ML20027E090: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 1,480: | Line 1,480: | ||
20 there is a distinction between a cut 21 HR. LONGLAIS Yes. | 20 there is a distinction between a cut 21 HR. LONGLAIS Yes. | ||
HR. KNIGHT: You show situations where you 22 Do you have any 23 take about half a bar out sometimes. | HR. KNIGHT: You show situations where you 22 Do you have any 23 take about half a bar out sometimes. | ||
( | (((- | ||
24 var to differentiate? ~ | 24 var to differentiate? ~ | ||
HR. LONGLAIS: The nick that I am speaking of 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC. | HR. LONGLAIS: The nick that I am speaking of 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC. | ||
Latest revision as of 07:17, 15 March 2020
| ML20027E090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1982 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A786 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-328 NUDOCS 8211120027 | |
| Download: ML20027E090 (23) | |
Text
3, _:
'_ , .a:..=..-.------'-"-------~~-----"-~~~~~~"~~~~
' ~~^"~ ~~
l
- -1 I
1 1
y
- RESPONSE TO PETITION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLINDIS, IN THE MdTTER OF REINFORCING STEEL D AMAGED DURING THE INSTALLATION OF CORED HOLES AND CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS LASALLE COUNTY, UNITS 1 AND 2 Commonwealth Edison Company Chicago, Illinois A.
g .
March 31, 1982 (C.hJ l
~
!I' 8211120027 820917' PDR FDIA
-
- wb . # !.i STEPTOE82-328 PDR ;
- . . .;-.. - v L . l - u .-..- u. a--.. .. i . . - :.
s _ : .. . = - -.. ~ .
u . :.. - . a s......-..-.....
T ABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pag e No .
1.0 Summary of Allegation 1 2.0 Response to Allegation 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Disposition of Cored Holes 4 2.3 Disposition of Drilled Holes for Concrete 7 Expansion Anchors 3.0 Conclusion 11 O
l 11 O .
. . . . ...-=.......w.........a..
. ~ .- . .
. . . .:. . ..,. . . . . .. - .. -. :s-. u. .
. - . u . . :. . a . x . = . . - . . . . .. . M:.
.. g 1
1.0 Summary of Alleoation ,
,e The Of fice of the Attorney ' General, State o f Illinois, has
-~.
7ji) g brought forward information alleging, "
...that, during the construction of LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2, certain practices related to the drilling of holes in the concrete walls, floors and ceilings of the Units 1 and 2 buildings have created a potentially hazardous condition which, upon the operation of either unit at full power, may be injurious to the public health and safety." The subject petition contends that, as a matter of course, an unknown number of drilled holes, ranging in the order of thousands, were likely to have been cut through the reinforcing steel. The petition, which is based on the affidavit of
@ . .. . .' ' E& indicates that records of these situations were made at the time the alleged practices occurred, and
~
that the practice of drilling through reinforcing steel was discontinued or subjected to the case-by-case approval of
! an engineer some time in late 1979, early 1980. The petition also states that the State of Illinois has no e
information which suggests that any engineering approval was ever obtained from Commonwealth Edison Company's engineering consultant prior to 1980. A second a ffidavit by Mr. Dale Bridenbaugh states that, if the reinforcing
() steel was damaged or severed without
[ .. ._.--..:....__._ ;- -.. .. .:- -
;.m.__..__..;..___.... d" U 2
appropriate structural analysis, and if the drilling
" ...it seems nearly certain that '
practice was wide-spread, some safety related structures...would have been affected."
O e
O e
i V'O) i I
(
p l -- - _. ._.
' ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ '
. y;;L. , __ . . -. :-- ~ d " n "- '-~"~ ~
3 l a
2.0 Response to Allegation 2.1 Introduction ,
() , Commonwealth Edison Company, throughout the course of the LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2 construction, has controlled the drilling through concrete for either cored holes or the installation of concrete expansion anchors via appropriate quality control procedures and has documented and assessed reinforcing steel reported as having been contacted (hit or cut) during this operation.
A distinction is made between a cored hole and a hole
~
drilled in the concrete for the installation of a concrete expansion anchor. A cored hole is one in which (a) the O hole passes completely through the concrete element to allow for the passage of a mechanical or electrical component, such as a pipe or electrical conduit, or (b) the hole penetrates only partially into the concrete element, and in which an anchor bolt is set and grouted. A cared hole is typically 3" in diameter or larger. Holes drilled for the installation of concrete expansion anchors, on the other hand, vary from 1/4" in diameter to 1" in diameter, with the corresponding hole depth varying from 1-1/4" to 8".
Holes drilled for concrete expansion anchors do not pass completely through the concrete element.
([)
-l . a<?
d.$lk V.. '%'
L
' c 1. ,.. O . a ~
- a a*% -
4 .
2.2 Disposition of Cored Holes 2.2.1 Cored Holes Passino thru Concrete Elements
({} The need for cored holes is determined in either the initial design phase during the routing of mechanical and
- electrical components, or by the contractor in the case of field routed electrical and mechanical components. In the o
first situation, the cored holes are located on the structural design drawings, and a conservative structural assessment is made by Sargent & Lundy for Commonwealth Edison Company of the effects of the removal or damage to reinforcing steel due to the installation of the cored hole. This assessment is made prior to the release of the drawings and the coring of the hole. In the second situation, the contractor is required to submit a Field
- . Change Request (FOR), requesting permission to install a cared hole for field routed components prior to the coring operation. Commonwealth Edison Company, on the
. recommendation of Sargent & Lundy, approves this request only after a structural assessment has been made of the effects of reinforcing steel which may be removed or
. damaged during this operatie . These cored holes are subsequently indicated on the structrual design drawings.
It should be emphasized that, in both these situations, engineering approval is obtained prior to cutting the
(])
reinforcing steel. Where the engineering assessment has determined that it is not permissible to cut or damage e
a .=- : 1 . . --. . ' . . - . . -. . . --. . . . :. . . .
- .,..- . : . m .. . . . . . . . ~. .. . : -
5 reinforcing steel during installation of cored holes, this requirement has been specified on the appropriate -
{[) structural design drawing. The following are some examples of this situation:
A. General Note No. 44 on Drawing No. S-199 states that, t
"For cored holes marked E, less than 8" diameter, use metal detector to locate existing reinforcing prior to core drilling. In case of interferrence with rebar, holes may be cored in alternate location within 1 3 "
radius from location shown on drawing."
l B. Drawing No. S-213, concerning the Reactor Building I
O floor framing plan at Elevation. 761'-0", Note 11 requires the use of metal detectors to avoid cutting of -
reinforcing steel in this area.
2.2.2 Cored Holes for Grouted Anchor Bolts Cored Holes for grouted anchor bolts are indicated on either the mechanical or structural design drawings.
Grouted anchor bolts are utilized primarily to anchor equipment foundations or pipe support baseplates to .
([j concrete elements. These cored holes are, likewise, reviewed by the consulting engineer. This review consists of an assessment of the effects of the reinforcing steel
- ' .;._a...e........ -.-- ...- ... ...-
~
a..., ....:...-. .,....:. :. ...:...: .... ....
6 likely to be damaged due to the installation of the cored hole. .
O The installation of cored holes for the support of pipe support baseplate assemblies essentially commenced during the summer of 1980. Mechanical Drawing No. M-1100, Sheet 23, issued in January,1980, controls the coring of holes for these baseplate assemblies, and requires that the concrete be carefully notched to expose the reinforcing steel in both directions prior to coring the hole, to avoid damage to the reinforcing steel.
The location of the cored holes for the installation of grouted equipment anchor bolts are plotted and located on a separate set of structural design drawings for the purpose of assessing the effects of reinforcing steel likely to be damaged in the coring operatinn. The structural assessment has determined that the structural integrity of the concrete elements has not be,en impaired by the coring operation for grouted anchor bolts for mechanical equipment foundations. .
w. . . - ..-
L' u ....'. . = :- -s L.. . ' . - . . :-
7 2.3 Disposition of Drilled Holes for Concrete Expansion Anchors The drilling of holes for concrete expansion anchors is
() controlled by Form LS-CEA. This form was initially issueo in September,1976, and contained the following strict provisions for the protection of the reinforcing steel:
A. During the installation of concrete expansion anchors, drilling through concrete reinforcement will not be permitted. For nuclear safety related work, contractor shall use a deep magnetic detector to locate the reinforcement in concrete.
B. For all anchors in a connection, drill holes Into the concrete with carbide tip. ped solid masonry bits.
(Carbide tipped solid masonry bits are not capable of drilling through reinforcing steel. These bits can l
produce only a shallow, 1/16" deep, smooth and well rounded depression in the reinforcing steel).
l- Concrete expansion anchors shall not be used for any l
C.
'- other work without prior approval of the Consulting .
Engineers.
Th Form LS-CEA, Revision 1, was issued on December 7,1976.
(L7 This revision relaxed the requirements for the use of the metal detector in non-critical areas, based upon a structural assessment performed by Sargent & Lundy for G .
..g La . p .w * ? a. w s. w . ~ . -- -- -- c. i -~~-- a-- - A~ - ' ~
., 8 ,
Commonwealth Edison Company. Specific guidelines were F
i given, defining these areas,' and required that ,the ;
~
(]) consulting engineers be notified of all cases in which a 4
reinforcing bar was. cut or nicked where a metal detector was required to be used. Sargent & Lundy has reviewed for Commonwealth Edison Company the damaged reinforcing steel reports submitted by the contractors in accordance 'with this requirement, and has determined that the structural integrity of the nuclear safety related structures has not been impaired.
~
Revision 2 to Form LS-CEA was issued on November 29f 1978, '
However, it did not alter the reinforcing steel control O provisions of Revision 1. 4 l
Revision 3 to Form' LS-CEA was issued on July 20, 1979.
This revision incorporated a standard form for reporting cut or nicked reinforcing steel during the in tallation of concrete expansion anchors. In addition, the contractor was also required to document the location of nicked
. reinforcing steel in those non-critical areas in which a .
metal detector was not required. The contractor was also permitted to cut one reinforcing bar injthese non-critical t
i=> .
(EJ areas, the extent of such area. being defined by the spacing
~
of the reinforcing steel. Additional requirements were also given to the contractor to permit him flexibility 1
l 1
--. ' h- . 1.'. w -.: .- a...-- .---- .-- :.. : : : . . . : A 2-. a : . -.. .. . . -- a- --. - - . - . -- . : . -
a 9
in relocating concrete expansion holes when reinforcing F
steel was encountered. -
Revision 4 to Form LS-CEA was issued on September 7,1979.
3 This revision dif ferentiated. The documentation of the -
installation and inspection requirements by the following categories:
(a) Safety related work in safety related areas (complete documentation of installation & testing was required)
(b) Non-safety related work in safety related areas (documentation of inspection was waived).
(c) Non-safety related work in non-safety related areas (most documentation waived, cutting of rebar not l
O permitted.)
l Revisions 5, 6, and 7 to Form LS-CEA were issued on December 10, 1979, February 13, 1980, and October 27, l - respectively. However, these revisions did not alter the reinforcing steel control provisions of Revision 4.
lO 0
During the period 1978 through 1981, Commonwealth Edison Company conducted extensive investigations to determine the l
effect on reinforcing steel which is nicked during the (j) installation of concrete expansion anchors. These investigations conclusively demonstrate that reinforcing steel, nicked by a carbide tipped drill bit during the installation of concrete expansion anchors, does not impair
- - _ w . u. . 2 - . : _ ..:. :. .a za - :._ .u 10
- the structural integrity of reinforced concrete elements.
This conclusion was based upon both laboratory testing and r% analytical assessment. Form LS-CEA, Revision 8, was C/
subsequently issued on May 13, 1981, deleting the e
requirements for reporting of nicked reinforcing steel, i
?
,O i
e 4
9 Q) ,\
,e
~
' w _ : . w . . ~ .i'~
- ~
'.-..-'a-- - ----- A 2 N "-- A 11 3.0 Conclusion F
In summary, the drilling operations performed at LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2, has not degraded the safety margins
(})
of safety related structures, and has not violated the
, . quality requirements imposed by the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation,10CFR, Part 50, Appendix A, General Design i
Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, and Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants. Commonwealth Edison Company has implemented appropriate procedures to control reinforcing steel damage and exercised sound engineering judgement and due precaution with regard to the drilling of concrete for cored holes and holes for the installation of concrete G". expansion anchors.
i a
l O
3762N
~~ ~ ~
p:n _........a.-..a. M 2-;
- - = A *--'=" "'"" '**~ ~ ~ ' '
. t >fN/05
' March 30, 1982 ,
OFF-GAS BUILDING ROOF REPORT r%
E PURPOSE i
The purpose of the report is to present information regarding the second allegation (Page 6, Request to Institute a Show Cause Proceeding and for other Relief - Tyrone Fahner, Attorney General of the State of Illinois) on the Of f-Gas Building roof.
BACKGROUND The concrete enclosure above grade as part of the Off-Gas i Building is a non-safety related structure which houses Of f-Gas
( Building HVAC Air Handling Units, HVAC Water Cooled Condensing Units, HVAC Exhaust Filter Units, HVAC Control Panels and associated i
motor control centers and switchgear. The specification concrete While detailed quality compressive strength is 4000 psi at 90 days.
assurance requirements were not required due to the building being non-safety related, they were applied as part of the overall Commonwealth Edison /Walsh Construction Company quality effort.
FINDINGS The Off-Gas Building enclosure concrete (walls and roof) was poured on November 7,1975. Walsh Construction Company (WCC)
Q.C. Form .QCP-9A (Pour Checkout Card) was signed by the appropriate construction and Q.C. personnel and countersigned by a Commonwealth l Edison Company Field Engineer. Additionally, WCC Q.C. Forms
! QCP-6A(Reinforcing Steel Placement Audit) and QCP-9B(Concrete Placement Control Audit Form) were utilized and signed by WCC Q.C.
! personnel. Concrete testing during the pour by A&H Engineering Corporation showed the concrete was within specification requirements for slump, air content and placing temperature. The concrete met compressive strength requirements, the lowest cylinder break was 4670 psi at 90 days.
On September 25, 1979, Commonwealth Edison Company Quality Assurance pointed out some surface cracking in the bottom of the Off= Gas Building roof. The area had a high density of concrete expansion anchors. An inspection performed by WCC Q. A. Supervisor, WCC General Superintendant and CECO. Structural Engineer found the cracking to be surface in nature and no futher action was required.
A temporary construction power center transformer and l(]).
i switchgear were set on the roof in 1976. The unit weighed approximately 6700 pounds. The unit was set over a concrete beam in the longitudual direction and one end rested on the east concrete wall. A check was made to , insure the roof would take the unit loading prior to installation. The unit was removed in late 1981 as it was no longer required.
BIO /l d# m . _
~
--.-- - - . . u .: . - . :.: .~L. . . .. . . \ - .- : --.. :1:.: 2.
. ,s ,
F The slab thickness has been checked on two different occasions. On March 10,1982 a sin 01e point check showed the slab as l' - 2 1/4" thick including roofing material. Roofing material
(}) is approximately 1-3/4" - 2" thick. Additional slab thickness checks were made on March 29, 1982. Fifteen (15) points checks showed the slab plus roofing material varied from l' 5/8" to l' 3/4". A check made effectively eliminating the roofing material showed the slab thickness varied from 11-1/4" to l'- 1-1/4".
A visual survey of the roof underside was made by WCC Q. A.
and CECO. on March 27, 1982. The survey showed no abnormal concrete cracking. The area under the former electrical equipment showed no abnormal concrete cracking.
SUMMARY
The Off-Gas Building roof concrete is 12 inches thick per specifications. There is no abnormal concrete cracking due to concrete expansion anchors and/or the electrical equipment formerly placed there. The roof will serve its' intended function. ~
lC .
