ML20236N122
| ML20236N122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1987 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kirch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| TAC-63149, NUDOCS 8711160030 | |
| Download: ML20236N122 (7) | |
Text
F
)
i November 9, 1987 Docket No. 50-508 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dennis F. Kirch, Director Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation Region V FROM:
Lester S. Rubenstein, Director f
Standardization and Non-Power Reactor j
Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects, NRR
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MODULE FOR WNP-3 CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM The staff of the Structural and Geosciences Branch and our consultant have reviewed the Concrete Module (C3-02) for the WNP-3 Construction Assurance Program. Our evaluation identifies one observation and a few minor findings that should be identified to Region V's lead reviewer. The observation and the findings are discussed in the enclosure.
Should you require further field evaluation of the WNP-3 facility with regard to the subject Concrete Module, we would be available to provide further assistance.
The information contained in the enclosure has been discussed with A. Toth of Region V, D. Coleman and R. Davis of WPPSS, and G. Vissing of NRR.
In addition, we have transmitted our findings to A. Toth via the IBM 5520 System.
original signed by Lester S. Rubenstein, Director Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects, NRR
Enclosure:
Observation and Findings cc:
G. Vissing A. Toth, RV L. Shao K. Pate, RV J. Richardson F. Rinaldi T. Michaels CONTACT:
G. Vissing NRR/PDSNP Ext. 28208
.. DISTRIBUTION:
L' Docket File-. _
PDSNP Reading EHylton L'ocal'& NRC PDR LRubenstein GVissing PDSNP/[
PDSih'
/
GVitsing LRg(hen)s9fn 11//' /87 11/ 1 87 8711160030 871109 P09 ADOCK 05000500
(
o ascoq'o UNITED STATES M. f' " w I jf($
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 f %,
,/
November 9, 1987 l-Docket No. 50-508 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dennis F. Kirch, Director Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation Region.V FROM:
Lester S. Rubenstein, Director Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects, NRR
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MODULE FOR WNP-3 CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE-PROGRAM The staff of the Structural and Geosciences Branch and our consultant;have reviewed the Concrete Module (C3-02) for the WNP-3 Construction Assurance Program. Our evaluation identifies one' observation and a.few minor findings that should be identified to Region V's lead reviewer. The observation and the findings are discussed in the enclosure. Should you require further -
field evaluation of the WNP-3 facility with regard to the subject Concrete Module, we would be available to provide further assistance.
~
The infonnation contained in the enclosure has been discussed with A.' Toth of -
Region V, D. Coleman and R. Davis of WPPSS, and G. Vissing of NRR.
In addition, we have transmitted our findings to A. Toth via the IBM 5520 System.
C M b ( A [2 k
L Lester S. Rubenstein, Directar Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor. Projects.III, IV, V and Special Projects, NRR
Enclosure:
Observation and Findings cc:
G. Vissing A. Toth, RV L. Shao X. Pate, RV J. Richardson F. Rinaldi T. Michaels CONTACT:
G. Vissing NRR/PDSNP Ext. 28208 O
y s
Enclosure L
OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS.
BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION STRUCTURAL AND GEOSCIENCES BRANCH j
CONCRETE MODULE ON (C3-02) - CONSTRUCTION ASSURANCE PROGRAM WNP-3 DOCKET NO. 50-508 I
The final report on Concrete Module (C3-02) for WNP-3 Construction Assurance j
Program, provided by Washington Public Power Supply System is found to be generally acceptable. However our review has identified one observation and l
few findings that need to be noted for the record and potential follow-up 4
by Region V staff. The observation and the findings-follow.
Observations The Concrete Module (C3-02) report describes in Section 6.6.8-the Preservation Program Assessment for the exposed reinforcing steel-at the WNP-3 facility.
The program involves only the monitoring of reinforcernent corrosion with no attempt at any actual preservation. The final reliance in the evaluation of the reinforcing steel, in the event of the continuation'of the project, 1s placed on the evaluation of the corrosion coupons. The second paragraph on page 6-104 states that there is a "possible greater loss of material at the interface of bars and the concrete due to galvanic action associated with a potential difference between the embedded and the exposed portion of the bars." We concur with this observation. Therefore, when the coupon data l
l would be used if the WNP-3 construction is-to restart, it would provide a 1
e
a.
j
' non-conservative estimate of the condition of the reinforcing bars.
