ML20197H514

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Affidavit of CC Stokes Re Adequacy of Specs & Procedures for Concrete Placement.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20197H514
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/12/1984
From: Stokes C
EDDLEMAN, W.
To:
Shared Package
ML20197H504 List:
References
NUDOCS 8406180435
Download: ML20197H514 (12)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ __ . ._ __ _

AFFIDAVIT I, Charles C. Stokes, am supplying this statement to  !

Wells Eddleman concerning the adequacy of specifications and pro-cedures for concrete placement at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Units 1 ano 2. This statement is being supplied freely on my part as a concerned structural enginee,r who has worked in the nuclear industry for the past twelve (12) years. I have a BCE degree from Auburn University, specializing in structural and foundation design, anc am a licensed professional engineer in three (3) states. I also am a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). This statement is supplieo out of my deep concern for the lack of adequate Quality Assurance pro-grams and the lack of good engineering practices in the nuclear f industry to ensure the public safety per 10 CFR 50. t The following project documents were reviewed:

i

1) Ebasco Specification for Concrete, project ident. no.' CAR-SH-CH-6 rev. 11
2) Concrete Placement Inspection, TP-15 rev. 11
3) Concrete Control, no. CQC-13 rev. 5

, 4)' Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate, no. QCI-13.5 t rev. 1

5) Batch Plant Inspection, no. QCI-13.2 rev. 1
6) Concrete Production and Delivery, WP-4 rev. 10
7) Concrete Field Test, no. QCI-13.3 rev. 2 l 8) Concrete Placement, WP-5 rev. 21
9) Concrete Compressive Strength Testing, no. QCI-13.1 1 10) Pour package ICBXW219001, 6 sheets
11) Pour package ICBXW242001, 15 sheets .
12) Pour package ICBXW256004, 47 sheets
13) Pour package ICBXW276002, 5 sheets
14) Pour package ICBXW290001, 35 sheets
15) Pour package ICBXW308001, 33 sheets
16) Pour package ICBXW336003, 22 sheets
17) Pour package ICBXW386001, 20 sheets
18) Pour package ICBXW425001, 10 sheets l

1 d V  :

8406180435 840614 1

l i

PDR ADOCK 05000400 O PDR 2

I c -

l

19) Pour package ICBXW444001, 7 sheets
20) Pour package ICBSL216001, 22 sheets
21) Pour package ICSSL216002, 27 sheets inc. ICBSL216003 waterstop and reinf. inspection forms inc. 1CBSL216006 waterstop and reinf. inspection forms
22) Package KBSL216002, 14 sheets, concrete repairs Pour No.

j 1CBSL216002

. . Other documents reviewed which govern the acceptability of i this work:

1) 10 CFR 50, Appendix B
2) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.10, Mechanical (Cadweld) Splices in Reinf.

, Bars of Category I Concrete Structures

3) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.15, Testing of Reinf. Bars for Category I Concrete Structures
4) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.18, S tructural Acceptance Test for Concrete Primary Reactor Containments
5) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.19, Nondestructive Examination of Primary Containment Liner Welds
6) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.28, Quality Assurance Program Requirements j (Design and Construction) j 7) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.35, Inservice Inspection of Ungrouted Ten-dons in Prestressed Concrete Containment Structures
8) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.55, Concrete Placement in Category I Struc-tures
9) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.58, Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant In-spection, Examination, and Testing Personnel
10) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.69, Concrete Radiation Shields for Nuclear Power Plants
11) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.88, Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of l Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Records '
12) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.90, Inservice Inspection of Prestressed Con-crete Containment Structures with Grouted Tendons i
13) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.94, Quality Assurance Requirements for In-sta11ation, Inspection, and Testing of Structural Concrete .and

, Structural Steel During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power 2 Plants I 14) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.123, Quality Assurance Requirements for Con-i trol of Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power )

Plants

15) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.132, Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants
16) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.136, Material for Concrete Containments
17) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.142, Safety-Related Concrete Structures for.