O I
l l
3759N
- - - - . - - - . . , m - ,
- - - a -
.w :... > - .. .. L ...--..a. *. a ..-.. :.s -
.....e.-..-.... -..- z.5 w! '
- c,Al.) I TYPES OF CORED HOLES A. Holes passing through concrete element to allow for passage of an electrical or mechanical component.
] -
Np-Pipe or Conduit, etc.
e 4e 4
C D = 2" to 16" B. Holes partially penetrating a concrete element for a grouted anchor bolt.
Grout g 's r Anchor Bolt
\ ! v
. . ._ g i ,
-' T.'
0: '- '
.s A
. f
- l. l 1
D=3" DRILLED HOLES FOR CONCREi'E EXPANSION ANCHORS C oncrete C Expansion Anchor -
. , 1.2 , _
e 9_
O e _
(;. .
m Aic(z I v' g f/lb b ' %, e D = 1/4 " to 1" r A
~ '
- _ .?.
. - h $ . '. -. O - . .. L
- Ed.f.-/-2.
~
SUiMANY"0F ENGi N'EERING' PEVI EW"d'F"CDiiED" hoi.ES I THE LOCATION OF ALL CORED HOLES PASSING THRU CONCRETE ELEMENTS FOR OFFICE ROUTED COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF. THE DRAWINGS, AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT IS MADE OF THE EFFECTS OF THE
. REINFORCING STEEL LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED BY THE CORING OPERATION. THIS ASSESSMENT HAS CONSISTED OF ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT BASED UPON THE STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENTS IN RELATION TO THE LOCATION OF THE CORED HOLE.
II CORED HOLES FOR FIELD ROUTED COMPONENTS ARE REQUESTED BY THE CONTRACTOR VIA A FIELD CHANGE REQUEST (FCR).AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT, SIMILAR TO THAT PERFORMED FOR OFFICE ROUTED COMPONfNTS, IS MADE PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FCit THE LOCATION OF THESE CORED HOLES ARE ,-
{ SUBSEQUENTLY INDICATED ON THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN DRAWINGS.
III SUBSEQUENT D'ETAILED CALCULATIONS RECENTLY PERFORMED FOR A SAMPLE OF CORED HOLES HAVE SUBSTANTI ATED THAT ENGINEERING JUDGEMENTWASAPPROPRIATN.
IV CORED HOLES FOR EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION AND PIPE SUPPORT BASEPLATE ASSEMBLIES ARE INDICATED ON THE MECHANICAL ,
DESIGN DRAWINGS.
A. THE CORING OF HOLES FOR PIPE SUPPORT BASEPLATE ASSEMBLI ES, WHICH COMMENCED IN THE SUMMER OF 1980, WAS CONTROLLED BY DRAWING NO. M-1100, SHEET 23, WHICH REQUESTED THAT THE CONCRETE BE NOTCHED TO EXPOSE THE REINFORCING STEEL TO AVOID REBAR DAMAGE. THIS
'~
REQUIREMENT PRECLUDED ANY REBAR' DAMAGE.
l l A to/3 .
1 l
L- ..--2....... -
. . T . ;. .~.._ .' u ; ~_ . _ . . .
_ , _ _ _ _ _ . e' 1
~
'. G I,. 4. J s
- 3. CORED HOLES FOR EQUIPMENT FOUNDATION ANCHOR BOLTS ARE PLOTTED ON THE RHS DRAWINGS. AN ASSESSMENT BASED UPON ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE REINFORCING STEEL LIKELY TO BE DAMAGED BY THE CORING OPERATION IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENTS.
e O .
S l
~
?
l 1
l ..
.m
+
c.
= . ...._ ._ . .- ~-.-...+-.---.-------'-
= .. e
[+'kab,l4 SU'MhARY DF ENGINE' ERIN'G" REVIEW' UF
~
DR'IE L'E'b ROE.E5 'FDR"CO (CREiE"ExFANS'IDN AtlCHO'RS C ~
I ENGINEERING CONTROL ON,REINFORbING STE'EL DAMkGED DURING
~
CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHOR INSTALLATION IS INITIALLY ,
EXERCISED VIA FORM LS-CEA, WHICH:
.A. DEFINES, AREAS IN WH,ICH, A, METAL,DETEC,TOR MUST BE USED TO AVOID REINFORCIN,G STEEL DAMAGE, AND REQUIRES THE CON,RACTOR.TO T OBTAIN, ENGINE,ER,1NG, APPROVAL PRIOR TO
. CUTTING A, B,AR AND TO SUBSEQUENTLY REPORT THIS OCCURRENCE.
- 3. PROHIBITSTHEUSEOFCbNCRdTE,EXPANS, ION, ANCHORS ,
WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CONSULTING ENGINEER.
- g. '
.C'.' DEFINES AREAN ,IN ,WHIbH CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS MAY NdT BE INSTALL,ED WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC APPROVAL
~
OF.THE CONSULTING ~ ENGINEER.
INITI AL ENGINEERING. R,EVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF DAMAGED l .
II REINFORCING STEEL REPORTS' SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR .
A. INDIVIDUAL DAMAGED.REBAR REFORTS WHICH ARE SUBMITTED ARE REVIEWED BY THE CONSULTING ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE IMMEDI ATE, LOCAL, IMPACT OF THE DAMAGED BAR. THIS
- REVIEW, IN MOST INSTANCES, CONSISTS OF ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT BASED UPON THE EXISTING STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCRETE ELEMENT.
09' B. THE REBAR DAMAGE REPORTS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY LOGGED IN, INDEXED AND PLOTTED ON A SEPARATE SET OF STRUCTURAL
" DRAWINGS (RHS DRAWINGS) .
A/0 /+ .
1
)
- .... :.:--. a . '
i.
L ._
'
- T
{% ko beh. 6
.: ?S.5 -
o .,.-
September 30,197g 9.cs. .. .v o. . .u.,.~2, . R_cy.r. 3. 7-20-79 I
. g tren o
- z,, .i a.r. ti e 1 -
I
. F -t 4
- c = u n w ,
u
- W..._. .'-
M_ ,!4 -
stem a.o re .41c=.v.
Ml - ts O -.
- '*.-4
-c
~ "~
- H
. , , . . . '~* ,f$.
.'
- r M N matal estector g,
e I, :... , . ,
.i.:i*Q.gs;t, *A .'f +%.*1'; s .. ,.q ~
_' ,y, *y
- ' . j V .
y y e- -
,h3 g, g . g ,,,g,,, ...
h -l I-; .I e - 6. #
,gt i. . sw ,,a sp P
su .
ggQl l
. .g s'-o- L .- 2. o 7.ta wsus.4 3 sj '.;;q _
3 -
di ll l m=. *** ** l (
w .c ir> l[ lo w .., .ia wiow -
- > s.yI w
- ,.. -r. .;gg,.u,N:n,499
' ~
2.
~ >.y ' a.eM - - 1
.=,... ,, h< lI, ,
i .14 4 i - _ _
1 m.a.
7.*.r.s - --
, to. .
L. [L L.-
O
. 'O f
' .* . , s 4 - .
=~ . ,
a Ver 5.am tf1ith p1 t
I
- I -- "
l l m' 1, d 2 h $ p.e. 3 r- ,
3'-0* the ariterta ,
- 8La ,oa L > 2La - S.e het. 2 ,
in Figer. 36-6 sh.11 & = La 3 .
% be fellowed. (typ.) ' Ints
.
- _ TU9 , TAN ,
l, .
-4 4 3 ,
~34. \
~
. w. r I s
$' ' *}q .a'. # - ="~ ~ ~ ~~~= -~~ ~ p3ek*, 4 ld I - -
Q. ; ; :,4E , ;,-
.j p 10*-C" tita. _ -l .
I
- i. <
8,.,, A' I r i
- yggy 6{
- _ -i
. M'.
. - *t s . .,v l I ,
. .o
- s' . 3.#* .$
3** ** g, - . , . <
3 * <
d*,Uk:3- bdN5a+ a j . -
u !. -
- j 2
- I I -- g ..
- ? -
. 4_y --
I f.r %
=
i ),7,*, ,
i I I I l e i I -1 t'Ut t e 2ta - s.. wet. 3 lS Id. l
- * $ 'I 41 . Itn l
m t ,s . - .... <
su .
%- t - t. -
L .- 3,-= run l
i O=
qQ -
s plan (for etel,s.st.
4 m, 7' AJetstraal . ... 1 e setsforelag u. s
]rm 3
1
- C gg-
~._
/-
w_ --
=
4,
- n
- s ,, .
a.
!?
b
. . a m I,l .
.p i .,
v ,n,, .
oe f 1
.i 4
,n..
i
........ur .e .,r ,.*
. . 3 ., .
o .1-
- g. .
e- . .,.,
1 .
y
+
l ..,
- t. __ _ _ __.__, ,, ,,_n. ., .. . - ,
2- ..
e p%,
.4, ..; . ,%. .. - . .
! A w .r -
g.~-
vt St.ati nos res essutec or mates ros rur_a s 2=2ges to rou ar . .
. e
=. --.-.
. . _ _ . .p.,
(Y
- [ ',e b . $ , 0 III FINAL ENGINEERING REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF DAMAGED -
REINFORCING STEEL TH.E ASSESSMENT OF kbE Oh,ER,kLb 'EFFhCks, OF, T, HE A A,
OF DAMAGED REINFORCING STEEL OCCURS DURING THE '
LOAD CHECK [ JUST PRIOR TO 'INIkl ( FUEL (OAD -
E B. THIS, REVIEW HAS CONSISTED.0,F
,NGI,NEERING JUDGEMEN BASED UPON THE FINAL STRESS LEVELS IN THE CONCR
- E(EMENTS WITH RESPhCT ko TbE (OC kION OF THE '
REBAR,. D,ET, A,ILEDL CALCU, A,TIONS WERb, NOT WAR
'- TO THE RANDOM DISTRIBUTION '0F THE DAMAGED RE STEhb IN .THE S.AFE.Th. reb. T.hD. AhtEA.S. 'C REC,ENTLY PERFORMED IN RESPONSE TO THE PETITION HA 4
SUBSTANTIATED THAT ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT WA 0.
~
O
- P
- O . .
O .
O
- A g o/t, l ,
- .
- 4
o e &449 7 .
f g ,
_ Margins in Sample Areas with Congested Rebar Hits for ,
N
- 4 LaSalle County, Unit 1 Table 3-1 No. of Ra tio N
- Of ' Margin Margin 7ea Building Slab / Wall Elevation Wall Location or Damaged Cored 4o. (Panel Size) Slab Panel No. Rebar Without With Margin With Holes Holes Locations Holes Holes Margin Without Ho,les '[l-Reactor Wall Above Diagonal Wall at I 19.67'x56' 673'-4" Col .' C & 14 5 2 1.25 1.05 1.19 (S-2 01 )
56" Slab between -
2 ,$$) 740'-0" to & H,11-2 31 0 2.24 1.23 1.02 12'.5' 32'-
Reactor Beam 786i-6 Beam at Line 14 3
3'x24.5' between Co,1. D & E 1 0 3.55 3.13 1.13 ;.
(S-215)
- i Slab 719 2~ 1 1.71 1.36 1.26 .'.
Reactor 820'-6" 4 10'x26' IRS .
(S-219) Each Slab 720 5 0 1.88 1.50 1.25 '!
Reactor Wall Above Between 11 & 13 i 5 12 1 2.16 1.27 1.70 (S-21 9) 14.7'x33' 820'-6" & Col . J & G .,.
Between !
Reactor Wall 673'-0" Col. Row J 3.00 0
(S-223), 21.2 'x27 ' & between 14 & 15 19 2 4.00 1,.33 g.,
694'-6" ,
e
. .I i;
/7(o/7 .
7 1 Reactor Q(S-237)
.Wa11 p.4.17,x28, 673'-0" Row 15 O9 0 2.85 2.53 O- 1.13 l 1
4 694'-68
. .f I
Between 8
Reactor Wall 673'-4" At Line 8 - 9 6 0 1*73 1*34 1*29 (S-274) 19.17'x27' & between Col. J & G 694'-6" );, ;
9 Auxiliary Wall Above At Line 11 - 3 9 0 1.34 1.22 1.10 (S-572) 18'x25' 7 31 '- 0 " running [
1; call these bar damages are in top of slab scattered in the entire bay, i~
sk, b. 4 8 c Table 3-l'(Contin 0ed) -
l
i.
I l
[
i.
Am/7
I l'
ON r
g
~
~
A
[a
'@ l g ,
,] y
(. .. .
n
. In de Pn e ef: :
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COIGANY :
- DOCKET NOS.
LaSalle County Nuclear , :
50-373 and 50-374 Generating Station, Unit 1 :
and Unit 2 :
March 31, 1982 CA*I: ?AGT.S: 1 - 77' AT: Bethesda, Maryland
/
( /
(,/
AEDERSOX l' REPORTLTG t qS/ '/ f.
b f 400 vir7 -4a Ave., S .W.
4 Washing :n , D. C. 20024
\-
Telechene : (202) 554-2345 k- )
N.u I ::. .&
- .._ _: w . _ - ~ :. ....-.. u :: :.:..a.:.:.-w.. Q --.- 2. .
~
~ b n a _.: s ..... : . a s
1 f
. 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
&:.g*
2 NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION ,
3 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ _ _ _x 4 In the Hatter of a 5 COBHONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : Docket Nos. 50-373 6 LaSalle Coun ty Nuclear a and 7 Generating Station, Unit 1 a 50-374 8 and Unit 2 a 3 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 10 Room P-422, 11 7920 Norfolk Avenue, -
12 Bethesda, Maryland.
13 Wednesday, March 31, 1982.
l( ) 14 The meeting in the above-entitled matter was 15 convened at 1:03 p.m., when were presenta 16 APPEARANCES:
17 H. Denton .
18 R. Purple 19 A. Bournia I 20 R. Tedesco l
21 A. Schwencer 22 C. Norelius l 23 C. Williams
/ 24 B. Shoemaker
(?)
s 25 R. Hoefling
,O l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
l t
2 1 APPEARANCES (continued):
2 P. T. Kuo 3 S. P. Chan '
(R)' 4 R. E. Lipinski 5 J. Bigley 6 B. Lee 7 L. Delgeorge 8 N. Hiller 9 P. Steptoe 10 D. Shamblin 11 T. Quaka 12 K. Kostal ,
13 Y. Reklactis hl) 14 C. Schroeder 15 E. Norris 16 T. Longlais 17 ,J. Goodie 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. _. u w . - .. . .- .: . -- - s - - -- - - -- -
3 p 1 ZE9EZIDIEEE
- s. ' (1:03 p.s.)
2 Let m,e thank you for attending 3 HR. DENTONS 7 .
- 4 this meeting on such short notice and tell you what I 5 vould like to do. I vaat to call your attention to the 6 f act that a transcript is being taken. We vill provide 7 a transcript to the various parties. The reason I am 8 taking a transcript is to facilitate our review of this 9 inf ormation . So we vill assume that whatever we hear 10 from the company today is valid information and we can 11 use it in doing our review of this issue, un16ss you 12 choose to modify the information you present herw
. 13 today, h 14 I received a petition from the Attorney 15 General of the State of Illinois dated Harch 24th, 16 requesting that we initiate a show cause proceeding and 17 initiate other relief because of some circumstances 18 alleged at laSalle . There are two types of problems 19 that the petition is concerned with. One is the boring 20 of holes through important valls in the building or 21 either partially the way through, and the other is with 22 regard to the adequacy of the roof design on the off-gas 23 building.
we We have made a cursory examination of what h 24 these issues and have talked to the Region 25 know about O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
- u. . . ; .. . .u -
.- . u A :- .
