_ - . .-

O- ~ '

'

eks - -

.Nr?C Q; '.'YO * *

Q C f @.h y,i

ko,.yr-

.

S *'

- .e.

FioridaPwe..o....e.r July n , 1974

.

.

Donald F. Knuth, DirectorThe Directorate of Regulatory OperationsU. S. Atomic Energy CommissionWashington, D. C. 20545

Subject: Crystal River Plant - Unit #3.

Docket No. 50-302*:Dear Mr. Knuth:

?.In accordance with Federal Regulation 10CFR50.55(e), de wish to submitthe final report regarding the nonconformance reported on 4/24/74 byFlorida Power Corporation.

The final evaluation and recommendationshave been made regarding this nonconformance..

As a result of anextensive evaluation of the strength of the in place concrete, it has

-

, been decided that the concrete be accepted as is.

To assist you in evaluating our decision, we wish to offer the following:!

On April 4, 1974, concrete pour L-9 of the reactor building dome wasplaced. This pour is a complete circular ring mid-way up the domeof the building, consisting of 129 cubic yards. This concrete hadan intended design strength of 5000 psi at 28 days. Seven day testcylinder breaks indicated that the concrete would not achieve thedesign strength level. The 28 day cylinder test results averaged4570 psi. Gilbert Associates, Inc. was requested to peiform a reviewof the reactor building dome design to determine a minimum acceptableconcrete strength for this particular area of the structure. Theresults of their review indicated that 4500 psi was an acceptableminimum design strength.

In evaluating the field cylinder test results, Gilbert Associates,Inc. has utilized provisions of the 1971 ACI-318 code'to evaluatethe structure. Strict interpretation of the 1963 code which was usedin the original design calculations, would indicate that the 4500 psirequirement is not satisfied, since 10% of the tests lie below the4500 psi. The applicability of the 1963 code to this limited numberof samples is questionable. Since the 1971 code prov.ided a clearbasis of strength evaluation, it is being used in this case. TheCrystal River Unit #3 FSAR is being so amended.

('m.

8003030f?f'

.

_r.. ..w . .m, . . , _ _ - _ - . - _ . ,c..--.. .

". .

.

Donald F. Knuth.

/'''N * U.S. AEC( ) July 11, 1974'- *

Page -2- ,

*.

.

We have determined that this nonconfor=ance was caused by the failureof the cement to meet specifications. The exact cause of the failureis not completely clear, since test results for this particular batchof cement submitted to Florida Power Corporation prior to its use -

indicated the cement was acceptable. Test results of samples takenfrom the silo at the site however, indicate that the cement was, infact, unacceptable. In order to preclude a reoccurrence of thisproblem, Florida Power Corporation initiated the folloving correctiveaction:

Cement inspection during both the grinding of the cement at the manu-facturer and after its delivery to the site have been markedly increased..

This includes full time inspection at the manufacturer c d during thegrinding of cement for Florida Power Corporation.

.

In order to provide you with the necessary data to evaluate our actions ;"

regarding this nonconformance, we are enclosing copies of the followingdata:

1. Gilbert Associates, Inc. letter, FPC #10373, dated 1/23/74.

2. ChronologicalLogofsequenceofeventsregardingthesubject,_,

nonconformance.

3. Florida Power Corporation letter to G. B. Brown, Pittsburg TestingLaboratories, dated S/14/74, regarding cement corrective action.

4. Pittsburg Testing Laboratories letter, dated 5/15/74 to Paul Weigeltof the Tampa Office of PTL, regarding cement corrective action.

5. Gilbert Associates, Inc. letter, FPC #10517, dated 5/22/74, includingattachments.

A complete file of these and other supporting documents is available atthe Crystal River Plant site for review by your inspectors at their conven-ience. We hope that this information provides you with all the necessarydata to close this item. Please advise us if you require any furtherinformation.

Very truly yours, ,

* Lo|'

.

idh J. Rodger..