This condition would raise a safety concern regarding the condition of the rebars and would necessitate a detailed, examination and evaluation of the rebars.
The resolution of this observation should address the reliability of the coupons data. This could be achieved by evaluation of the coupon data along with documented observations during various field inspections.- However, a procedure and acceptance criteria need to be documented and enforced during the construction stop period. Otherwise, a rebars coating program should be developed, docurnented, and followed to address the identified rebars corrosion concern. The selection of the best concept may involve cost-effective considerations.
FINDINGS:
I 1,
The rebound hammer program yielded acceptable results. The results indicate high margins of safety for the concrete strength.
However, the method of obtaining the correlation, based on the limited data used in the evaluation, raises some questions. The original intent based the correlation on eight concrete cores, with duplicate cores representing two concrete strength levels and two aggregate sources.
The calibration data shown on page 17 of Appendix 3 indicates that only one strength level was evaluated for each aggregate' source and the strength level was not clearly identified. Calibration was accomplished by dividing the
8 p
1 1
}
1
\\ 1 l
I actual strength by the apparent strength determined from the graph on the instrument, the averaging of two such ratios which were found to differ by 17%.
This is considered an unsatisfactory calibration procedure. An adequate calibration curve could have been developed for each aggregate source by using f
all the available data.
In addition, the program is misstated in the Review Team check list CAP-HC-02-25, where it states that only 5,000 psi concrete 1
i l
will be used for the calibration.
J l
As initially stated, all of the rebound tests indicated very high strength
[
concrete. Thus, the calibration deficiencies do not affect the overall conclusions about the adequacy of the concrete at the WNP-3 site.
1
)
2.
Table 6.5-1 which summarizes the compliance with FSAR commitments, points l
out some discrepancies between the FSAR and actual field practice.
For i
example, items 13 and 35 quote the FSAR as contemplating the use of fly ash, i
whereas none was actually used.
Item 16 quotes the FSAR as listing only 4,000 psi and 5,000 psi concrete for use on the project, whereas some 3,000 psi concrete was also used.
1 The fly ash discrepancy is unimportant. Apparently fly ash was permitted in the specifications but not used in the field. The matter of the 3,000 psi concrete should be cleared up to determine if Table 6.5-1 is correct in stating "FSAR is in error." Otherwise, all other items are found to meet the FSAR commitments.
C_________
___m--_
=.
(;
\\
-4.
3.
On page 2-7, paragraph 2.4.1, it is recommended that a random sample of 60 placements of equipment grout be visually inspected and that particular attention be paid to manufacturer's directions for proprietary grout -
products.
It is difficult to imagine how a. visual examination of a completed I
grout placement will shed any light on manufacturer's directions. 'Perhaps' J'
some other details of the evaluation would clarify and resolve this staff concern.
4.
On page 6-96, paragraph 6.6.7, the contention that accurate batching and-recording equipment insure accurate mix proportions is not correct. Accuracy.
of mix proportions depends on accurate batching and. accurate compensation of q
aggregate moisture.
No information is provided as to the accuracy of the moisture compensation in the report. Additional information should resolve this staff concern.
5.
Page 6-35 and Appendix 3, appears to contain an incorrect explanation of the process of' efflorescence. Water moving through concrete dissolves calcium hydroxide.
I When it reaches a surface exposed to air, atmospheric carbon dioxide combines with the calcium hydroxide to form calcium carbonate. A revision of the text would resolve this staff concern.
l l
6.
On pages 2-3 and 2-4, the values in the summary tables do not in all l
'I cases agree with the sum of the individual values.
For example the summary indicates that for personnel qualifications there was a sample size of 207 and L
50 observations of deficiencies. Totaling the results -in paragraphs 6.3.5, 6.3.12, and'6.3.18, the figures are 205 and 48.
4 e
_._mm_m_-mm_.--
t.
5:--
p I
i 7.
In the fourth line of page 5-33 there is a. reference..to Figure 5.2-1,
- which apparently includes a diagram of. the review process. Figure 5.2-1 is.
raiss'ing from' the' report l
?.
.l Dated:, November 9, 1987 NRC Contributor:
F. Rinaldi l
u 9
'l l
q l
)
1 1
"[
a i
l I
l l
- d l
l
.)
{
.q b
s*
I i
),'
,