose flaky rust, mud, oil, or other coatings that will destroy or reduce bond." Who will make determination of rebar runt and if judged to be not loose flaky rust what will be permissible sodium chloride content?

Another item that DL should consider before a permit to construct is 0507290160 050605 PDR FOIA CAMDSBS-201 PDR

. s ..

o o issued: Compacted soils from Elevation -12 to -3 (MSL) (Cd eport 50-322/70-06) may be less compact as result of constructiori delay, to possible fluctuation of ground water and possible elastic rebound, due to the unloaded state cf the compacted soil.

1 g*

A. A. Varela Reactor Inspector