.-.. . . : .:. .. . - --.- . n -r .:~. . . ~ . .
- u 1 regarding their knowledge of these issues. What I would i])
2 like to do today is to give the company an opportunity F 3 to explai,n its position on'the matters of concern.
i( -
4 One reason for not just noticing this for 30 5 days and going with our normal pace in these matters is 6 the pendancy of the completion of the plant and its 7 readiness for an OL review. We have been meeting with 8 the company quite extensively over the last few months 9 in anticipation that the plant would be finished in the to near future. I understand it may be finished in the 11 next week or so.
12 So the kind of information that we would be 13 interested in hearing about today, if you have it 14 available, relate to the number of holes drilled, the 15 size of the holes including the depth of penetration, 16 your procedures for mapping the holes that get rebars, 17 tendons, liners, on the general layout drawings, 18 describe the condition of the damage that you might have 19 expected .to have occurred in each case; namely, with a 20 rebar cut, partially cut, was the concrete cracked.
21 We vill also be interested in the load 22 conditions that exist in these vall panels that are 23 aff ected by the holes. We would be interested in where 24 the rebar reinforcement is placed in these valls where (3) 25 the holes have been drilled. We vill also want to hear ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~~ ~~
__..._.a+---"*'~~"~""
5 j
1 about the procedures and acceptance standards that you
} 2 have issued to the drilling crews and the field -
3 engineerings, including the dates for when these And most importantly, I 4 procedures were implemented.
5 vant to understand your methodology and techniques for 6 evaluating the safety significance of any such 7 penetrations drilled through valls.
8 let's see, Bob, any other points I should 9 cover at the beginning here?
HR. PURPLES Well, we would want similar 10 11 inf ormation on the design questions rela ting to the roof 12 of the off-gas building. We are not involved with the 13 drilling of holes, but the questions of the thickness in 14 its design. .
HR. DENTONs With that introduction then, let 15 16 me go around the room and make sure we all know who is Why don't 17 attending here. I am Harold Denton from NRR.
18 ve turn to the right?
MS. GOODIE I as Judith Goodie, Assistant 13 20 A ttorney General of I111no5.s.
Anthony Bournia, from NRR.
21 MR. BOURNIA:
Al Schwencer, from NRR.
22 ER. SCHWENCER:
Chuck Norelius, Region 3.
23 HR. NORELIUSs MR. KNIGHTa Jim Knight, NRR.
h 24 HR. PURPLE:
Bob Pi2rple , NRR.
25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, A v1RGINIA AVE. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.;.s : c . . - . ... a - -- ::. . L-- .
..a....- . ., . ... : -.::. ; . . ~ .:,
y.L, 6
1 HR. HDEFLING: Dick Hoefling, counsel for the 2 Staff. P 3 MR. LEE: Byron Lee, Commonwealth Edison.
D ER. DELGEORGE Lou Delgeorge, Commonwealth 4
5 Edison.
ER. LONGLAISa Tom Longlais, Sargeant C Lundy.
6 HB. STEPT0Es Philip Steptoe, Isham, Lincoln E 7
8 Beale.
9 HR. MILLERS Bike Hiller, Isham, Lincoln E 10 Beale, for Commonwealth Edison.
NR. BIGLEY: Jack Bigley, NRC staff.
11 ER. SHOEHAKER: Bob Shoemaker, IE.
12 ER. WILLIAMSs Cordell Williams, Region 3.
13 NR. KUO Jim Kuo, NRR.
15 HR. LIPINSKIs Ron Lipinski, NRR.
16 HR. SHAMBLIN Dan Shamblin, Commonwealth 17 18 Edison.
ER. QU AK A Tom Quaka, Commonwealth Edison. .
19 HR. KOSTALs Ken kostal, Sargeant E Lundy.
20 ER. REKLACTISs V. Reklactis, Sargeant E Landy.
21 HR. SCHROEDER:
Chuck Schroeder, Commonwealth 22 23 Edison.
HR. HORRISs Mike Morris, Commonwealth Edison.
h 24 MR. DENTONa With 'that introduction, Byron, 25 O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
NN#00iN@ TON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.......-.......-..u.....:...
O 1 why don't I turn it ov'er to you to tell us what you knov , , 2 about these issues, and let me point out that we are y 3 pleased to have Ms. Geodie here, and I will provide yot 41 4 an opportunity to comment at some periodic intervals but 5 figure that you are mainly here as an observer. 6 NS. GOODIES I understand that. 7 ER. DENTONa And don't feel that we vill 8 expect you to contribute directly more than you have 9 done in raising the issues in the petition. ER. LEES Thank you. We do, too, also 10
~~
11 appreciate the holding of this meeting on short notice, 12 but we agree that it is absolutely necessary. I would 13 start by saying that we are deeply concerned about the , 14 potential delay of low power licensing of LaSalle Unit 15 1, especially based on a single construction worker's And even reading 16 allegation of some possible concerns. 17 the affidavit, it is pretty much an indication that 18 there were f airly decent controls in place in marking 19 and so forth. 20 We are concerned that the Attorney General's to us with this issue as they have 21 office did not come 22 done with several other technical issues in the past, We
. 23 and we have been able to resolve those issues.
24 continue to believe that our practices and our control () 25 of engineering and construction at LaSalle County are (b . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, ( Md VIRGIN 1A A%L S.W. WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
' ~ ' ' " ' '
~'----~~~'~~~~~~ " " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - -
^
_ ...: ...:.. ...a. ......-o- - - ~ - - - 8 1 excellent. We have had many discussions in the last fev
} 2 months with you on that issue with NRR ane with Regicn 3 3, and we think that all of .that has pretty much 3 I think that # 4 indicated that we have had good records.
5 vhat we vill tell you today will just support and 6 substantiste thst even further, as we are now into some 7 details. 8 One of our other major concerns is the 9 diversion of some key people, both ours and yours, from 10 the major effort that we have all been at f or the last . . 11 several months. This does have some significant impacts We do,need 12 on our customers and on our stockholders. 13 laSalle County Unit 1 for capacity. It is not an excess h 14 capacity unit that we are building just because we want . 15 to complete it. l So it is important to us in that respect. And 16 17 of course, it is always important to our customers and 18 stockholders to finish. Even our own Illinois Comnerce As a result, we 19 Commission has reached that decision. 20 do ask for a quick review and resolution of the And we do appreciate your getting into it so 21 problem. 1 22 quickly. 23 In any event, I think that after today we can 24 hopefully give you enough of an indication to show you [.'.vs ' 25 tha t there is absolutely no rvason for interrupting the ,O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.(NC. 400 VIRGtNtA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. : . .. .u . . . . . s - . . . .: n a . . :.s..-...._ - :- ... .- .
9 1 issuance of a low power license and th e te s ting (() 2 process. So with that, I would like to ask lou 7 3 Delgeorge, who is our Director of licensing who has been
@ 4 deeply involved in the LaSalle County project for quite 5 a few years, to kind of narrate and handle our 6 presentation.
7 HR. DELGEORGEs Whar I would like to do is 8 review the allegations presented in the petition as we 9 understand them, stating the facts and the inforr.ation 10 ve have which we think will resolve the concerns that 11 have been raised in your mind. 12 I would like to start with the questions 13 raised relative to the off-gas building because we feel 14 that to be a less complicated issue that can be more 15 easily dispositioned. 16 First, there is an allegation that the roof 17 thickness is eig'ht inches as opposed to the 12 inch 18 design thickness. I would like to say at the outset 1g that although this building is a non-safety related 20 building containing no safe'ty-related equipment and not 21 requiring the implementation of our quality assurance 22 program, we did in f act apply our quality assurance 23 program to the construction of this building, which has () 24 given us greater confidence in the accuracy of the 25 information that we vill be 'providing to you. O - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, - - _ = _ 6(2L'$MN8TM D.C. 20024 6202) 554-2345
& ..--.....~..:.........~-_~...- ~
' 10 1
As a result of our receipt of the petition we the thickness of the 2 made a survey specific to verifying , 3 slab in question. This was done within the last week. slab thickness and 4 We took 15 measurements of that 5 determined that the average thickness of the slab was Of the measured 6 slightly greater than 12 inches. 1/4 inches. This 7 thicknesses, the lowest value was 11 8 measure was taken in what we believe to be an area of a 9 floor drain on the slab roof and can be justified on
- 10 that basis.
the 11 We have no reason to believe that 12 thicknesses that we have measured and the thickness of with the design requirement 13 that slab is not consistent kb 14 f or the off-gas building roof. The second allegation that was made -- 15 Can we discuss that one just a 16 HR. DENTON: I have forgotten how big this roof is. We 17 bit ? i Is 18 described it as the roof of the off-gas build ng. building? 19 there a separate building called the off-gas
' we 20 Can you characterize the size of the roof that 21 discussed?
MR. DELGEORGEs I will call on Dan Shamblin 22 23 from our site construction staff. My name is Dan Shamblin, I work MB. SHAMBLINs f* 24 I guess the (> 25 at the LaSalle Commonwealth station. ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY.INC. 5
=
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 234
a_2._.w.; . . m . . _ _ - . _ ;_ - s....= [; ---t u.2 a.... . u. . ._. : .
- a. a
- 11 1 simplest way to show you this is with this picture -
2 here. This is the roof we are talking about here for 3 this concrete enclosure (in' dica ting) . It is roughly G 4 dimension-vise, it is roughly 34 feet by 75 feet. 5 MB. PUBPLE: Lou, one part of the allegation I 6 did not hear you . address was transformers sitting on the 7 roof and cracks through the -- 8 ER. DELGEORGE: I am just going to get to 9 that. 10 BR. PUBPLEs I see, okay. 11 ER. DENTON 'Do you think there is any 12 confusion in nomenclature that the allegation should not 13 be read narrowly. to be the off-gas building? Have you h 14 read the whole text? Do you think you have identified 15 the roof they had in mind? 1R. DELGEORGEs I will ask for any comments 16 17 from our staff if they disagree with what I am about to 18 say, but there is no inf ormation contained in the 19 affidavits presented in the petition from which we can 20' conclude that any slab othe'r than the off-gas building i 21 roof is the slab in question. And I am not aware of any additional 22 23 information that may have come to our attention that 24 vould suggest some other slab being involved. () MR. DENTON: Have'you had this allegation 25 { ALDERSoN REPoRDNG COMPANY.INC. 554-23'45
._, ._ u .....>...:.
. ... :.-. - - - - + - - = - - = - ' - - - ' ' ' ~"" '
" ~ ' " ' * * ~
. . 12 1, called to your. attention before?
2 HR. DELGEORGE: Sir, it is my understanding 3 that until the issue was raised through the attorney O 4 general's of fice tha t we were not aware, cf this 5 potential deficiency. 6 HR. DENTON: Let me ask the regional 7 representatives if they would like to ask any questions 8 about the building. 9 HR. SHAMBLINa Excuse me. The issue of the 10 roof thickness was presented to us in early March 11 through our legal department. 12 HR. DELGEORGE: But it was as a result of 13 information developed through the inquiry by the h 14 attorney general. HR. SHAMBLINs That is correct, y es. 15 18 HR. DENTONs Chuck, do you have any questions 17 on ,this? 18 MR. NORELIUS: No , I don 't think I have any 19 questions on this particular subject. HR. DENTON: Let se ask you how you measured 20 21 it. Did you have access to -- HR. DELGEORGE: To address your previous 22 in 23 question of whether we could conclude that we have, 24 f act, covered the area in question, the specifics of ( .) 25 other portions of the allegation relative to the b@1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.. __. . _ _ : _ . . , . . . r; _ . .c. . . ._.....u..._._._.__;..1 _...n__ -
4 13 1 placement of a transf6rmer and identified surface q}) 2 cracking, we have in fact identified the transformer in 3 question and were aware of surf ace cracking in this 0- 4 particular slab identified on our own initiative 5 sometime ago. And taking those facts into account I 6 think we can conclude that we are addressing the slab 7 that was discussed in the affidavit. s ER. DENTON Why don't you go ahead, then? 9 ER. DELGEORGEs The next allegation I had 10 intended to address was the placement of the transformer 11 on the roof of the off-gas building. It is, in fact, 12 true that a temporary construction-related transformer 13 was placed on that slab. The transformer has been , 14 removed from the slab and it was removed in late 1981 15 before we became aware of the issue in controversy 16 here. The placement of that transformer did not exceed 17 any of the posted live loads allowable for that slab. 18 We have surveyed the under surface of the slab 19 and detected no apparent damage in the vicinity of the 20 placement of the transformer'. We have no reason to 21 believe that the placement of that transformer caused 22 any structural damage to the off-gas building roof. 23 HR. DENTON: How big a transformer was this? (,[f 24 What was it intended to do? MR. DELGEORGEs .It provided 25 . O - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. ___ . _ .400 VIRGINIA AVE,5.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.~ .2 - . . .. . . . . . . - . . . . ..-....:-...- i ... - - .- . -
.....=
m. 14 1 construction-related loads and weighed, as I understand 2 it, on the order of 6700 pounds. 3 ER. DENTON: Let.se go back to a question I b"* 4 asked earlier about how did you. determine the thickness 5 of the roof. , 6 ER. DELGEORGE: We conducted a field survey. 7 Given a reference zero, we were able to determine the 8 height of the under surf ace of the slab, and from the 9 same reference zero, we determined the height of the top 10 surf ace of the roof, which included both the concrete 11 slab and surface roofing materials. In order to verify 12 the thickness at the points of survey, we measured the 13 thickness of the roofing material; subtracting those () 14 values allowed us to establish the concrete thickness. 15 We have prepared a report which discusses those 16 measurements and we are prepared to leave? that- report 17 with you. . 18 HB. DENTON: I take it these are measurements 19 made in situ and not taken off of drawings?
- 20 MR. DELGEORGE: That is correct.
21 HR. DENTONs I think we would like to have the 22 report. Perhaps you can give us a copy and we vill 23 attach it to the transcript and make sure it is (.}; 24 available. 25 MR. NORELIUSa This may be in the report, Lou, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,lHC, 1. 4 %1RGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
,00 . - _ - _
._.. ...a.u...
15 y . 1 but how did you come to the conclusion that 15 selected c., v. p 2 points was appropriate to give you a good picture of 3 what the roof thickness was?, Q D 4 MR. SHAMBLINs The' roof is made up of .a series ( 5 of beams, and I essentially told the surveyors to take Essentially, the center 6 measurements between the beams. 7 span of the slab. It worked out to be three turning out to 8 measurements per span between the beams, 9 be 15 measurements. ER. PURPL,Es There is yet another item in that 10 I
~
11 particular allegation. Are you going to get to that? ! 12 (Laughter.) HR. DELGEORGEt I as ready. The last 13 14 allegation sugge'sted that the concrete associated with Commonwealth 15 this slab had been cracked substantially. of the subject slab 16 Edison discovered surf ace cracking 17 through its own site quality sssurance department in 18 S !ptember 1979. As a result of the deficiency 19 identified, an inquiry was made at that time which , 20 included an engineering evaluation and which also at 21 included the tracing of the crack depth by chipping 22 the concrete in the vicinity of the cracks. As a result of that review, it was established 23 24 that the crack depth did not exceed one quarter inch; (.}} 25 that the cracking was, in fact, surface cracking, and as O . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~~
- ..- -~ A u - .-.. - ~~ *"- . _ * .
- .L. .
- u. . ,.u. . - :.