Enclosures Assistant Vice President'

f'\'g i ec: Norman C. Moseley'N_ / Director, Region II

.

, m

-. .

'Lg--

f. ....

. ,

'k GIL.,ERT A SS O CI ATES, I N C.1HGibCIP.3 hHD CUtdutTA'4TS

P.O. Bor.14,30 / RCADif4G. FA.19503 .

.

May 2, 1974.

Mr. W. A. S:elistavski, Director FPC - #10373Ceneration L1C ncering Depart enti

FlocLda Power Corporation

P. O. Box 14042St. Petersburg, T1orida 33733

lte: Concrete in Dom Pour L-9Reneter Buildingtrystai River - Tnit 93-

.Pinrida Power Corperar.icn.

Dear Mr. Szelistcreski:.:

With ref erence to Telece;sy Ms. 6028 fron Mr. J. Durcn dated May 2,1974'

giving the recults of the ccacreto 23 day test cylinders for pour L-9of the Dore our findings are as folloks:

We have evaluated the design at location L-9 of the De se and find that'

the ninit:un concrete stren.eth required to ccet the Icad case givin:; the-

mar 4 -a stress is fe = 4500 psi.

1. The previsions of ACI-313-63 are difficult to apply in the evaluationof concrete strength for an individuni pour with the nu_ber of cylindertests available in thin case, hersever, AC1-318-71 provides a note definitive1mathod of evaluatien.

2. Interpreting the test razJrs do accordcace with 5C1-338-71 Section4.3.3 the test results over:n average et 4710 psi is greater than the4500 psi required, and no cne set of results is less than 500 psi below4500 psi, on this basis the concrete strength is acceptabic.

In conclusica, ve can accept the concrete strength in accordance withACI-318-71, heatever. -a devistion from the 1SAR vill have to be docu entedand presented to' t!w IIC.

Very truly yours. .

04&ok.

| S. N. DobreffProject Structurni Engineer

JEL/SND/kf d- -gf

wJ.h Y >cc: W. A. S:elistevski (2) e w Ju

C. E. JacksonJ. _R. Durco *(Telecopy to St . Pet ersburg)*

.

.e-

. _ .

*. .

*~

( M./

I *) .s-

CRYSTAL RIVER UttIT 3 ..

REACTOR BUILDir!G 00:4E POUR L-9*

L0}l STREf1GTil C0flCRETE_

'

,.CllR0fl0 LOGICAL LOG*

4/15/74 Low 7 day cylinder i>rcoks for pour L-() (poured 4/4/74)reported to W. Buck 4/15/74 no data was available fi cmconstruction.

,_

4/17/74- WAS requested wo expedite resolution of low concrete~5trength question - telecopied request for information

to CEJ. 1

4/18/74 At C.R. gathered data on low strength conc. tests. ...

Requested S.fl. Dobreff to look at design and report byf4onday a minimum acceptable 28 day cylinder strength, f.1

Average of 7 day breaks is 3030 psi. Concrete cores(12) are being removed from pour. The following datawas collected:*

f% a. 7 day and 5 day cylinder breaks( , '

b. design mix curves -

c. 7 day cement tests -

d. pour inspection slips

4/19/74 Received 6-14 day core (dry) bre' ais from B. BrownSample !!o.1 - 3740 psi

3 - 3260 psi5 - 2750 psi7 - 3040 psi9 - 2700 psi

11 - 3610 psi Avg. 3185 psi

flormal expected 7 day strengths have been 73% of 28 day.

or 3650 psi min. .

4/20/74 Received the following data from J. Artuso via telephone:

a. Het core test results (15 dry)4120 psi

.4140 psi ,

3440 psi2840 psi ,

2820 psi .

4010 psi Avg. 3560 psi

.

- + = * - = = , . . . .. -*

_. . - _ _ . - . . . - - . . .

_ _ __ -.

.. .

e

..

