ML102920095

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation

ML102920095
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/10/2009
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Information Services
References
FOIA/PA-2010-0116
Download: ML102920095 (85)

Text

'I, 20X NR hi nsi , " CrL 03-Dec-09 9:05:22 AM Request Number: 1 Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/15/2009 Rr soir I Inspectoi Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: There is an area on the containment dome on the south, approximately half way between the walking platform and the peak of the dome that is depressed. There appears to be a grout covering that is seriously deteriorated. Is this evidence of repeat delamination damage?

References:

Response Assigned to: Craig Miller Date Due to Inspector: 10/16/2009 I was up on the dome earlier this evening to examine the entire dome structure since I also have a Pri 3 investigation upcoming regarding the condition of the concrete on the dome (reference AR 357670). Although it had been a number of years since my last visit up there, the overall condition of the dome is pretty much exactly

.the same as it has been in my past trips as part of tendon surveillance. I believe that when they made the re-pours of the dome due to the original delamination, the final surface did not end up being a smooth arcing curvature and had several localized uneven areas. The one in question is exactly that.

Furthermore, as part of our ongoing Condition Monitoring of Structures effort (EGR-NGGC-0351), I will be

returning to the dome this evening (10/16/2009) with Dayna Mendez to obtain digital photographs of the area to

,insert into our data base on this subject so that we have a reference point for future inspections.

Mlisc Notes:

Response By: Joe Lese Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/16/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:

Page 1 of 85

~LX~ ~ cton~R 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 2 Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 jequ iSoJrlnpector: Anthony he I pctor:n h masters us stedsao..................

..................... Category:

a ten o nd Information on R Request

)quest-. The Inspectorlhas requested a procecdure tihat was used for tensioning th~e-tencions originally.

References:

Response Assigned to: Sid Powell Date Due to Inspector: I 10/16/2009

Response

.Prescon Field Installation Manual.tif was placed in folder L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-

.A\POWELL Q-A\Request 2, Original Tendon Tensioning Procedure Mist Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

Page 2 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request RN eus tm b r Number: i..........g....

3 .... ...... ..........

Individual Contacted: Paul.Fagan Pa agua lnD Date Contacted:

a te C 10/16/2009 .................

o nt..ed..................../1...0 ..

Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: George Thomas of the NRC requested a copy of our EC 74801 on the core bores. I printed a copy and delivered to Mr. Thomas at 0900. This is a preliminary copy since the EC has not been:

issued yet.

References:

Response Assigned to: Glenn .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pugh

. ................ ........... .......... .......................................... Date Due.....to ..............

Inspector: 10/16/2009

.I. ....................

Response

An approved (issued) copy of Revision 1 of the EC 74801 was printed and hand carried to George Thomas on 10/28/09.

Misc Notes: See question #19 for continued submittal of NDE and Core Bore Plan changes.

Response By: ,Glenn Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided:I 10/28/2009 Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAlIQuestions Page 3 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 4 Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 Requestorlinspector: George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: Please provide the concrete mix design and associated material test data for concrete use in original construction of the containment wall. Also provide original test data of production concrete used in the original construction of the containment wall.

R Cc eferen ces.

a..to:..n. . . io n ...

r.. e... ...... e . . . . . . . . .

References:

Calculation SOO-0047 10/.17/2009-...........

Response Assigned to: Sid Powell Date Due to Inspector: I 10/17/2009

Response

T*he RB exterior shell consisted of around 105 separate concrete pours. Attachment B of calculation SOO-0047

shows a listing of these pours by elevation and buttress zone. It also lists the mix design for each pour. For

,example, the SGR containment opening is between buttress 3 and 4 and between Elevations 180' and 220'. Per the pour list in the calculation the corresponding pour numbers are 685RB, 695RB, 700RB, 712RB, and 722RB.

The construction microfiche listing then gives a corresponding microfiche card number for each of these pours.