16 We have no reason to believe, , 1 a result, it was patched. i alleged 2 based on that investigntion, that the cracking It is 3 is the result of drilling of' anchor bolt holes. 7 4 our opinion, based on that evaluation, that the cracks 5 observed are normal shrinkage cracks associated with . 6 this type of slab. MR. DENTON: Now, from the dates you gave, you 7 transformer was placed 8 observed those cracks before the 9 on the top. i ER. DELGEORGEs No, sir, the transformer was 10 11 placed at the time the observation was made. 12 HR. DENTON: So the transformer was taken off 13 the date.you measured, but it had been on f or a 14 considerable period of time? h HR. DELGEORGEs Yes. 15 That is correct. The 16 MR. SHABBLINs We do not have 17 transformer was placed sometime in 1976. was in the second half 18 the exact date , but we suspect it 19 of 1976. HR. DENTONs AndNhenyourepairedthecracks 20 ll 21 then, or examined f or depth, the transf ormer was sti l 22 there? Y es, sir. MR. DELGEORGE: 23 NR. DENTONs And you did not remove it until-- ( 24 Until late 1981.
~
25 ER. DELGEORGE: i Q* ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
- -- - - - = = waemunrog. D.C. 2Q094 (202) 554 2345__
- m. . . . :.. _ .:.. :2 -:.u , . .a. _
-,., w .__ =.....:.......a-...i...
17 MR. SCHWENCER: None of these cracks vent Q w 1 2 through the support points of the transformer? F 3 MR. SHAMBLIN: That is correct. 7)
'" I am not sure I understand 4 MB. DELGEORGE:
5 your question. MR. SCHWENCER: The point at which you 6 7 f astened the transformer to the roof or where it was in 8 contact with the roof, none of the cracks were 9 associated with that contact area? 10 HR. SHAMBLIN: That is correct, none of the 11 cracks were associated with the contact area of the 12 transformer . MR. DENTON: Let me ask the project manager 13 .
*e 14 what categorization we gave that roof.
MR. BOURNIAs It is a non-safety grade 15
~
16 building. I have the reviewer here. We did not 17 consider this as a safety grade building. 18 MR. DENTON: What is under the roof? t 19 HR. BOURNIA4 What is this? f 20 MR. DESTON: What is under it? MB. DELGEORGE: That is described in our 21 . 22 report. The concrete enclosure above-grade as a part of a 23 the off-gas roof is a non-safety related structure which 24 houses off-gas building, heating / ventilating /and air h.i units, HVAC, water cooled 25 conditioning , . air handling
- G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 6 /Mb 9.WaWASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
N. . 18 1 condensing units, HY AC exhaust filter units, HYAC ( 2 control panels and associated motor centrol centers and F 3 switchgear.
.O Does that mean there is nc '"' 4 HR. DENTON:
5 Category 1 cafety-related equipment in that building? 6 MR. DELGEORGE: Yes, sir. l 7 HR. DENTONs Any questions? We can come back 8 to this, but I thought we would give the company a 9 chance. i 10 ER. PURPLE: There still remains yet one more l 11 f eature of that particular allegation. Eaybe you are i It is the part that says there were
- 12 going to get to it.
13 holes drilled through rebars in the roof. I have not h 14 heard an answer that you did not have such holes or if 15 you did, what they meant. 16 HR. DELGEORGE: We did not address the 17 potential f or drilling of bar in that roof, separate
~ 18 from the question presented in the primary allegation I
You will see, based on the 19 which we vill address. 20 evaluation that we have don'e relative to the overall 21 question of rebar damage, that we have addressed all b Correct me if I am wrong. Is it true that our 22 slabs. 23 evaluation would have included that building. We can verif y that for you, but it is our -- ([) 24 BR. RECKLACTIS: It did include this building, 25 l sc-ALDERSON REPORDNG COMPANY.INC, F4A 80024 G202) 554 2345
19
, Y 4 1 also.
il MR. PURPLE: Can you say whether or not the 2 3 roof of this building was in, fact drilled and did go
'\.
4 through some rebar specifically? I MR. RECKLACTIS:
As I understand it, the 5 6 transformer did not even have any bolts. That is what I 7 was told. NR. DELGEORGEa I am not sure ve are prepared 8 We vill get back to 9 to answer that question completely. 10 you , though. HR. DENTONs What is the design basis for the 11 Why did you pick 127 What 12 thickness of that roof ? 13 con'trols? , HR. LEE: Why 12 inches? 14 Why 12 inches? Okay. My name is 15 MR. KOSTALs The thickness of a to Ken Kostal from Sargeant C Lundy. 17 number of slabs -- we generally have a minimum thickness
'18 of concrete related to structural elements such as slabs l The 12-inct thickness is typically l 19 and valls.
i 20 associated with a certain amount of load which would So I would say in 21 accompany that particular slab. 22 general, the 12-inch represented the thickness required 23 to support a live and dead load attributable to that 24 particular area. t F V May I'ask, by that you mean there 25 MR. KNIGHTS ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
~
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. u '. w i.u . ~ .., 2 .. :.. ~ -
- 2. a .:a _ .: :. :.c.- .. s
- ~ .. ...- _ . :a .: - . . .. ~ -
. 20 1 was a, let us call it, a design live load that is 2 selected for convenience and utility, if you will? ,
3 MR. KOSTALs Yes.' D 4 MR. KNIGHTS Keeping in mind they you are in a 5 heavy industrial area, you provide sufficient capacity 6 for-- 7 MR. KOSTAls He provide a certain minimum 8 capacity -- meaning we provide a certain minimum live 9 load capacity-- to allow for construction conditions, to 10 allow for initial installation, equipment storage such 11 as the example given by Mr. Delgeorge relative to the 12 transformer, and that generally constitutes our lnitial 13 criteria in terms of original design load capabilities., h 14 MR. KNIGHTS Did you have a standard live load 15 used throughout the facility? 16 MR. KOSTALs A minimum live load for this 17 particular plant is 100 pounds per square foot. That is 18 associated with all concrete slabs. 19 MR. DENTON Can you describe the construction - 20 of the slab a bit more? Is"it reinforced? 21 MR. KOSTALs It is a typical concrete I 22 reinforced one-way slab with concrete beam elements.
'23 do not know the exact spacing of them, but it is a ' 24 general one-way beam type slab design, reinforcing top I -)
25 and bottom, top reinforcing across the beams carrying O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
^
_ l^ . - -. _ L
- -- .. .s...
21 1 negative moment, bottom carrying positive moment, and
)
2 temperature reinforcing to account for normal , 3 construction and shrinkage ' cracking that could occur. Q 4 ER. DENTONs Any other comments on this part? 5 (No response.) . 6 NR. DENTON: If not, let ne ask Ms. Goodie if 7 you would like to comment on this part before we go 8 ahead. 9 HS. GOODIES By only comment here would be 10 that as I understand it, someone at Region 3 has spoken 11 to the informant who provided us with this information, 12 and I understand there is a report in Region 3 about 13 this inf ormation. It is my understanding from the a 14 person I spoke to at Region 3 that the allegations of 15 the less-than-design thickness of the roof were 16 correct. I have not seen this report. 17 ER. DENTON4 Would you like to comment? BR. NORELIUS: He received allegations on this 18 19 some months ago and evaluated it in-office. I do not I am not sure that I know they say 20 have those with me. 21 exactly what she said, and I have not read them 22 carefully. But we were aware of the allegation. It was 23 evaluated within our office and I think, in recognition 24 of our manpower considerations, v'e chose not to delve (h) 25 deeply into this a t the field level because of its (I) . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC, l i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
83324 G202) 554 2345 .
....n- T.,:.L . . . - _ _ _ _
a.%a _ , . . . ~
~
22
/
1 Category 2 nature. I
'O.
ER'. EENTON: I think on this one it might ha 2 ) l
. 3 vell to . inst reiterate that Staff silence does not scan
{0# 4 consent with the utility's view on this. 1 5 ES. GOODIE I understand. 6 ER. DENTON: It is more the fact that we are 7 trying to get the f acts f rom which we vould proceed to 8 do a review. ER. NORELIUS: Could I ask Es. Goodie, did you 9 10 speak to someone in our office on that? ES. GOODIEa Yes. 11 ER. NORELIUS: Who did you talk to? 12 ES. GOODIES I spoke to two different people. . 13 I can check my 14 I believe this one was from Jim Foster. 15 notes on that. - 18 ER. NORELIUS: Jim was one of our 17 investigators. MR. DENTON: All right, let us move to the 18 19 second issue. f 20 - 21 22 23 f.i 24
% s' 25 G
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. AG M1Y@lO AML S.W. WASHING 10N. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
T: - ,: - L. . . .
......,x_- .. .. ... a
. .- _ m .. .a 23 1 HR. DELGEORGEs The second issue addressed the 2 damage to reinforcing steel by the drilling through ,
3 reinforced concrete slabs. I attempted to outline the (?'<'
'* 4 allegations presented by that petition item, and I will 5 address each' of them as I understand it.
6 We have also prepared a report in this area 7 describing the procedural controls that we have had in 8 place. That report identifies the controls, their date 9 of implementation, and attempts to describe why we 10 believe this prevents the type of unrestricted damage 11 that has been suggested by the petition. 12 The first allegation presented is that 13 thousands of holes are drilled through reinforced ($) 14 concrete slabs as a matter of course. I believe that we 15 can, through the report, demonstrate to you that the 16 process of drilling all reinforced slabs has been a 17 control process, that this program was implemented in 18 late 1976 before the time period at which the contractor 19 employee, whose affidavit is contained in the petition, 20 made his -- discusses the problem that he alleges 21 exists. _ And in fact, we have conducted an engineering 22 23 evaluation of all reported structural -- or 24 reinforcement steel damage and have concluded, based on (}.} 25 that evaluation, that the structural integrity of all O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
= - =.-. . . . : . _ .a _
.x. .-: . . . . : .L - :-- .. . 1- '
24
~
<'s
~
1 the valls, of all the concrete reinforced slabs in the CJ 2 plant have not been repaired. P 3 I would point out'at this point in time that O,
\'# 4 our review is not yet complete. However, it is 5 substantially complete, and we have no reason to believ,e 6 at this point that there is any question relative to the 7 structural integrity of the slabs.
8 The second allegation presented is that there 9 is an unknown number of holes. He are also in a 10 position to discuss with you the numbers of holes that 11 have been either cored or drilled at laSalle County. A 12 rough estimate of the number of holes, inasmuch as we 13 have not fully tabulated all our records, is on the () 14 order of 50,000. 15 We have developed as a practice, given the the 16 program we have implemented, a program of recording rebar 17 placement of the holes and reporting any wi th the drilling of a 18 reinforcement damage associated 19 hole. ' ER. DENTON: Let me ask you, how does a 20 21 driller know that he has struck rebar or reinforcing
- n. steel?
MR. DELGEORGE: In genersi, the techniques 23 ' 24 used f or producing the hole would have used drill bits I(}) 25 that are not capable of pene'trating reinforcement (3) ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, fM EES24 C202) 554 2345
. .. . .- . u .:- ---:
- . .:- - - u . . . - :, .. - . -
_ - - -.. - l
. . 25
~
1 steels. That practice was not 100 percent uniform, g 2 however, and I vi 1 ask the people from the site to 3 address this also; where he did use a bit capable of 4 pen etra ting the steel. . 5 MR. K3ST AL: It sounds different. , 6 HR. DELGEORGE: It vould be decidedly 7 dif ferent. Again, I will ask our site people, our 8 engineering people to discuss that f urther. 9 HR. XOSTAL: Do you want to discuss that? 10, HR. SHAMBLIN: Relat ye to hardness of steel 11 versus concrete, when you hit it with a sof t drill bit, 12 it just vill not go through it. It vill meet a stiff 13 resistance there, plus the sound that it produces, the 14 different sound when you hit that reinforcing rod. 15 BR.QUAXA: In some cases you will get a very 16 large squeaking sound when you come in contact wi th 17 steel. So it is not only you being the driller, but 20 18 f eet around you, you know, everybody knows you have 19 contacted the steel. , 20 MR. DELGEORGE: I think we vould agree with 21 your statement in the affidavit that your ability t o' 22 drill through the concrete once steel has been contacted 23 is significantly diminished. h 24 affidavit is attached to 25 the petition, nade it clear thatllll knew whenEEE]had ALDERSON REPoMING COMPANY. INC,
a.: *.a xs
. :. - - ,. .....' r. . .. h N.% * '.w._
x ... - . . 26 1 contacted steel. And I guess our general f eeling is 2 that that would be representative of both people put in - 3 that position.
?1
4 ER . DENTON : Did you make measurements 5 everywhere or only for the steel that va.s struck?
6 ER. DELGEORGE: Ton Quaka, from our site 7 assurance department will address that. 8 MR. QUAKAs As a normal course, work is not 9 done unless there is some engineering document that i 10 either specifies that an anchor be installed in a . 11 location, or there there ha s been some request to 12 install one and appropriate approval given to do that. 13 So there is a record that demonstates where the hole is, (hk 14 or where the anchor is going to go. And then ther is a 15 separate set of records that identifies situations where 16 the rebar is contacted or cut through. 17 NB. DENTON : Can you describe normal I 18 engineering practice of the architect-engineer in this l 19 area? Do.you try to locate these holes from the ( l 20 knowledge of the rebar in the vall from the drawing, or where 1 21 is it .nore of a field installation kind of thing 22 you take your chances when you drill such a hole? MR. DE1GEORGEs Mr. Denton, we have a full l 23 24 presentation on that engineering evaluation, which will
, ({y 25 follow my discussion.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. NW W9VVfLA?LUllRKN8ToA D.c. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_._ a .:..:- ?
--.- - .-~ : ial ~ ' ' ^"" " " - -'-*""~~'~~~ i 27 1 MR. DENTON: All right, we vill postpone p
2 that. P 3 ER. DElGEORGE: A point we would like to make
# 4 here is the fact that we believe the petition clearly 5 indicates that records were kept of rebar damage. This 6 point is noted in many places both in the petition and 7 in the contractor employee's affidavit. This 8 inf ormation, we believe, supports the integrity of our 9 control program, which is described in more detail in 10 the report.
11 The records involved here are substantial, and 12 ve have over the course of the years during which this 13 program has been in placa -- and as I say, that began in () 14 1976 -- we have monitored the performance of the 15 contract. ors under this program. 16 The next allegation presented is that no 17 information exists which suggests an engineering 18 approval occurred relative to the potential for damaging 19 rebar prior to 1980. 20 Unfortunately, th[s conclusion was reached on 21 the basis of a site laborer whom we would not expect to O 22 be privy to the fundamental basis for the program we had 23 in place. 24 However, we have been able to verify that the (??. .
~/
25 foreman of the specific laborer whose affidavit is I h . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. O@HINGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345_
- -.= .1".
- . i .:. ~ _i:. : . . ~ . - - -, - .-- - ' ---
-? ...T. i- 2 E- - --. ' i - - -
--- . . .~ k 28 1 contained in the petition participa ted in more than one D'N 2 training' session in which the overall control prograc ,,
3 for drilling and co ring of' hole s, which included an O 4 engineering evaluation, took place. 5 In other words, the supervision f or the 6 laborer in question participated in four recorded 7 training sessions, whose da tes I can provid e to you, 8 which we believe is sufficient to assure that the
. 9 program that we had in place was in fact followed.
10 We take greater confidence in this in the fact 11 that e laborer involved, attested to the 12 f ac t tha t was req ired to provide rebar damage
~
13 reports. (h 14 HR. DENTON: Who conducted these training 15 courses you referred to? 16 MR. DELGEORGE: The programs in question were 17 conducted by site contractors. The site contractors, 18 Foley being the contractor involved here, had received 19 direction f romn our site canagement personnel associated { 20 with Commonwealth Edison's Srganiza tion , although we do i 21 not provide that training ourselves. 22 As I have said earlier, the procedures in 23 question have existed since 1976. In the case of cored () 24 holes, which are identified in th e petition as larger 25 h ol es , prior engin eering re vie w of the holes is done to O . . . . ...