.

,n

( ) b. 28 day cenent tcsts - Silo ill9 (psi)s- 5320 5160 5200m

5310 5100 5200-

*5320 5230 52205330 5320.

c. Grab sample of cement taken from C.R. #3site showed less than 20 min. set time. '

.

d. Mr. Artuso's evaluation thus far is thatthe concrete will evaluate at 4000 psi 23 daycylinder strength. To justify this, additionalcores may be necessary and the 85% strength

,

factor (from ACI) applied. He estimatesreaching 4300 psi at 90 days again based upon acore break analysis.

4/22/74 Mr. Dobreff's preliminary analysis of the dome design indicatesa minimum. acceptable 28 day cylinder strength is 4250 ps.i. .

,

He is proceeding to further refine this design investigation.,

. -

Met with JTR, WAS RSB - briefed them on the above .Willwait for 28 day evaluation. Advised C.P. also.

~

Message from J. Artuso - results of grab sample of

01cement - 3 day break 1890 psi, sample failed false setrequirenent ( ASTM) .-

.

4/2.6/74 Mr. Dobreff said their preliminary ana' lysis thus far indicatesif we partially prestress the dome and complete the prestress

.

3 months later 4200 - 4300 would be acceptable. Work by GAI'

is continuing.. .

4/29/74 Advised JTR and CEJ of information in paragraph innediatelyabove - AM.

5/1/74 Mr. Dobreff and tir. Cronberger advised by phone that aminimum acceptable f'c is 4500 psi .

.

5/2/74 Advised JTR of above. He requested a letter from-GAI inconfirmation. Advised by B. Black of 28 day cylinderbreaks - 4570 avg. -

5/3/74 Received gal confirming letter;gave to WA5 for approvals.

>

j .

WO2--

.

A~

i.. .

.

S

,e

'? -mg p s t-- --

. _.. _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ __ ._ . _ . _ _ _

1

. . .

.

.....\ _

-- . ..,.

F t. '. 5. G ;- .F> i !'i - 'L',0CPGi;/! }N.

\ . mm , w. ii . . ...,. w.. ,-- . . .. e . < v,.

. ,

F .

4 .- .

,

-,

.

i!

'

11ay 14,1974 .

;,

; -

; ;-

. .

.

c. h. creme .

Piitsbur.1 'Ir;.: ting Leh.,

i P,c : Cement Correctivc Action*

-,.

I Betine tt , t-

,

7

!- As per your reconnr.m.f. i. ions, the follcuing corrective action:,*

. .

i tre authoriwel to be pint into effect as of this date for closer -

control fo cecent used on this, project: --

|-

-

'I!i 1. PTL to provide full tino inspection at Ceneral: Portlend and d.tring the grinding of conent for.

Florida Power Corp. -

j -

;- . .

2. PTI. to provide appror.it:ctcly 50% coverage clering1-

the transfer of ecmant from the production silo -

.,

to the storage silo. i. ,

!

} 3. PTL to seal both top and bottom of storage siloafter transfer is completc. |

t |

|- 4. PTL to break bottcm scals price to first ship- |-

!

7 ment to Pcil level.*

i

5. PTL during er.c.of the s,ilo lo periodically verify!-

-

chat top Sca!s are, intact.t

.. ,

G. PTl '.l.o perform routino setting titte on the cerent-

,

j d21ivered to 1:erl .l.evci. ,1.f , .. ,

} t :/ , ||:

,.i!.5.!!Y.**f.'*

. , ~.. . ;,

.;;- . .

. , I<

' ' D. B. tili.cki .

IS!!/hhe .,

' *

. .

(~ -

,- ,,

e

e

f

(

.

,.

g a w-**"

,eo m.

-

I

1- .

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

-. -. .-- .- . . _. .. - -.- _

. . ,

. .

i

:

.

. ,

|.,

, ; $9,w.. p; .If,.yi.''

