ML20112H920

Intervenor Exhibit I-E-18,consisting of 841030 Testimony of CC Stokes Re Adequacy of Procedures & Const Engineering Practices in Const of Facility Containment

ML20112H920
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/30/1984
From:	Stokes C P.S. ASSOCIATES
To:
References
OL-I-E-018, OL-I-E-18, NUDOCS 8504040463
Download: ML20112H920 (2)

Text

a J gggoou "

_3' 5.j 7 kWM Mr ,

(0l30f I

~ T. tC_

y - - c -

October 30,'.Qg[

0] m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

W .2 4 gg ,.

US NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO3D!ISSION Cr;: .'

'y

• 00)g,j a a . ' Q Ju; < ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' t *

'N!$ 'Cl C

In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL AND NC EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )

AGENCY (Shearon Harris, Unit 1) )

Testimony of Charles C. Stokes Q. 1. Please state your name',' address and employment?

A. 1. Charles Cleveland Stokes.

My permanent addrestis Route 1 Box 223, Cottonwood, AL 36320.

I am self-employed as a consultant engineer with P.S. Associates.

Q. 2. Mr. Stokes, would you state your professional qualifications?

A. 2. My professional background and qualifications are attached to my testimony, but in short, I am a licensed professional engineer in three states (Florida, Alabama, and Georgia) and have worked on all types of electrical generation facilities beginning with my co-op experience in 1972.

Q. 3. What is the purpose of your testimony?

A. 3. To review the adequacy of the procedures, and construction engineering practices relied upon in constructing the containment of Shearon Harris.

Q. 4. What are your conclusions?

A. 4. First let me state that many of my concerns which were written in the affidavit filed earlier this year concerning the concrete pouring at Shearon Harris have been addressed by the NRC and employee's of Daniel and CP&L. Without conflicting information these issue I feel are r>~" - da the most part.

Shq&tley Naher$st /W I want to address the ranges of slump which was documented and the FCR's which were sent to me for review modifying the number of pours made for Unit 1.

The slump used in most structural concrete ranges between 2 and 7 inches.

When the slumb is near zero, you genrally have unworkable concrete. By Unworkable I mean one which does not flow, it must be pushed into every crack and void. Near zero slump may be the result of a concrete that has all the requirements of good workability except that the water content is too low, or it may be the result of a harsh concrete mixture that is 8504040463 841030 PDR ADOCK 05000400 Q PDR

J Page 2 free-draining and allows the water to run out of the concrete mass ouZ- _. change in subsidence.

without causing anySiyeiNm.it e8 In reviewing the pour information which was sent to me, especially during the pouring of 1CBSL216001 and 1CBSL216002 there'$$E'someverylow slumps reccrded. When the slump is low, it is stiff, it will stand almost on a vertical line.

In reviewing these two pours 1CBSL216001 and -6002, I became concerned about another factor wich should be considered, and that factor is the cubic yardage being placed. Pour ICBSL216001 is a large pour which required approximately 64 trucks carrying 10 yards of concrete each.

In reading CP&L's pretrial testimony, I found additional information.

The pour was 12 feet thick and from experience the radius of the contain-ment is approximately 70 feet.

I have never seen such a large pour being attempted. It would be extremely difficult to make. The 64 truck loads of concrete have to be timely both in mixing and in transportation and pouring. Many laborors would be required in the placement. .In pouring a pour of this size it would not be wise to have a low slump mix.

Pour 1CBSL216002 was even larger, requiring approximately 98 trucks carrying 10 yards each.

Q. 5. Do you have any other concerns?

A. 5. Yes, in reviewing Procedure WP-05 Rev. 21, Section 4.2.2, I came across the folloiwng: "The area Engineer may "N/A" certain permanent ' plant concrete placement reports."

Q. 6. Why does this bother you?

A. 6. I feel this responsibility should be QA's responsibility.

Q. 7. What else did you find?

A. 7. Also in WP-05 Section 3.23 a, 'ound another statement which caused concern. This.section apy.m s e ellow ice blocks to be added to the mixer. Similar statements were in the Concrete Control CQC-13, Section

-6.3 and CAR-SH-CH-6 Section 14.2.b. By code, very finely ground ice may be added to the water used for mixing but should.not be placed in direct contact with the concrete mix.

I saw two other minor errors. I wantywene to point these out to Daniel so they may correct them. In WP-04 on Page 5 and TP-i5 on Page 5, CA-3100 should be CA-3300.

Q. 8. Is that all of your testimony?

A. 8. ~Yes.