- . . ~ . - - -
-.. +
- .:. .a _ - - : :.--- r w-l, :_
-a 29
. 1
- 1 either prevent reinforcement steel damage or to assess steel damage.
2 the impact of reinf orcement ' 3 For drilled holes that have been characterized 4 in the petition as " smaller holes" used for concrete ' 5 expansion anchor-bolted supports, our engineering i 6 evaluation program included the specification of certa n 7 areas in the plant where concrete expansion anchors were So that we did an engineering evaluation 8 to be limited. the areas in which such drilling 9 in advance to limit 10 could take place. In addition, there was,an engineering 11 i by 12 evaluation made of all reported damage upon rece pt hich 13 the architect-engineer of the drilling reports, w 14 are recognized in the petition., We have a more substantial presentation to 15 It engineering evaluation process. 16 review f or you that inasmuch as 17 may, in f act, be appropriate to do that now, i 18 the last issue of substance that we perceived in the her or not i 19 petition dea At with the question of whet if neces's'ary, was required 20 corrective action, ( 21 immediately. We can address that after the discussion C
- 22. by our architect-enginee[, the evaluation program, if l
! 23 you would like. Okay, let us go that route. s ER. DENTON
/
ER. DELGEORGE: I would like to introduce Tom t 25 I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. MG WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
a.a .:.; . , . . a. . .- - --
- 2 u U. * - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30
- 1 Longlais from Sargent C Lundy.
O 2 Let me say first that I have copies of the
- 3 report prepared by Commonuc.alth Edison which discusses 4 the procedural controls that have been in place at the 5 LaSalle County site.
6 I will offer those for your review. We also 7 have copies of the materials that Er . Longlais is g oing 8 to present now. And I will offer those for your 9 review. 10 [ Slide] 11 ER. 10NGLAIS: I would like to. start the 12 presentation with first differentiating the different 13 types of holes that have been drilled at laSa11e'. [ Slide! G 14 15 Exhibit 1 defines basically two types of 16 holess one which we call a core holes the other is what 17 ve consider to be a drill hole. 18 There are essentially two types of core is holes. The first type of core hole is one in which it 20 is drilled through the concrete, and it passes { 21 completely through the concrete element. This hole has L 22 been put in the element to allow for the passage of the 23 electrical and mechanical components, such as a pipe or i c13 24 conduit. (L) The second type of core hole is one in which 25 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGEIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_ ; u .__.u.. _ 31 1 it is only drilled partially through the depth of the } The purpose of this type of core hole is to 2 concrete. F 3 allow for the setting and grouting of an an.chor bolt for c 4 either the support of equipment foundations, or for the 5 support of mechanical piping and baseplate assemblie,s. 6 In the first situation for the cored holes 7 which pass completely through concrete, their diameter 8 varies anywhere from 2 inches to 16 inches in diameter. 9 In the case of holes that are cored partially 10 through the concrete for the installation of an anchor , 11 bolt, that diameter is approximately 3 inches. Its 12 depth would vaiy anywhere from 1 foot to maybe 2 feet, 13 2-1/2 f eet, depending upon the size of the anchor belt. 14 The second category of holes we have are what 15 ve consider to be drilled holes. Holes are drillod 16 primarily for the installation of concrete expansion 17 anchors. These holes tend to be much smaller in 18 diameter. They vary from 1/4 inch to 1 inch, and the 19 depth of embedment varies anywhere from 1-1/4 inch to E 20 inches. 21 Again, it is important to have an 22 understanding of the types of holes, since the 23 engineering assessment is somewhat different for each 24 type of hole. ([) *
.25 [ Slide]
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 6c731XII3BTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
y r. . .. l
? 2. .
32 1 Exhibit 2a I will discuss the engineering 2 evaluation f or cored holes. These are the holes that , 3 pass directly through the roncrete or the holes that are r% 2' 4 partially drilled into the concrete for the setting of 5 an an,chor bolt. 6 For holes that pass directly through concrete 7 elements, these holes are located, in the case of 8 office-audited components -- in other words, when our 9 engineers are auditing the piping and electrical 10 components in the office, and they have got to penetrate 11 a concrete element, they will indicate that penetration 12 on a structural drawing. 13 Prior to the release of that structural , ([?f 14 drawing indicating the core hol$, it is reviewed by 15 structural engineers. It is at this point in time. that 16 our structural engineers make an assessment of the 17 eff ects of the reinforcement steel that will be cut by 18 this operation. 19 In most cases, this assessment has consisted 20 primarily of engineerin_g_ judgment based upon the stress 21 levels in the rainforcing steel in relation to the 22 location of the cored hole. 23 In the case of cored holes that are requested 4'S 24 by a contractor in the field for field audit components,
'%)
25 the contractor is required to submit to Commonwealth (v?'a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
- ' * * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ^ ~
1 -- 3.,__. u . . . . . . . . - 33 1 Edison Company a field change request requesting . 2 pernission to drill this hole. 3 This f,ield change. request is approved by the O 4 consulting engineers. , And again, a similar assessment 5 is nade prior __t_p, approving this field change request. 8 We assess the reinf orcing steel that is likely 7 to be damaged by the coring of this hole prior to 8 releasing of the FCR for the drilling operation. HB. PURPLE: Question. Have you ever 9 10 disapproved a field change request because the
- 11 engineering evaluation told you that it was not right to 12 put the ho Le there?
Not to my knowledge. The 13 ER. LONGLAIS: 14 location of the holes that are generated via a field 15 chan_ge request likewise get picked up at a later date on 16 the structural drawings. So a complete record of all 17 cored holes does appear on the structural design 18 drawings. ER. PURPLEa The engineering assessment, is it 19
~
20 vritten? 21 HR. LONGLAIS: Up to this point in time, all
' 22 our engineering assessment on cored holes has been based 23 upon engineering judgment.
It is not written down? () 24 ER. PURPLE MR. LONGLAISs It is not been written down. 25 O
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. . .. : .w .. .:.
- :. . . . . . . . . . ..... ... N .. .--..... - ~ . . . . _ 34 l 1 We have not made detailed structural calculations. d,% . 2 Over the inst week or two, in response to the , 3 petition, te have made some detailed calculations for n 8% L 4 sample of cored holes. And we have proved that our f 5 engineering judgment was appropriate in these instances 6 and found that the effects of the reinf orcing steel did 7 not affect the structural integrity of any of the 8 safety-related structures. 9 MR. LEE: Tom, " engineering judgment," I 10 gather, is kind of the standard approach for this kind 11 of evaluation? ' MB. LONGLAIS: Yes, it is; yes, it is. 12 MR. KNIGHT: Could I pursue just one step 13 14 f urther? What you are saying is the system was in h3 15 force, the area to be drilled was identified, and an 16 engineer in the office was made aware that the hole was 17 to be drilled. And he said either yes or no based on 18 his judgment? MR. LONGLAIS4 Yes; that is correct. 19 20 MR. DELGEORGE: And in the case of field 21 change requests, there would be documentary evidence 22 that the review had been completed, although there might 23 not be analytical evidence of something other than
.A.- 24 engineering judgment?
25 MR. KUO4 But the $udgment was made one by o. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY INC. AM MDFtN! A AVF . 5 W. WAS~Tr/G70N, D.c. 20024 (202) 554 2345
' :...- a..
. - . . .- .=.._
'.a a .._* . .;.~ . . . - ..
35 1 one. Say, for instance, a slab may have more than 10
])
J 2 holes thero. Do you make a judgment locking at all the F 3 10 holes or just 1 where it was drilled? 9'
" HR. 10NGLAIS: We make a judgment on both. 'J e 4
5 have to make it first. individually as each cored hole is 6 submitted and requested. As I mentioned before, all . 7 these core holes are eventually indicated on the 8 structural drawings. So when our engineers are adding 9 other cored holes in an area, they have a history of all They 10 the other cored holes that have been installed. the 11 would take this into consideration when making 12 assessment of the effects of this additional cored hole 13 that is being requested. HR. KUO So all the , holes were considered, in 14 15 your judgment? I HR. LONGLAIS That is correct. 16 HR. KNIGHTS can you give me a feel, there was 17 I am going to 18 a number mentioned earlier, 50,000 holes. is assume that a very large percentage of that 50,000 were 20 anchor bolts. MR. LONGLAISs That is correct. 21 Can you give me the other side of 22 HR. KNIGHT: 23 that number as far as 2 inches larger, this type of 24 thing? Do you have any feeling for how many of those () there were? 25 's O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC, _
~
~ ~ ~ "
--~=~~~"~
. . ~
- 36 NR. LONGLAIS:
I would venture a guess at
} . 1 2 something less than 1000 at this point.
I believe 1000 F 3 could definitely be an upper ' bound. 3
) ER. DENTON:
Can you characterize the issues 4 5 that you considered in reaching such a judgment about . 6 holes? What were the elements that are important in 7 reaching that $cdgment? HR. LONGLAIS: The critical decision was 8 9 looking at the, distress level in reiforcing steel where In some areas, the cored hole is 10 the hole is being put. 11 being put in an area where the reinforcing steel is not This would be totally acceptable to core the 12 stressed. 13 hole. Which you will get to in a noment. C 14 BR. LEET In other areas, the HR. LONGLAIS: Yes. 15 16 stress levels in the reinforcing steel have sufficient We make an 17 margin for the final design loads. some l 18 assessment on this basis that we can accept i t l ~ 19 reduction in the stress levels since we have bars. suffic en e 20 margin currently available for those reinforcing l t NR. DENTON , Should I assume that you could 21 22 put an 8-inch hole in any wall, saf ety-rela ted walls or f i there some areas in that vall that are already near 23 are limits and this would degrade it? 'h i 24 HR. LONGLAIS: .There are a nunber of areas 25 t d ALDERSON REPoRDNG COMPANY.INC. JNo D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. -.=- =--
- . v:...
- ..a. a-
.a n - - -..:,..-...u.- - - . . .: n-2 - ....
37 1 where we have, af ter our engineering assessment, we have 2 become concerned about additional coring in which if we , 3 assume that I number of bars would be cut by putting O. 4 this coda hole in that we feel it would not be 5 appropriate, would not be acceptable, we have put
~
6 appropriate notes in our drawings and appropriate 7 controls requiring that the contractor use a metal 8 detector to find the reinf orcing steel before he nakes 9 the coring. HR. DELGEORGE: And we have examples of t' hose 10 I 11 notes which we can provide and show to you here. 12 think as a part of this package you will find three 13 examples of notes of that type. .. HR. LONGLAISt There has not just been (bk 14 15 indiscriminate coring of bars. We have identified the 16 areas, and where we have areas of concern we do require 17 that the metal detector be used. HR. SCHWENCER: Has that process been in 18 19 effect since 19767 ,, HR. LONGLAISa That process has been in effect 20 21 once we determined that that particular concrete element 22 could not tolerate many more barn. That could have been
./
23 ' 7 7 , '78, '79. There really has not been any for later 24 years that, as the coring operations increased, that we ( [f 25 can see as certain areas being defined that we do not (ui ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
$.:. b .? ..t. . a. . . : . . . J.--.. . . . . _
38 I 1 vant to lose any more strength margin that we put these 2 notes on the drawings. 3 MR. DENTON : If you take a typical vall -- I A C' 4 am not sure you have a typical vall -- where are the 5 moments the largest on the vall? Where would you least 6 like to see a hole? MR. LONGLAISs I would like to get into that 7 8 in a few minutes when I talk about some of the concrete 9 expansion anchors. I am prepared to discuss that. ER. DENTON: I was wondering if you could just 10 11 tell me is it near th6 top or near the bottom? I do not . 12 vant to jump too f ar ahead, but I would like to have a 13 feel for where moments are largest. - h 14 BR. HILLER: Exhibit 5. MR. LONGLAISs Exhibit 5, for example, for 15 16 slabs. I do have other flimsies if you want to talk This is a typical two-way slab. A 17 about other ones. We are talking about 18 typical area in a tevo-way slab. 19 the reinforcing steel on the top of the slab. 20 The critical area vould be the exterior core 21 span. That is this area that is shaded. This area L 22 would tend to have negative design moments, and the 23 reinf orcing steel vould tend to be stressed in this 1 h) 24 area. In the middle region of the slab, the area 25 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. m Mmtsn rML RTL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
-..:.. %. .* . .....w.... . . . . _ .
39 75 1 that is not shaded in, the reinforcing steel vould not 2 be stressed in these ccsas. The stress is all carried di F o 3 by the bars in the outer periphery. 4 In the case of the reinforcing steel on the 5 bottom of the slab, it is the bars that are in the 6 middle region of the slab, the middle half span of the 7 bars, that primarily carry the stress. The bars toward 8 the periphery are auch less stressed than the bars in 9 the center. ' to There are also other areas, bars that have 11 been provided around tria steel for major openings or 12 where additional bars have been provided in the slab to 13 carry heavy elements, to carry a concrete vall or to provided f 14 carry a concrete block wall, where we have 15 additional reinforcing steel. We have called for not 16 drilling in those areas. HR. DENTON: Thank you. 17 18 [ Slide) Ig ER. 10NG1AISa Cored holes for anchor bolts 20 and pipe support baseplate assemblies are indicated on 21 the mechanical design drawings. The coring f or the mechanical baseplate pipe 22 in the summer J 23 support assemblies commenced approximately N-1100, In January of 1980 ve issued Drawing 24 of 1980. h Sheet 23, which required that all the concrete be 25 ( e., ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1 NWPDDINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_.i..:.............---......-..... . . . . . - _ a. . .. . : .: ' ~ - u . ..? O ~ 40 1 notched to expose the reinforcing steel to avoid rebar p., 4S' 2 damage under this operation. , 3 So for any concrete, any corine operation for 9. U a this particular application, it was controlled by S requiring that the reinforcing steel be exposed before 6 the drilling was done. - 7 HR. DElGEORGE: That activity involving 8 mechanical components vould not have been observed by 9 the contractor employee whose affidavit is contained in 10 the petition, inasmuch as he worked as a subcontractor 11 to our electrical site contractor, and he was gone at 12 that time anyway. 13 [ Slide] h 14 Exhibit 3 is the continuation of the cored 15 holes f or equipment foundation anchor bolts. In this 16 situation what we have done is we have plotted the 17 location of all equipment foundation anchor bolts that 18 require coring in a separate set of drawings called RHS . j 19 drawings , rebar hit schedule drawings.
~
20 From these drawings we assess the amount of , 21 reinforcing steel that is likely to be damaged by this 22 coring operation. The assessment which we performed 23 subsequently is engineering judgment on the damage and 24 the effects that this likely damaged reinforcing steel f3
/
25 vill have on the strength capacities of the concrete ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
..a.,.- _-
- _.,a u_' _ .: . a, : .
- _ .a.;- ._
e.'=... 41 1 elements. 2 The engineering judgment again is based upon f 3 the location of the cored holes and the damaged V 4 reinforcing steel in relation to the existing stress 5 levels in the concrete elements. 6 Exhibit 3A is a set of approximately 90 7 drawings, which we have marked all the rebar damage, 8 both due to the coring operations and due to the 9 drilling operations at the site. ER. KOSTAL: There are approximately 90 10 Mr. 11 drawings in there that will document exactly what 12 Longlais commented on. HR. DENTON: Are these drawings of diff erent 13 h 14 valls and such? This is all the reinforcing 15 HR. LONGLAISs
" Contacted" means either 16 steel that has been contacted.