. . ., . . 1, i .,. , , n : i s,. , , I .,, ,, y. u.c. . . U.! . . . .!. (. 0 ., .,:: .. .i

. i..< .s ...i...,. . .. u~

. .

4 u.rs rit !.n o nieu. .. . .

,...

o.@. . . ; 6 %. .? , ,,

1 .,

" ' . - s %.. 1x:m :crixo ::a:ix ::m:.; .,xn mi1.:.si::; r's !,

*\' g. , - 2.,J .

, .,

p ....,3..,,v...,.i.,,.,T.

gfgff - i'rrisiti:in:it, i .s. ::;euo ' ' 7,? '; ,".,'g.'..| .', " ' ';.

. ' ' ,

#.5,0 ( . * fit. d.I' * f i l 8 0 *t.. .: t f.;" .*. 4th H s 6 gf T$isu ....A i d.? 3 c,.

;

I .s........u.............. .......,..,...............s..........,.,.

;' . .. .. ...... .... ..... ,..... .. . . ..,.. .. ... . ..... ,... ....... . -

ei..........................,....,...............,.......,........,,..... . . .

. .. .

f

'!

! i

1 :J i,

!

,

May 15, C)71:

\-

To: Paul U ir. cit Tam.oa .'- -

;

..

From: G. B. Brot.no Crystal River * ' , '.

''

Subject: Cement inspectica Florida Feuer Corp. - '

Florida Fouer has requested uc increase our cement inspection per

the attached lot.tcr. Item:31 through 5 will have to be perfomed-

.

. by the Tampa errice. _ Item 6 uill be done here. If you are unabic

to' cover these incpections crutact me ac coon as possible..

-.

'<,.-: u. ....s.. .

.: . .;,. .. ..'w.

"

G. D. Eromo~n

.

Attnelm nt: 1

GBD/djh-'

cc: Joe 1.ctw.o P1t.tnturgh -

cc: -Prues I1 :ck F . '.' , C.'

* ^ *

cc: Fn g 9 nyJK,

g % .S. ..b

.

*f

. .

.

.

w.. :............. .. . . . 1 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ...

w. . i.........e..,..:................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .. .. . . , . , .

... . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . , . , . ... . ..... , . .. , . . .. .

. .

/ \ \ . : , ; . .> s-

-

- . . . ~

's/'

I.n E nT A S S o c t A T C s. I ta' ,f<,} \ /-

' ;-N-

- .\q)'m. y -

z . .- | *; - ,,

*"

* . . ,

,' Y , g,*f:{ ', . , * 1/ A ~ i- ~-

[' ' ''Iny 22,1974 .i

k, ,. . 3,

-

\* / >> ...

FPC - )bdi7,1''N-|.-/'

\ . . . -'

1 !!r. 'I. A. Seclist.c'.:thi, Director-

| Cot:cretio '. 6; incerin? Depr.rt: entm 31." ' , ,I

[' 3 8'' O '.{.b(',. A'5 ,J~

riorld.n Pcuer Gn peratic.,

f fi.1. ' '

3P . O. 30:. 14042 "" ' # * '' 3 A 'b' ' ' ' 8,

St. Petorebur3. Pieridn 33733

N'' Al b;yCWDczoPourL-9,f.]Q(*l'.V .:? 'O

.' d * .:g.!*T.

p"! t,' 'l 1-

P4: -

Ree tor Eaildink. N '' * N "-

j Cryst:1 P.iver - Unit 03Floride Tc:cr Corporntica

Dec.r !!r. ' S:c11ritcurhi.. -'

1. As requested by your Mr. J. P., Duren encleced is a copy of the ::tructural 5

i engineering input for the proposed rcport to AEC in r:Zard to Do: Pcurf L-9.i,

Picose reviev c: d cc:=ent..

.

- 'Ict7 truly yo sta ,

-

., .

hb Id ,

S. N. DobreffProject Structural Paginect.

.