Nuclear Power Plants (Other Than Reactor Vessels and- Contain-ments) (For Comment) _

i

18) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.144, Auditing of-Quality Assurance Programs i for Nuclear Power Plants
19) NRC REG. GUIDE 1.146, Qualification of Quality Assurance Pro-gram Audit Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants

! 2 y

~

20) Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Struc-tures (ACI 349-76) and Commentary on Code Requirements for Nu-clear Safety Related Concrete Structures (ACI 349-76)
1) Review of Pour package ICBXW219001 dated 12/2/78 mix no. M72 indicates three (3) problems:

These are inadequate vibration of concrete and that slump was out of specification. On sheet 1, Concrete Placement Report, at three (3) locations on this form reference is made to " Exposed Aggregate." This could be a serious problem if not monitored and corrective action made. When combined with the out-of-specifi-cation slump information on sheet 6, Concrete Test Report, indi-cates that the mix may have been too stiff. The form indicates that water was added, but no corrected slump is indicated.

Therefore, I must assume the mix was not corrected and was too stiff.

From rough calculations, it appears that the compressive test strength values are not in compliance with Ebasco Concrete .

Specification section 13.5 on page 22.

"Each 28

~

day strength test result shall be the average of two cylinders from the same sample. The variation between the two cylinders shall require testing of the third (spare) cylinder

to determine the average strength. If the third cylinder strength " variation" is also greater than five (5) percent from I

the average, the Owner shall determine the reason for such a wide variation in-test results and rectify it."

"The coefficient of variation for the tests on each mix l

as determined in accordance with ACI 214, shall not be greater than fifteen (15) percent. A greater variation will require a review of concrete batching, mixing and transporting facilities and procedures to assure a reduction in this correlation between the coefficient of variation and the average compressive strength ,

requirements."

, No action is referenced or shown to be taken on this prob-3 3

l lem. dk

2) Review of Pour Package ICBXW242001 dated 9/24/80 n ix no. M97 indicates two (2) problems:

These are inadequate vibration of concrete and that the con-crete was slow to set up. This information is on sheet 1, Concrete Placement Report (CPR) . Reference is made to " Exposed Aggregate" and that the weather was " HOT" and that " Rate of rise 2f t/hr. - Extended cure." I was not provided the Concrete Test Report sheet for this pour and would like to review it in light of the facts raised from the CRP form. There is included a docu-ment titled Concrete Defects. This form is not filled out ade-quately.

Under remarks, it is stated that " blister area remained un-til wrecked on 10-28-80. The concrete in this area will require i

chipping to allow steel shek (?) rods (vibrator probes) to be cut below the neat line." This does not provide a clear description of the problem and therefore, leaves much to imagination. More information required to adequately document this defect and the resolution.

3) n eview of Pour Package ICBXW256004 dated 8/11/81 mix no. M80 indicates that incorrect vibration is a problem. On sheet 1, Concrete Placement Report (C1R) , reference is made to "Exp6 sed aggregate" and that the weather was "iiot." On sheet 2, Placement Checklist, the first time that corrective action has beer. noted.

" Workers warned about vibration techniques; both under- and over-4

r l

I vibration. A most difficult placement." Note, the comment "a l most difficult placement."

On the Concrete Test Report (CTR) form, it is shown that the slump had a large variance. Section 4.2.2 of the ACI 349 code states "when laboratory trial batches are made the air con-tent shall be within +/-0.5 percent and the slump within +/ .75 inch of maximum permitted by the specification." The difference shown on the CTR form is 2.5 inches. This indicates a material control problem may exist. Also, under weather on the CTR for u, it is shown to be " overcast." These comments indicate that voids are likely below reinforcing steel as well as between forms and reinforcing steel.

4) Review of Pour Package ICBXW276002 dated 5/2/80 mix no. M72 indicates that adequate vibration is a problem. From sheet 1, Concrete Placement Report, it is stated that aggregate is exposed and that the " slump = 4" max.----no tolerance." On sheet 5, Con-crete Test Report, in reviewing the slump, it appears that the mix was out-of-specification. A minor problem is that the weat-her has not been indicated on the CTR form. This should be fill-ed out. The comments about exposed aggregate and the low slump indicate voids are likely around reinforcing and the interior of the pour.
5) Review of Pour Package ICBXW290001 dated 7/23/82 mix no. M72 indicates that. vibration problems have not been resolved and that 5-

the concrete strength is not to specification.

From sheet 1, Concrete Placement Report, comments are made that the weather was " HOT" and that " Exposed Aggregate" existed.

On the Placement Checklist, a note exist that "one concrete work-er warned several times about vibration techniques." On the Con-crete Test Report, the 28 day test are below the required strength and on sheet titled Compressive Strength Evaluation for Mix #72 for Lab i 9323 the strength is shown as 4105 psi which is more that 500 psi below the required 5000 psi required strength.