17 nicked or cut. So that is 100 percent 18 MR. SCHWENCER: tg drawings of those that have been contacted or cut? Yes, that is for Unit 1. 20 5R. LONGLAIS: HR. DELGEORGE Based on those damage reports
. 21 22 that have been received from the field at the time the 23 drawing was prepared. And we are still in the process 24 of verif ying that all reports have been received and lC 1
incorporated into the drawings. 25 l O l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
= una_te n_ air _e a W SCOWwrt7dN D c. 20024 (202) 554 2345
w . . ;. . . ... w ..: a
.a: - ..-.. - - .u. s : u . u . _ .. : .. . . . . . . . .. _
- 42 .
1 MR. DENTONr. Maybe we can look at them during 2 a brer.k to see if we need these. ' 3 MR. KOSTALs I'think it is relevant that these 4 drawings have been in preparation over the last 6 5 years. So they are not drawings that we just made 6 within the last few days. 7 We have been documenting these during the last 8 6 years as they have occurred and as we have received 9 the data from various contractors. 10 MB. LON LAISs I should clarify that we have 11 -- this ites, the plotting of the core holes for the . 12 anchor bolts were made recently. 13 O v 14 15 i 16 17 . 18 l 19 .- - l 1* ' 20 21 22 23 l l t } ~ 24
%~
~ 25 O
V ALDERSON REPORT'.NO OOMPANY. INC.
u.a . l- .:a 43 1 (Slide) 2 In Exhibit n I would like to pursue the , 1 g ' 3 engineering review of drill holes for concrete expansion O 4 anchors. The engineering control for the drilling of before 5 holes for concrete expansion anchors began long 6 the drilling is initiated. 7 By that I mean there are a number of l ! 8 engineering controls which are contained in Form 15/CEA 9 which contains all the specit'ication requirements for 10 the drilling of concrete expansion anchors at La Salle. 11 In Exhibit tiA ve have here the entire eight revisions td 12 the specification, which were issued between the period 13 Sep,tember 1976 and May of 1981. 14 There are a number of engineering controls in 15 this particular document. Probably the most important s I i 16 is the recognition of the f act that there are stressed s LS/CEA defines 17 and nonstressed areas in the structures. The areas which are 18 the stressed and nonstressed areas. to stressed areas, ve require that a metal detector be used It requires that the
.20 to avoid reinforcing steel damage.
b e 21 contractor obtain engineering approval prior to cutting 22 a bar and to subsequently report any damage or nicks 23 that may have been made to a bar by the use of a metal (}) 24 detector. There are areas -- again, I did go through-25 h ' . ALDERSoN REPORDNG COMPANY,INc,
~
I. _ ,. : . ,
- l. a..:_i
. . - . . - . . . . -- . - - . - . - - - -.w-- -.
44 1 this slide before, but the areas where a metal detector (v.%i7 2 vould be required to be ased in the case of a two-way , 3 slab would be the shaded area in the exterior quarter
.g 7
4 span, and the top of two-way slabs, in the aiddle span 5 s'ection, in the bottoa of t wo-vay slabs, and in areas 6 adjacent to penetrations, and to areas where we have 7 provided additional reinforcing steel on the slab to 8 carry additional loads. 9 ER. PURPLES A general question. A1,1 of these 10 control prograas, do they apply to all of the buildings 11 for which you have design responsibility, unrelated to 12 whether they are safety-relEted structures or not? 13 MR. LONGLAIS: That is correct. That is h 14 correct. 15 HR. DENTON : If you take a vall that is, say to 20 by 50, what kind of spacing would you typically find 17 on the reinforcing bars? . 18 ER. LONGLAISs I 'believe between 9 to 12 to inches on center. ,, 20 ER. DENTON: So when you are installing anchor e 21 bolts, then you would have enough discretion to aove 22 around a foot or two? 23 HR. 10NGLAISs Yes. Well, a foot or two? In 24 *.he later versions of the concrete expansion anchor (}) 25 prograa, I believe when you.get into Revisions 6, 7, and 4 ALDERSON REPORDNG COMPANY.INC. 9
^;~
.~ - ~ ~ ~ -
45 1 8, we have added provisions in the specification which J- 2 gives the contrator guidelines in relocating expansion 3 anchor plates. If he does contact reinforcing steel, we 4 give him the latitude to move the plate plus or minus 3 5 inches in either direction so he can avoid drilling 6 through and damaging the bar. 7 (Slide) 8 It has consistently been our intention at the 9 beginning of the job to minimize the use of concrete to expansion anchors. However, when a field contractor is 11 routing small bore pip'ing or electrical conduit, he has 12 an option of trying to attach to an embedded plate or 13 existing structural steel or use expansion anchors. We have a requirement in the specification h 14 15 that,should he elect to use a concrete expansion anchor 16 baseplate assembly, that he contact us for prior 17 approval before he can use this type of anchor. 18 He have f urther defined in the specification not be I 19 areas in which a concrete expansion anchor may 20 installed without the specif'ic approval of the 21 consulting engineer. This is irregardless of the stress c 22 level. 23 One example of the situation would 'be the
/ 24 containment building vall. The last control that we do d> have, and it was mentioned earlier, is that beginning in 25 A a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
. ., .. l. . - o . . i.. .
2_
, .: _ - ... ... . -a. . .. .. h.~ : - -.. . . . _ _
46 i m 1 1976 with Revision 0, we required that only a solid Q 2 carbide-tipped drill bit be _ used for drilling the hele. . 3 Now this type of drill bit is not capable of drilling O"' 4 through reinforcing steel. The most damage this drill
- 5 bit could do would be to take a very small, well-rounded 6 depression approximately 1/16 of an inch deep in the 7 reinforcing steel.
We have conducted a nunber a tests. The 8 9 Commonwealth Edison Company has conducted a number of 10 tests, both laboratory testing and analytical 11 assessment, and we have proved that these type of nicks 12 are not detrimental to the integrity of the reinforcing
. 13 steel.
m What size reinforcing steel is "7 14 HB. DENTON: 15 typically used in valls and floors? BB. LONGLAIS: Walls, typically in 16 17 saf ety-related structures would probably vary from 1 Slabs would probably vary-- 18 number 9 to number 11 bars. l HR. LEES Which 1s what size, for us Ig , 20 nonstructural -- 21 HR. 10NGLAIS: Number 9 bar is about 1-1/8 22 inch in diameter, and Number 11 bar is approximately 23 1-3/8 inch in diameter. For slabs, the reinforcing 24 steci vould vary from probab'ly a Number 6 bar which is f..' - 25 about 3/4 inch in diameter, again to a Number 11 bar f.~. U . , ALDERSON REPORTING COMPM4Y,INC.
.....,,r,mi n t- nrvna rinti W 2345
~
.u.N.---- .. .. *- 5 '
.u -.z. '. L i ' .......- ........ .. . --
47 1 which is 1-3/8 inch in diameter. 2 (Slide) F 3 What I just described is the engineering O 4 precautions that have taken place in the specifications 5 and are in f orce prior to going into operations. During 6 the drilling operations should a contractor contact or 7 drill through a reinforcing bar with our approval, it is 8 required that the " contractor submit a rebar damage 9 report. 10 When these damage reports are submitted, ther 11 are reviewed by the structural engineers to determine 12 what I consider to be the lamediate local impact of the 13 damaged bar. Again, we look at where the danaged bar (h 14 occurred, whether it be a cut or a nick, in relation to 15 stress level in the slab to determine if it is 16 acceptable. 17 Should v'e not determine it is acceptable, we 18 would have to come back and do some subsequent is modifications. However, we have never found this to be 20 the case in any of the holes that have been contacted or This review on the part of the 21 drilled at La Salle. _ 22 ee"$ 7eer was based primarily on judgment, again with 23 respect to location of the hole, and the existing stress ( '.) 24 level. ~ 25 Af ter the engineer has reviewed the effect of l ALDERSoN REPORDNG COMPANY.INC. [
- 08 ..
the damaged bar, be it f 1 this damaged reinf orcing steel,
} 2 hit -- by that I mean nipped or cut through -- is ,
3 plotted on the BHS drawings,'which we have submitted as i 4 Exhibit 4-A. Excuse me. Since when did you 5 ER. LIPINSKIs 6 start this practice? HB. LONGLAISa This practice was initiated in 7 8 September 1976. HR. DENTON: That includes Steps II-A and II-B7 9 ' HR. LONGLAISs The II-A, the review of the 10 11 damaged rebars was performed when the first damaged i 12 rebar report was submitted to us, which I believe was in i 13 early 1977. II-B, the plots were started, I believe,
/ 14 towards the latter part of 1978 or 1977, the early part It really was not until this latter part of 15 of 1978.
16 1977 that we had substantial enough rebar hit reports to time. 17 varrant studying of the drawings at that
- BR. KNIGHTS Along those lines, to work up the 18 which 19 numbers like 50,000 holes or 1000 or so poured, could you give me a ballpark 20 makes a pre-assessment, 21 figure for the number of rebar hit reports or rebar l.
22 damage reports that have accumulated over the years? HR. LONGLAISs We estimate today there are 23 steel bars that ( 'j 24 approximately 3000 to 3500 reinf orcing 25 have been damaged. Of that 3000 to 3500 bars, we lO ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. Ntf NTEL D.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
.' ~
bc '
.; ,f _ ;,,.
,',,_ ':' l 49 1 believe a number of these bars to be only nicked bars.
v 2 Between the period 1977-1979, contractors were not , 3 required to differentiate between a cut and.a nicked ht: 4 After Commonwealth Edison Company did the 5 laboratory investigation on the effect of nicked bars 6 and concluded that nicked bars were not detrinental, did 7 ve eliminate the requirement for reporting of nicked 8 bars. 9 HR. KUOs In making your engineering judgment, 10 do you have any guideline or criteria as to what 11 percentage of the steel could be damaged or cut? ER. LONGLAIS: The guideline is that as long 12 13 as you don't impair the safety or.the integrity ,of the
'(* 14 concrete structure , as long as you still have sufficient 15 margin to carry the design loads, whether that be one 16 bar, two bars or ten bars. That has to be determined on 17 a case-by-case basis. That is not a function of a 18 percentage.
19 HR. KNIGHTS Somewhere in your discussion and a nick. 20 there is a distinction between a cut 21 HR. LONGLAIS Yes. HR. KNIGHT: You show situations where you 22 Do you have any 23 take about half a bar out sometimes. (((- 24 var to differentiate? ~ HR. LONGLAIS: The nick that I am speaking of 25 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
' ' ~ ' ^ * ;
......-..: . -- .. . . .... - ..u'.- aa. .. - : . . .. ; . . . . . - - - - - . . ...
50
. . 1 is the nick that would be made by a solid carbide-tipped *
'4d7 2 drill bit in which you get. this - .
,, 3 MR. KNIGHT: Okai. When I na tal).ing about I'
4 taking a half-bar -- 5 4 ER. 10NGLAIS: That would be a core. 6 MR. KOSTAL: To clarify, the kind of drills
' Unless 7 used are like your everyday household drills.
8 you have a tempered steel bit, I think all of us have 9 been aware of the difficulty of trying to drill through 10 anything with a typical carbon steel bit that you buy at 11 Sears Roebuck. That is the kind of drill we are talking 12 about here. It is impossible to go through a ribar with 13 that bit. You will eat up the bit before you will go - ( 14 through' the bar.
~
15 MR. LIPINSKI Do you know of any cases or can 16 rou quantify perhaps for us when a remedial action or a 17 design change was necessary ,aus a result of -- 18 MB. LONGLAIS4 We have never run acrosr a case to at laSalle. In any -- we are positivo thct of all our 20 drilling operations we have not found one place where l. 21 the structural integrity of any concrete element has 22 been impaired. 23 ER. CHANs Does the driller of the holes know 24 whether the hole is going to be in the tension area or t ,, 7 I.} q; 25 the compression area?
*K
\a% j ALDERSON REPORDNG COMPANY,INC,
~ , . . . -u. . i .. .:. . . .:. '.:. .-
_ ' :.:. . .-.. _ a. .
. .. . .. C Y . . .: . - --__-_ .' .::L .i
- 51 l
-3, , 1 MR. LEE: The driller, you said?
'3/
2 HR. CHANs les, the driller. 3 HR. LEES I would say probably not. (J
"- MR. SHAMBLINs He is given the direction to 4
5 drill a hole in this location. 6 NR. DELGEORGE: "he driller would not be
- 7 aware whether he was drilling in an area of tension or 8 compression, the driller as opposed to the contractor 9 supervision to whom that man reports. Let me paint what to I think is an accurate picture.
11 The driller is only aware that his job is to 12 d rill a hole,. The contractor, based on the program we 13 have in place, is aware that with certain restrictions, h 14 he is able to drill holes in concrete elements in 15 certain areas of the plant. The engineer, Sargent C 16 Lundy, has through his design specifications and design 17 drawings identified those areas capable of having holes 18 drilled. So there is a different level of understanding 19 of what the impact of an individual hole would ha.ve en
~
20 the reinforcing steel. 21 We do not believe that it is essential that 22 the individual performing the drilling operation be 23 aware of the entirety of that program or how we reach 24 the point that he drill a specific hole. (.}
~
25 MR. LONGLAISs The' final disposition in the i
~
ALDERSON REPORUNG COMPANY,INC, EEO-EB13
.', :u
. . v . . . .
.....' 2.: ...:.o. . -
~
a... w . .w .... ~-. ..;.1.: :. ..:..
.r. w --. . .w : 6.w ,
52 Rg 1 review of damaged reinforcing steel in the drilling J 2 cperations occurs at the ti=e of Icad check performed - 3 just prior to fuel load, In this instance ve are L
' 4 looking at the effect of the accumulation of all the 5 damage to the reinforcing steel which is plotted on the 6 EHS drawings.
7 This review again consists primarily of 8 engineering judgment based upon the final stress levels 9 in the concrete elements with respect to the location of 10 the damagei reinforcing steel. Detailed calculations 11 were not warranted due' to the random distribution of the 12 damaged reinforcing steel in the safety-related areas. 13 By random distribution I mean that the density
'kh 14 in any one area is very, very lov. We see the bars 15 nicked, scattered here, maybe up in that corner, down in 16 the bottom corner, but they are not concentrated 17 effects. We have subsequently performed some l
18 calculations in response to this petition and we have 19 substantiated that this engineering judgment is 20 appropriate. Question. Independent of the
. 21 EB. PURPLE:
1 ' 22 petition, was this review you are discussing, has it 23 been completed? HB. LONGLAISa The engineering judgment has ([; 24 25 been completed. f$j
' ~ ' -- --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
.: . . .. a ' S. d.; 1 . . . . .- u. . >
s ...- ~ -
. .2.__.
53 1 HR. PURPLES And documented? 2 MR. LONGLAISs Yes -- Well, engineering F 3 judgment?