'' SI.*D/kiEnc.

cc: V. 16. S:ali?tenki (2) (Enc.),

C. E. Jackson

,

-

,

.

. .

.-.

' O ' Concrotc .reun,th in Dunc Pont I .- 9'

,

Forteard

F.S.A.It. Section 5.2.2.1 recorda that the strenr,th of the concrete selected

for the 1:enctor UniIding, prentressed concret e in 5000 pai at 28 dayn and in.

5.2.3.1 the buildinr. denir.n In to he in accordance wi t h Aci-318-63.

The following test result evaluat Lon of the actual concrete strens.th reintive.

to the mar.innta utre::s level:. er.pce.t ed in poo r I. -9 of f.he 11ome coueluden

that the concrete strength f r. Icss than 5000 psi, houcver, the concrete

does meet the required streny,th of 4500 for the critical utress at this

location including the safety f actors demanded by ACI-31S 63.

Evaluation of Concrete Strength Test P.esults -

The concrete cylinders representing the subject concrete consisted of 3

The average 28 day strength of each set was 4890 psi, 4550 poi andO sets. .

,

*! 4280 psi. .

,

.

ACI-318-63 states that the running average of all renults bc.cqual to,or ,

greater than,f ' and that not more t.han 10% of 'the results t.hould falle

below.f This requirement can be usefully applied for strength controle

.c

throughout construction but is not applicable for evaluating the concrete

strength in a localized pour arca such as the one in question." -

Daced on ACI-318-71 paragraph 4.3 "Evaluationard Acceptance of Concrete"

the concrete reprencnted by these cylindcra teould meet a requirenent for

4570 pai strength nt 28 days..

The ACI-310-71 method of evaluation is directly applicabic to the circum-

ntances enecontered in the nubject pour and the tres reun i t t. av.i t i .ibl e .

O.

_.

),

i

/-,~!

- _. -- - - .

. - -

.

. .,

-

. m..

Revleu of t in ::t. rnel u ral .\nalvnin t o lut.rmine t he it.ex innin Si r. :.::en in() t h. 'lh mir !..;c a t. I on t. -9t .

%)Ceneral-

.

All load car.c.k were reviewed to . ntahlinh tin: ma::Inum slicar, tennion and

.comprensive stresses at pour L-9 which is located appro::inately mid-way,

between the Dome crown and the ring girder anchorage zone.

Tenstic and She Stresses-

To resist bending tensile stresses in the concrete during pouring, rein-

.

forcement is provided, and the compresnive and shear stresses in the con-f

crete are insignificant. For all test, operating and accident loading

conditions the shcars and moments approach zero in location L-9 of the .

Dome, see figures 5-6 to 5-8 in the F.S.A.R. No contribution from the f

tensile capacity of the concrctc was relied upon when the required max--,

Oimum-prestress force was determined. -

\s It is concluded that since the tensile and shcar stresses in the location,

of pour L-9 are low, their evaluation is not critical for entablisning the

minimum concrete strength required.

Conpressive Stresses

ACI-318-63 Section 2605 divides the allowabic compressive stress levels into

two requ:f rements: a) The allowable compressive strens immediately following

transfer before prestress losses due to creep and shrinkage is liuited to

0.6 f ' b) *The allowabic compressive stress after all prestress lossesc

Is Jtmited to Q.45 f '.y

On thin' hanin the cril ical load conilition (requi. ring the maximum f ' value)e~

was found to be durin; operation at which the , maximum ntrean uns 2020 psi

wi th in the area - of pou r 1.-9. 'Inguat.ing t he_ actuplil ut renn of 2028 pui to t he

.( 0.45 f . 'e

- requirement determined that the ninfo.u.a. concrete strength fnce

%J rerpii red in 4'i00 pu r. D .

| 1_ j .

_

/|~* . . . - .,,, - . - . . . .

|-. , . _ , _ ,_. -