This is in contradiction to paragraph 1 at the bottom of this form, which states "the 28 day tests are not 500 psi or more be-low the required strength."

From page 21 of the Ebasco Specification for Concrete, "the strength level of the concrete shall be satisf actory if: a -

No individual strength test results falls more that 500 psi below the required class strength at 28 days." on the Field Change Re-quest / Permanent waiver form, PW-C-3769, it is stated that "the actual average 28 day cylinder strength (laboratory moist cured) for this placement was 4865 psi, see attached Concrete Test Re-port." This appears to be in error since on the Compressive Strength Evaluation form for pour 1CBXW290001 under lab #9323 the strength is shown as 4105 psi.

The 4105 psi value is not within Ebasco Concrete Specifi-cation Section 13.5. See review of 1) above for quote. In re-viewing this concrete specification, I did not find reference to any procedure for evaluating this problem beyond Section 13.5.

4 l

l l

, - s-

I

\

l l

However, documentation is included in the package for what seems to be core test breaks. ACI 349 code section 4.3.5 provices gui-dance as to the steps taken to 3ustify accepting this pour, but the results of the test indicate that the pour should not be ac-cepted. The docuraentation indicates that three (3) samples were

tested on 8/8/83 and two (2) on 8/23/83. Only 1 out of 5 met the specification requirement of 5000 psi, four (4) f a ile'd . This pour is not acceptable.
6) Review of Pour Package ICBXW308001 dated 8/25/83 mix no. M80 indicates two (2) problems: Inadequate vibration and strength, i

! On the Concrete Test Report, the test strength values are shown at 28 days as 4930 psi and 4810 psi not 5000 psi required but upon evaluation per Ebasco Concrete Specification Section 13.5, the strength is found to be acceptable. Voids are still l possible due to inacequate vibration.

7) Review of Pour Package 1CBXW336003 dated 9/21/83 mix no. M80 3 indicates vibration problems still not corrected. Mix problem from 6) above is still in question as one of the 28 cay test was 4880 psi. The strength of this pour was found to be acceptable.
8) Review of Pour Package 1CBXW386001 dated 3/12/82 mix no. M81 had several documentation problems concerning the mix code and the strength required. I am concerned that the strength required for this pour is only 4000 psi when all other "CBXW" pours were 5000 psi required. Is the 4000 psi value correct? If not aodi-l l tional review is necessary. Other wise, why did it change?
9) neview of Pour' Package 1CBXW396002 dated 4/5 or 6/82 mix no.

7

l As, M81 indicates vibration problems. The strength required is 4000 psi.

10) Review of Pour Package ICBXW425001 dated 10/5/82 mix no. M81 has vibration problem. The strength required is 4000 psi.
11) Review of Pour Package ICBXW4444001 dated 12/21/82 mix no.

M97 indicates vibration problems on the Concrete Placement Report but on the Placement Checklist, it is stated "a smooth and satis-factory placement (if somewhat over-supervised) . Form vibrators and head box arrangements worked well and produced 9000 results."

This was the only note in all packages that the vibrators worked well. This pour also hao a problem with the air content being out-of- spec i f ica t ion . This does not appear to be a serious prob-lem as this is the only pour reviewed with a low value for air content.

12) Review of Pour Package ICBSL216001 dated 7/14/78 mix no. M56 has three (3) problems: Inacequate vibration, damaged waterstop, and out-of-specification slump.

l This package includes documentation on pours 1CBSL216004, and lCBSL216005. On pour 1CBSL216001 Field Inspection Report for Waterstop and Waterproofing (FIRWW), it is indicated that the l

waterstop was damaged and required repair. Acceptance for a  ;

I l clearance less than 1/2 inch between asbestos board and cadweld i

i was given but it . was decided that " future clearance to be 1/2

! inch min." On pour ICBSL216004 FIRWWs, the same problems are evident. Waterstop damaged when cadwelds installed and the same reference to the 1/2 inch clearance-asbestos board to cadweld.

4 8

l

l l

On pour 1CBSL216005 FIRWWs, both waterstop damage and W

asbestos board to cadweld are shown. .

, i On the Concrete Test Reports, it is shown that 29 out of 64 samples (1/2 approximately) are out-of-specification. The low values indicate the mix was dry. This could when combined with inadequate vibration cause voids. Why this was not corrected be-fore so many truck loads were placed, neeos to be answered and corrected.