# 4 ER. PURPLES No, I sean but there is a final 5 review?
6 ER. LONGLAISs The final load check is 7 completed and documented. 8 ER. DELGEORGE: To the extent that the 9 architect engineer has received all the reports from the 10 field. 11 ER. SCHWENCER: That is the tie-in I was -- 12 you mentioned earlier you were not sure that had all the 13 reports in it yet. The only ones you are aware of. We are in the process now of l( ) 14 MR. DELGEORGE: 15 verifying that he is in receipt of all the reports. l HR. SCHWENCER: So Item A is not done yet. 16 17 HB. LONCLAIS4 'Not to the extent that we have 18 received all the reports.. But I believe from what we 19 have seen so f ar we are confident that it is. MR. LEE: We are confident that it is, but 20 . 21 since that question obviously will come up, we felt it 22 necessary to go back and assure ourselves. MR. KOSTAL: To clarify, we believe we have 23 24 every report in the house. The documents that were just () 25 submitted to us are nothing more than a -- we are going O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC. M
--- L k~ ' Q- . . L.; 1 w .. 1
^
_ - E.. .. _ - :.: . - . .. . ;., Su , 1 to scrutinize each one of those documents regarding the (. g 2 document we have in house to make sure that we have the , 3 same corresponding document. b 4 That is the review that is taking place. The 5 review of the final load ' check has totally been 6 complete, but it covers a lot of other multitude of 7 ingredients besides this ingredient of the damage to 8 rebar. 9 MR. LONGLAIS: What we have done is we have 10 tsken a look at what we feel to be nine areas in which 11 the concentration of the damaged rebar has been somewhat 12 higher than what you normally would see looking at the 13 entire sets of drawings. We have calculated the design . Ih 14 margins in the slabs both before and af ter the coring 15 operations. 16 (Slide) l 17 I should first define what we mean by design 18 mar gin. The design margin, we consider it to be the is ratio of the strength of a concrete element as O 20 determined by ACI 318 divided by the actual design 21 stresses that have been calculated in accordance with 22 the laSalle FSAR commitments. 23 What you are looking for is a design margin 24 equal to or greater than one. You would like to design / ([) for a margin exactly equal to one. .This represents an 25 ALDERSON PEPORTING COMPANY.INC.
2 %~ =. ._. :.. . Q.C. 2 -. ...: .. 1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ : '1 2-- ~ - :- - -' "--\-- -
~-"-
55 1 economical and optimally designed structure. O 2 Now there are a lot of reasons why design 3 margins de exceed one. Therc are many cases in I 4 saf ety-related structures, particularly in a nuclear 5 power plant, in which shielding controls a design and 6 structural strength does not control. So we have a lot 7 of concrete elements that are a lot thicker and a lot 8 bigger than required by structural design. 9 So you will see some margins greater than 10 o ne . You will see some up here of about three or so. 11 What we would like to see is about one. t I 12 ER. LIPINSKIt Before you take this down, I 13 see that in area number 2 there is no number of holes 14 cored, and yet the design margin is different. Why is (]) 15 tha t? - 16 ER. LONGLAIS: I am sorry? 17 ER. LIPINSKI Second line. 18 ER. -HILLERS It says 31 damaged rebar. l 1g HR. SCHWENCER: Drilled to the core. ER. LONGLAIS: These are the reinforcing steel 20 i 21 damaged due to drilling; these are the numbers due to b
- 22 damage due to coring.
ER. LIPINSKIs So the number of bars damaged 23 24 were due to -- { ER. LONGLAISs Driiling, and this column is 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
@ MTKWFM\ /X'd, rwa WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. . r. '
....-..-.:..-..t....
..... - .. - . . s - &- - . u---..----
56 1 caitag. * []) 2 3R. LIFINSKIs Okay. , 3 HR. KUO: Can you explain the last item there, O 4 the ratio of margin of holes as against nargin without 5 holes? Is that 1.137 6 MR. LONGLAISs Well, this is the pe rce n t 7 decrease. The number was put down wrong. This is the 8 percent decrease in margin. For this case the design 9 margin without the holes was 3.55, the design margin 10 with the holes was 1.33. This represented about a 13 11 percent reduction"in design capacity. The ratio was 12 computed wrong here. I must admit that when we prepared 13 these tables, we were pulling them off the typewriter - (h 14 yesterday as we were heading for the plane, but that is 15 a percent you are looking at. 16 MR. KUOs That is a decreasing margin? 17 HR. LONGLAIS: Yes; 13 percent is the percent 18 reduction in the design nargins. These design margins . to that you see listed here are very conservative design 20 m argins. One item of conservatism is the fact that when 21 ve do the final load check, we assume a minimum piping load of about one kip per square foot. In many areas 22 23 the actual component support load is less than one kip () 24 per square foot. We also have not taken into account any actual 25 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
--........'... - - - - . .. .. . - - . _ - . . . . - - -. j
.....a.._......
57 G 1 material strengths in the field such as the actual Qi/ 2 poured-in-place concrete strength er the actual strength 9 3 of the reinf orcing steel. This veuld typically increas. O 4 your design margin from anywhere from 10 to 15 percent.
~
BR. DENTON: How did you pick these locations 5 . 6 for samples? ER. LONGLAIS: We looked at the density of the 7 , 8 number of bars in a given area, the number of areas that 9 stand out as looking like it has a high concentration of 10 bars. NR. DENTON: These are average cored and 11 12 damaged locations or more severely damaged? How would 13 rou characterize them? 14 HR. LONGLAIS4 I would characterize these 15 areas as having a greater density of nick bars. HR. KNIGHT: Take in item number 3, this is 16 17 probably just one bar. How does that fit into the 18 f ramework of what you were dust saying? HR. LONGLAISs This one bar happened to be 1 19 It was in a 20 whst we consider to be a critical area. 21 highly stressed area. HR. LIPINSKI So just to pursue this line a l 22 23 little bit further, did you give any consideration to re-O 24 the =tre== coace=tr tioa os the vivea 9 rticuter 25 that he selected for this, or just density of the holes? l 0 . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY lNC. l 6C)CGCGIUBToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. . , , ; ~ .
~.- l .;
.:... a. . ; .:. . .. .; r. -. a - w ' .a :.a . . .~ .c.:. . .a a.: 1 2 : a-. ?. . . _
- 58 1 HR. LONGLAIS: Density was the primary one.
{}) , 2 In this situation here, stress was the critical one. - 3 HR. LIPINSKIs So both factors were considered? O 4 HR. LONGLAIS: Yes. 5 HR. LIPINSKI: Density of the holes and stress 6 concentration? 7 HR. LONGLAIS: Yes. 8 MR. DENTON: How did you go back and calculate 9 a margin with the damaged bar? Did you assume that the 10 bar did not exist analytically? 11 BR. LONGLAIS: Yes, we had discounted the 12 entire bar. 13 HR. DENTON: And the concrete, or does it 14 aatter? , 15 ER. LONGLAIS: Concrete has no effect. MR. N3RELIUS: Even on the damage basis you 16 17 are discounting the entire bar? MR. LONGLAIS: We assumed in this case the 18 19 damage to be a cut. As I said, between the period 1977 H l 20 and 1979, the contractors were not required to o 21 differentiate between a cut and a nick, so unless we saw 22 specific notes on the rebar damage report that would 23 lead us to believe the fact that we did have only a (j) 24 nick, we considered these to be cuts. 5R. DENTON: How do you do such a 25 f ALDERSON REPORnNG COMPANY,INC,
.~ ,
59 1 calculation? Iou have otherwise uniformly distributed m. w /. How do you go about 2 sisbs en a bar and one is cut. . 3 determining the margin? O '"' 4 HR. LONGLAISs Let's say in the case of a 5 two-way slab you divide that slab up into middle strips You calculate a design moment for the 6 and end strips. 7 middle strip and then subsequently the area of steel 8 required for that design mCment. If you knock one bar, 9 or two bars, or three bars out of that middle strip, you and compare 10 subtract that area, recompute a new moment, 11 that with your applied moments. HR. DENTON: So it is as though the bar was 12 13 not there at all. ( 14 HR. LONGLAIS: That is how we have done that 15 calculation , correct. 3R. LIPINSKI Perhaps you can explain why you 16 I 17 said that the area of concrete removed has no effect. 18 vill agree with you that it is in the zonc where there 13 is a tension, but in the case of compression, concrete 20 is the vital element. 21 HR. LONGLAIS: _The concrete area removed would 22 be so small. BR. LIPINSKIs Depending on the diameter of 23 ([) 24 the holes. If you have a little hole, that is fine, but 25 if you have. holes, say, 12 -- we know the diameter of l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
. - - . ... . , e m a u .su a
..=.. -
- ./... . . _
. +.~:.'. :w . . . . . . . - - . . . . ...
60 ~ 1 the holes was up to 16 inches, right? 2 ER. LONGLAIS: Typically in these plants, and F 3 structural considerations for the most part do not C4 It is shielding requirements. The -
"# 4 govern the design.
S reinforcement steel ratios that we have used are very 6 low . And subsequently the concrete compressive stresses 7 are very lov. So if we drill out a 16-inch core out of 8 a slab, the stresses could redistribute itself to 9 adjacent concrete elements, and there would be really no 10 effect on the slab itself. The stresses are very lov. The compressive 11 You have to get 12 stresses do not govern concrete design. 13 up to very, very high reinforcing steel ratios before we are not anywhere () 14 compressive stresses govern, and 15 near those reinforcing steel stresses. HE. DENTONs Are any of these valls or floors 16 17 pressure bearing, and by that I mean pressure-retaining 18 valls or floors? MB. LONGLAIS Do you recall off-hand? 13 20 ER. REKLACTIS: de had some holes in the l 21 containment vall, a few holes, but they were not true through holes through the valls. They were for 22 23 expansion anchors up to 6 inches deep and maybe one inch 24 in diameter. ER. KNIGHT: How t' hick was that vall? 25 O ALDERSoH REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.....n,. w,, term su 'Ju5
-*~,. -
_. .. -. -.~ s . . . - . - _
-.u....
61 1 MR. REKLACTISs That vall,vould be 6-foot h,. 2 thick. F 3 MR. DELGEORGEs Add those vere all on the t*il C. 4 outer surf ace. MR. REKLACTIS On the outer surface. They 5 6 did not compromise the boundary of the containment. 7 MR. KOSTALs That is a post-tension element. 8 HR. LIPINSKIs In the affidavit there was a 9 statement that the drillings were holes made in the . 10 reactor building at elevation 710 and 735 in the reactor 11 building vall. Now in this presentation you do not show Is that right? 12 an srea -- these are internal valls.
.MR. LONGLAISa These are all the valls and ,
13 , h, 14 siabs. HR. DELGEORGE On a BWR containment you have 15 16 to be sure to distingui,sh between the primary 17 containment boundary and the reactor building valls. 18 Those are two different surfaces. MR. LIPINSKI If I remember right in the 19 l . i l* 20 affidavit a statement was made that it was the elevation 1 21 that I indicated, and in the reactor building and the . 22 primary containment. Is that correct? 23 MR. DELGEORGE: No reference was made to 24 primary containment that I can remember. 'Q MR. DENTONa I had' assumed the reference was 25 'O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- - - - EL RiS 4 @ $ $54 2345
E .' . .'..~ .. . .i : .. . ' _. . . . . . ... .: ': . . . -
. '. r
_ . .. ...[.fl
. t -
.- 62 1 to so-called secondary containment, not primary 2 con tainment. Tha t is a good point. ,, ,
3 HR. SCHWENCER: On page 4 of the affidavit, b')
'* 4 the affidavit says reactor building, Unit 1 at elevation
~
5 belov 710. 6 MR. CHAN: In that table in the last column, 7 do you think the numerator and the denominator ought to 8 he reversed? 9 BB. LONGLAIS: Yes, that's right, it should 10 b e . That is why we are getting a number greater than 11 one. Tes. 12 ER. DELGEORGE: One point of interest that.we 13 might comment on is that there are two specific 14 allegations in the affidavit by - with
~
15 respect to , activities in two areas of the ~pla n't. We 16 believe, because of the re' cord-keeping process that we 17 have had in place, that we have been able to identify 18 the records associated with those two areas. 19 In fact, I believe. we have one of then here. 20 You vill remember from the affidavit an indication that 21 the phalanges of a beam vere contacted a:.; the result of 22 drilling through a floor. We have identified what we 23 believe to be the source of that report. There is, in 24 fact, a non-conformance report written and documented (}) 25 evidence of an engineering chsluationofthe reported
< b'. L:. . ..........:..-....:i...--.,... .. :. ' . ... .: . : : h . . . - :--. ._ -- . . 63 r 1 damage. g 2 No'v, given the vagaries of the inf ormation , 3 provided in the af fidavit, we cannot be certain that
?)
4 what we found was what was alleged to have existed. 5 However, it appears to us that we can find the damage 6 suggested in the affidavit. " This is true of the other instance as well, 7 8 but I am reluctant to talk about that one in more detail 9 because we have not confirmed it ourselves, the point of 10 the discussion being that we believe our records are 11 very complete. 12 HR. HORELIUS: '4 hat confidence do you have 13 that these hits and all have been put into the record? () 14 HR. DELGEORGEa As we indicated earlier, that' 15 have' bee'n both audits and surveillances conducted by 16 site contractor and Consonwealth Edison QA personnel 17 during the course of drilling and coring of the holes 18 initiated in the late seventies through 1981-1982. 'd e to have, because of the emphasis placed by this petition, 20 gone back to assure ourselves by requesting each site 21 contractor to identify all damage reports so that we can 22 cross-correlate those records received by the architect 23 engineer versus those records prepared by the site (]) 24 contractors, and we are in the process of verifying that 25 ve have in f act reviewed each of the reports developed O ALDERSoN REPoRDNG COMPANY,INC.
_ . a :. . . . .- ~
* ' a .'- . .... .. . . . . . . - . .: r........ .. - - ---...---- 2-.. . . . .
64 1 at the site. (}) 2 Eased on the review that has been conduct ,d te , 3 date, we are not vnre of any discrepancies in that m 4 process. 5 ER. NORELIUS: You mentioned that the progran 6 started in 1976, the con +.rci program that you have. How 7 does that reiste to the drilling that has been done? a ER. 1EE: Dan? 9 ER. SHAMBLINs Yes. We vent back and took a 10 look at where we stood on electrical and mechanical 11 installation from our progress reports, and in the 12 electrical area from a cost control report for the 13 period ending October 20, 1976, which is a period of I 14 approximately when the first revision of LSC came out, Cable pan installation, we had 15 the first draf t of 1.t. 16 11,260 feet of cable pan out of 119,800 feet of cable 17 pan installed. The 119,000 was based on two units. 18 That represents 9.4 percent of the cable tray l 1g installed. I 1. Exposed conduita We had no exposed conduit 20 l 21 installed at that point in time. lighting: We had 22 2,163 of 9,876 fixtures installed at that point in 23 time. I think we used the shorter anchors on the (}) 24 lighting, quarter-inch anchors. We had no cable pulled, 25 and this again is consistent with 15 vo didn't have any fG
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
Y._C d a_~ ..L..<'--
. ... .. a ._.-. - . -... - ....... _
65 exposed conduit installed we wouldn't have any cable } 1 2 pulling. 3 In the area of piping installation, for the we had
- 4 period ending December 31, 1976, piping supports, Piping, 5.1,917 of 17,745 piping supports installed.
310,926 6 2-1/2 inch and larger, we had 51,657 feet of we had 3,909 7 f eet installed ; and stainless steel piping, all 8 feet of 79,269 feet of stainless steel piping, 9 sizes, installed. Now these numbers include the whole 10 plant, both safety and nonsafety-related areas. 11 In reviewing one of the progress reports at 12 that point in time, we did find out that the HV AC 13 contractor was not working in any safety-related areas 14 at that point in time. This vas the progress report 15 dated December 10, 1976. He was working in the 16 nonsafety areas only and he had not started work in the l 17 saf ety-related areas. HR. LEES Prinarily in the service building? 18 19 HR. SHAHBLIN: Primarily in the service 20 building, and the lover elevations of the turbine . 21 building. The main electrical contractor was installing 22 lighting in reactor number one and number two and in the 23 aux buildings. 25 G ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY INC.