13) Review of Pour Package ICBSL216002 dated 8/17/78 mix no. M56 has the same problems as 12) above but with one difference. A large void is documented as repaired on Quality Control Field Re-port No. C-160. Extensive honey combing was found at one loca-tion and repaired.

This package includes documentation on pours 1CBSL216003 and 1CBSL216006. On all the FIRWWs for all pours, there is an exten- i sive problem with damage to waterstop by cadwelding and other as-sorted reasons. There is also documented clearance problems.

On the Concrete Test Reports, we find the same problem as in

12) above with the slump being ou t-o f- spec if ica t ion . In 49 out of 97 (1/2 approx.) samples, the slump is below the minimum' al--

lowed.

On Quality Control Field Report No. C-160 which references i pour 1CBSL216002, a large void is shown in a front view to be 81" by 21" maximum. A note states "the extent of the void from (north to south) cannot be determined until chipping operations are completed."

9, 1

a

.. - - - . . _ . - . .~ - _ -- .

o Based on the last two pours reviewed, all documentation for pours poured before ICBSL216001 on 7/14/78 and after 1CBSL216002 on 8/16/78 mix no. M56, as well as all pours poured between these two, should be reviewed to see if the slump was out-of-specifi-cation, then all installed areas with out-of-specification slump values should have non-destructive test made to find more voids.

i All voids should be repaireo.

In summary, many problems were not timely corrected. The damage to waterstop should have been stopped. Every time the waterstop was damaged and repaired, a possible leak of radiation became more probable. This problem developed for the following two reasons: the personnel did not realize the safety sig-

, nificance of this item in providing a leak proof barrier, and j management did not take corrective action for an extensive time period.

The possibility of extensive voids because the slump was out-of-specification is also a serious safety concern for the same reasons as the waterstop. voids offer one other serious concern, and that is structural integrity may be reduced below safe levels. This is extremely important in the case of the base slabs. Attached equipment may fail when the concrete fails.

These may be: columns, walls, pipe supports, piping, pumps,

! motors, diesel generators etc. I should state that.many small voids are likely in the wall pours which I reviewed. These for the most part will be around the reinforcing, embeded plates, en-beded pipe, and penetrations. These also ef fect the structural s

10 i

i 1

.. . . - - . - . . , . . . , . , , - . . . . . , . - ~. , - - -

integrity. Additional review is required.

I have read the above page document and it is accurate, complete and true to the best of my knowledge, 1 l

At & <&) '

Charles C. Stokes,PE.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this -12th- day of June, 1984.

OFFICIAL SEAL

[,yhe /? (Lag l

usa R. WENTER '

@N{$Nfgc  !

My Comm Empires May 9,1986 lj Notary Public in anc for the County of San Luis

--- - - Obispo, State of California l

4 11

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLINA POWER k LIGHT CO. Et al. ) Docket 50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1* ) 0.L.

CEftTIFICATE0F SERVICE separate responses to summary disnosition I hereby certify that copies of on 13'> 4 M % --Jc'* ? c =d Eddleman 65; Motion to Compel Discovery of Staff on Joint I, nna wu enntans nm 4' a w p, HAVE been served this , , , day of June 198L, by deposit in l the US Wil, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose nanes are Parked with an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by hand JudE es James Kelley, Glenn Bright and Jamas Carpenter (1 copy each)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin6 ton DC 20555

  • George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge R uthanne G. Miller 1600 M St. NW ASLB Panel Washington, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2C55 4

  • D*" d Docketing and Service Section (3x) CEA?E R**/FLP Attn Docke ts 50-k00/h01 0.L. .

office of the Secretary Waleigh,7707 NC Waveross h7606 USNRC washington Dc, Dr. Linda W. Little 20555 aoy,rnor,s Waste Mst. Bd.

513 Albenarle Bldg.

  • John Munkle -

St.

Granville Rd 325 N. Salisbun%11 Raei@, C2 ,

Chapel Hill Ne 2751h Bradley W. Jones Robert Gruber USNRC Region II 101 Marietta St.

  • Travi s Tayne Exec. Director Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 mox 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Ralei Sh NC 27602
  • Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by w 729 Hunter St.

Apex NC 27502 1

. ..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20197H514&oldid=3010552"