'~
-.._.- . . ,. : : ___. D _ ,.: _ .. . L 66 -
He was installing cable pans in the reactor () 1 2 one turbine and aux buildings, and he was installing , 3 communications, which is a -- the type of anchors you O 4 may use on that is similar to the lighting in the 5 reactor area acx building, service' building, and lake
~
6 screen house. 7 The piping contractor was installing service 8 vater, cycle condensate, clean condensate, closed 9 cooling water piping in the reactor building Unit 1, and 10 he had just started the installation of Section 3 high 11 and low pressure core spray and residual heat removal 12 hange rs. 13 You have to remember that the amount of
} 14 expansion anchor work that would have been going on at 15 that time would have been very, very mininal, because it 16 was a clear building that the contractors were able te 17 get into and hang from the embedment plates. So we are 18 concluding that the amount of concrete expansion anchor 19 Vork that vent on prior to September 1976 or the f all of f 20 1976, was very, very minimal.
1 l BB. 30BELIUS: Thank you. 21 L 22 MR. DENTON: Let me return to the slide that 23 You have shown. The lowest margin appears to be in area That is down to 1.05. Your sample is 24 number one. (]) In view of the large number of 25 actually ra ther small. ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
. . . . . . y :. ; - .: . .; :-- ..C.
. . . - - - , ... ... 5 N : b a.~ .
67 How far do you intend to look () 1 potentially damaged bars. 2 f or remedial action? Are you going to look back, vall - 3 by wall? Do you consider this a sample to bnse a 4 judgment on? 5 HR. 10NGLAI5s We feel satisfied that our 6 initial engineering . judgment was adequate. We feel that 7 ve have picked out nine critical areas. We have 8 demonstrated thst we still have a factor of greater than 9 one. We do not feel it is necessary to go back at this 10 point in time. MR. DENION: It is not very much greater than 11 12 one. Your sample is -- 13 MR. 10NG1AIS: All ve need is "one." O 14 MR. 1EE: We have been accused of overbuilding 15 there, or some of the utilities have recently, that we 16 have not paid enough attention to quantities, and what 17 have you, and that we are overdesigned. So "one" does i 18 not nean here that if we go to .99 the building is going 19 to f all down. , O ER. DENTON: Well, I was trying to relato to 20
- 21 the number that Jim Knight raised where he said the re There may 22 may be 50,000 holes either drilled or cored.
23 be a thousand of those that are greater than 2 inches, r's Of those 1000 holes that may be 24 or some such number. L' ' 25 greater than 2 inches, how many of them are sampled in O 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
'..._..___.,..-_..._._...u:._c .._. _.-
'a. c.. . ZR_.. . ..-
- 68
/*2 '. 1 this table? It looks like -- CJ . 2 HR. LONGLAISr Maybe 2ecs'than 1 percent. , a HB. LEES There were only 3000 that had any O 4 kind of even a nick report, let alone a cut or en actual 5 rebar replacement. So out of the 50,000, only 6 3000-and-sone had any indication of contact with a 7 reinforcing bar. 8 HB. DENTONs Well in the column labeled 9 " number of danaged rebar locations," do you assume all 10 these are cut? 11 NE. LONGLAISs We assume all of these to have , f 12 been cut, when in fact the number may have only been 13 nicked. 14 NR. KOSTALs I would like to clarify one 15 thing. that 1.05 in Tom's earlier comment regarding the 16 margins that exist, if we took the actual concrete l l 17 strength, that number is actually 1.2. It is not 1.05, 18 because we typically have 10 to 30 percent increase in 19 capacity of the concrete and steel that existr out in 20 that plant compared to the original design. So that is f 21 not even taken into account. 22 So when it says "from an engineering point of 23 view we feel we have adequate safety margins," there are () 24 additional margins on top of that 1.05 that are 25 available to us, if any additional assessment was G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC,
* ~*
* * ^
. . . . . :. . . L:_ . .. . : .- - . . . . .:.-...- - - . . . - . . . . _
69 rg 1 required, which we do not believe is needed. b) 2 ER. DENTON Are you saying then that these , 3 calculations of margins with and 'lithout holes nre usint 4 design strength, not -- 5 ER. KOSTAL: That is design strength, not 6 actual material strength; and it is automatically 7 required required that the actual material strengths 8 must be greater than design strengths, and we have-- you . 9 know, Edison has documentation to show that the level of to that increased capacity r(age is well above the.15 s 11 ' percent range. 12 EB. LIPINSKI But that depends on how we 13 define the margins. If the margin is defined on the k) 14 basis of ACI 3.18, then we are using the code 15 allo'vables. 1s ER. KOSTALs The margin is defined based upon 17 what is committed to in the FSAR, which was revieved and 18 agreed to by Staff. t ! 10 58. LIPINSKIs Fine. Then we are talking l 20 about-- l l 21 ER. KOSTALs Which is greater than ACI. Your 22 margins are less than what is allowed for ACI. l 23 MR. LIPINSKI No, but you bring up another ,(]) t 24 point. You bring up the actcal concrete strength. 25 ER. K3STAL I am ssying that it is available O ALDER $oN REPoRENG COMPANY.INC. L .
.L. :; .J _ u .. - . .. . .__ _ _... .
_,u......_.......:- . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ 1 , e s)
< \
- 70 1 if it is required to be alled upon, which is not taken 2 into account 10 this assessment. ,
3 ER. LIPINSKIs We'are;avare of that fact, but
'@ 4 if we are assessing,the margin on the basis of code 5 allowables, then this is o'ne thing.- But you bring up 6 another point.
HR. LONGLAISs The margin is bast 5 upon the
- f That design 8 design strength _of the concrete element.
9 strength is calculated per the applicable requirements 10 of ACI 3.18. That is div'ided by the design stresses in 11 the concrete element, which were calculated using the 12 committed-to design requirements in the LaSalle FSAB. I ER. DENTON: I want to get back to statistical 13 i 14 confidence just one more time. The number of damaged 15 bars for which you have done this calculation cannot add l 16 up to much over 100. ER. LONGLAIS: That is correct. , 17 i MB. DENION: And you are smying -the number of 18 19 bars actually damaged it' what? 30007 MR. LONGLAISs Approximately that, yes. 20 MB. DF# i M c And then you tried to select 21 ( 22 these, pic.5a. g op,a that you thought were more likely to But still, what level of 23 show deterieration than not. 24 confidence do you think this represent's where you have h identified holes that vill actually keep the structure 25
!O 3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
._- . m soon.s s s m _ e w wseu.unsnu a o. onnna renes ana.eens
.:.d:.=.u... y* . .. a :. ? .d.* - .- =
71 f 1 from performing its function? ER. 10NGLAIS: I personally feel we have done 2 , 3 a complete job in this assessa'ent. I believe ve have i ) - 4 been very conservative in our engineering assessments 5 'hroughout the entire program. And in all the areas we congested rebar 6 have looked at in selecting highly 7 damages, be they nicks or cuts, we have demonstrnted 8 that we have a factor of safety greater than one. pudding is in looking at 9 Again, I think the proof of the 10 the dr.avings and looking at how sparsely most of these 11 reinforcing steel damages do occur. Fe have tried to select areas that appear to 12 One area here where it appeared that we 13 be congested. 14 had a stress problem, we did isolate that and showed
)
15 that we still had sufficient margin. The point that needs to be 16 ER. DELGEORGE: ( nt 1 17 aade is that the engineering evaluation is 100 perce That is, we have 18 complete for all concrete elements. t for 1 19 revieved these drawings and performed an assessmen l l
'de have done an 20 each of the concrete elements.
21 additional analytical assessment to verify the . have 22 evaluation that has been done f or all valls, and we 23 found that there is nothing in this analytical the 24 assessment of the nine valls shown to suggest that (}i 100 percent review that we did was insdequa te. 25 l ALDERSON AEPORTING COMPANY,INC. S@Na D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
~
.. .:l. ..:. .......
' ~. L' ' '
- . . :.a :- : . . - ,.---.. . . .
72 . 1 So on that basis statisteally we have looked
])
2 at 100 percent of the elements involved, and we have , 3 done as over-inspection of a linited number of those g
<J 4 valls, or concrete eleaents.
5 MR. DENTON: I propose that we take a break in 8 a goment to perhaps mull over what we have heard; but 7 bef ore we do, let me ask Mrs. Goodie if she would like 8 to make any comments? G 5S. GOODIES Not at this point, thank you. 10 ER. PURP1Es One part of the petition speaks 11 to asking us to not allow fuel to be loaded, because if 12 fuel vould be loaded you would be unable to have access 13 to areas that needed repair, and so forth and so on. Do (I 14 you have anything to provide on that? 15 ER. DE1GEORGEs Yes. If you will remember, I 16 asked that we defer that, and nov looks like a good time 17 to talk about it. The pati, tion does say that inmediate 18 attention is required prior to plant operation. In 19 materials that we have submitted to the Staff, you are 20 aware that our low-power test startup program involves 21 certain hold points. 22 From the date at which fuel is started to be 23 loaded into the reactor vessel, there is a period of If[j 24 approximately two months before the first criticality is 25 reached. During that period of time, we do not feel O ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY lNC.
d' . :.:.: . ---... . . .
. . . :. . . ... . ...;a._ . . . . . . , _
73 f 1 that there is any jeopardy to the continuation of an (]) 2 evaluation, and there is no radintion level that needs , 3 to be addressed anywhere in the plant. O 4 Beyond that, it is our view, based on the 5 experience in starting up similar reactors at Dresden 6 and Quad Cities, that over the f ull course of the five 7 percent power license that we have requested, that the 8 radiation levels in those areas of the plant subject to 9 inquiry here would not be such that a continuing review 10 or inspection would be precluded. So it is our feeling 11 that the immediacy suggested in the petition is 12 overstated. 13 ER. LEE 4- And I guess I would say that in fact
$ 14 after 12 years of operation on Dresden, it would not, 15 f rom a radiation standpoint, preclude evaluations and ~
16 inspections. After all, we do maintain all of that 17 equipment. 18 HR. DENTON4 Any other questions anyone would 19 like to raise before we take a break? .. 20 (No response.) 21 HR. DENTON: Let us break for about 10 minutes 22 and try to get back a few minutes before 3 00.
~
23 (Recess.) ER. PURPLE Let's get started again. (-) 24 25 (Pause.) G . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
^
- : ;...... .... , ... . . . :. .;. i.-a.'s. u '
= . .s.% 'a. - . ~ _ . s :.- -- - - . . . . . ~ . -
74 1 Ha rold was unable to come back. He was called 2 away. He asked me to continue the meeting -- continue, 3 or close the meeting, I suspect. I think Commonwealth 4 Edison has presented all you intended to present today, 5 I trust? 6 BR. DELGEORGE I would like to supplement the 7 record with one fact. 8 ER. PURPLEa All right. 9 ER. DELGEORGE Early in the discussion a 10 question was raised relative to whether or not we had 11 performed a reinforcement steel assessment of the 12 off-gas building roof. We have verified by . 13 conversations with our consultant, and we have in f act - h 14 perf ormed a similar evaluation of the off-gas building 15 roof to what has been described here. And is it true 16 that a drawing like this exists for that slab? 17 ER. REKLACTIS There are two cuts that were 18 noted, and they were observed, and there are several 19 nicks which are not detrimental. 20 NB. DELGEORGEt T e point being that although 21 only safety related concrete elements are addressed in 22 the package we have provided you today, we have been 23 able to determine that the off-gas building roof, which 24 is a non-ssfety related structure, was also evaluated in 25 a similar way. e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGIN 1A AVE. S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 f 202) 554 2345
- .. r. . . . ~ . . :. . . . . . . . . _
- v. w _ . ..: --... . . . .. s . -
f 75 Well, I bring Harold's [ BR. PUBPLE: Okay. 1 p The 2 thanks f or everybody who came on such short notice. ' 3 information we have received today will certainly help S 4 us kick off our review. 5 Ve vill accept those 90 drawings and turn thea We are, and l 6 over to the Staff for a subsequent look. t 7 have been I guess from an earlier notification of the site, the Regional 8 possible problems with holes at 1 9 Office has initiated its own inquiry into the f acts, and to that is continuing and will continue. 11 We cannot identify today any specific 12 additional information we need from the utility to help 13 us complete it. It is possible that we may ask for 14 s om e . If so, we v'111 certainly get the request to you I 15 promptly. Recognizing your scheduler needs, we 16 certainly would intend to put what resources we need' to 17 finish this up as rapidly as possible. l Harold did ask me to pass on, in follow-on to 18 is the question he asked a couple of times, his concern e 20 about the last chart we sav vith statistics, and whether really gives you and him and us sufficient 21 or not that 22 statistical confidence that you really have found all 23 the places. I think if there had not been one number . that came as lov as 1.05, he might not have been as h 24 25 concerned; but -aga.in, I do not know that we are going to O . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.lNC. 6%0.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345- - - - - - -
..:s
* ~ - ~
- .. : ...~a i w .a....... ...-.--..:
_ . i. . ._ . , .. .
~
76 1 ask that you do any more, but you may want to be {} 2 thinking about that. , i
. (
3 I think you have delivered today all the Oi 4 reports that you nentioned? Do we have all of that 5 inf ornation ? , 6 HR. DELGEORGE I believe so. Before we leave 7 ve vill check with whoever you think has a complete
\
8 package, and we vill -- 9 HR. PURPLEa The Project Manager, I hope. , 10 ER. LEES I might just say, by responding to 11 that last concern of Harold Denton's, that in fact, I 12 think as Lou has said, that we have looked at we think 13 100 percent. O 14 ER. PURP'LE: Yes; I understand that. 15 ER. LEE It is really only a sampling 16 verification, in a sense. So that a look by your f 17 experts at these prints hopefully will give the same 18 conclusions. Again, we can only make the plea that we 19 have spent a lot of time on this effort. 20 We, just on a kind of a back-of-the-envelope 21 estinate, while we were having a quick sandwich before 22 ve came over here, estimated that we probably spent more 23 than one man-year vorth of effort in five days, and that () 24 is not counting all the effort that is indicated here by 25 the people who have come who should be back at the site O , ALDERSoN REPORDNG COMPANY. INC,
....a___
- :- - . ..: L . - . : :.'a :. :
77 1 trying to move that facility along. y 2 If there is a problem, we would bs snxious te , 3 get into it as quickly as anybody. We are convinced 4 that there is no problem here, and that we ought to move 5 as quickly as we can. And there is certainly no 6 justification for holding up low-power testing. ER. PURPLES Ers. Goodie, are there any 7 8 comments you wish to make? HS. GOODIES We certainly appreciate the 9 We l 10 prompt response to the NBC to the petition. 11 recognize that the decision is yours to make. 12 Unfortunately, we were not able to have our consultant or nothing that I could 13 here, so there was very little, But he vill be looking at 14 say technically, obviously. 15 all the information as soon as I can get it to his 16 office. ER. PURPLES We were very glad to have you 17 18 here today. vill If there is nothing f urther, the meeting 1s Thank you very much. 20 be closed. i (Whereupon, at_3:10 p.m., the meeting was 21 22 adjourned.) l 23 O 24 25 O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY INC. ASHINGToN D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_ .:._ .2 ,,_' -.:.......--. . - - - ~ ~ . = - - - - -~~;----'
- ~ ~ - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - ' =
s NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.54ISSION QThis 1.s to certify that the attached proceedings before th.2 e C1n the.Catter of: ~ Commonwealth Edison Company (LaSalle County Nuclear
' Generating Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2) 8 Data cf Proceeding: March 31, 1982 l
Decket llu=ber: '50-373 & 50-374 Place of Proceeding: Bethesda, Maryland acre held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcri,::t therect for the file of the Coc=ission. l 1 . I l Jane N. Beach \ ' l Official Reporter (Typed) 1 i h' -
\ f
. 1 f *
**=,
O icial Reporter (Signature)
~
l . l- . O
~
~
- O . .
P-
.}}