For example the records for pour number 685RB are on card 1P08022. A typical microfiche card will contain

,several pages of information including the mix design, batch tickets (truck slips), the date of the pour, curing data, and other relevant data. CR3 Document Services are attempting to scan these cards for use by the NRC and Root Cause team. At this time, there are some examples of the pour cards at L:\Shared\Containment Root Cause Files\Requested by NRC. A copy of calculation SOO-0047 is also included at this location. Document Services is attempting to scan the pours between buttresses 3 and 4 (all elevations) first. If a different location is required, please let Glenn Pugh C. G. Pugh 10/17/09 Misc Notes:

Response By: Glenn Pugh Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:  ! 10/16/200q Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAII Questions Page 4 of 85

9--on s 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 5 hld ta v d te u l :o i~ d 0 e i ......................... ........... ..

Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 Requestorlnspector: George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: With regard to the SGR Construction Opening, please provide stress plots of the SGR Opening and surrounding areas for the Dead load + Prestress load combination for the following cases: (i).

prior to tendon detensioning and removal (ii) after tendon removal; (iii) with SGR opening and (iv)

After restoration of opening and tendon retensioning.

References:

Response Assigned to: Sid Powell Date Due to Inspector: 10/17/2009 1

Response

George asked if we could provide stress plots for the analysis at the SGR opening for the Dead Load + Pressure

• Load combination at the 4 stages of the SGR project. Unfortunately we did not run computer stress analyses for

ýthe various load combinations. Each load element (dead load, pressure, liner plate thermal, thermal gradient, as to support the various amplificatior etc.) were individually evaluated. Additionally each were run at unit values, factors applied to the design basis evaluations. The results of these analyses were then extracted from the structural analysis package and processed, as necessary, to address the load combinations for various building conditions throughout the outage. Unfortunately, the program used does not have the ability to develop stress plots.

Nisc Notes: Response inadequate. By this question, the NRC is seeking information to understand the structural behavior and response of the Containment Wall under real loads (i.e., Dead +

applicable Prestress Load) in and around the SGR construction opening area for the configurations prior to, during and following creation of the SGR construction opening. Provide the pertinent information in an easily reviewable form. This information may be provided with pending response to Question 28.

p By i a , o i n Roenss e...... . ..................... .....................

Response By: Dan Jopling Reviewed By: Cate Response Provided.: 10/20/2009, S...us : O pen Co................................e d :.........

Page 5 of 85

I p c.3n Cvr

-'n -E t ~ rt~

03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 6 Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 Requsto /In pector: George Thomas Category: Question Request: Were the vertical and hoop tendons in the SGR opening area subject to lift-off measurements before detensioning and removal. If so provide lift off measurements. Were the removed tendons inspected/examined and if so what were the findings.

References:

Response Assigned to: Sid Powell Date Due to Inspector:  ! 10/16/2009

Response

No lift off measurements were made for the tendons that were removed from the opening.

.IWL examinations were performed on the concrete and bearing plates for the removed tendons. tendon end examinations were performed on the two longest tendons that were non-destructively removed. One wire each was removed and examined for the two longest tendons.

Misc Notes: Does CR3 plan on performing tension testing (i.e., ultimate strength, yield strength and elongation) on a wire sample from one or more of the removed hoop tendons that exhibited higher than anticipated loss of prestressing force (i.e., hoop tendons that did not meet the 95%

predicted value criteria in IWL)? This information may be provided with pending response to Question 22.

-esponsse By: Sid Powell Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/16/20091 Open Date Closed:

Page 6 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 2 mzzljý ý Mýý 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 7 Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorllnspector: Dan Naus Category: Information Request Request: Provide de-tensioning sequence in R16 for the construction opening. Provide procedure? Did anyone hear anything?

Follow up request: Documents related to the dome delamination seem to indicate that a loud noise or boom was heard on December 4, 1974, however, no noticeable damage was observed during a subsequent visual inspection. Did anyone hear a loud noise or boom during the detensioning procedure related to the SGR contruction opening?

Referencs Reeen e : , .... ... . ...

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

iR16 Tendon Detensiong sequence.pdf: {E-mail from the SGR Tendon Field Engineer on the detensioning sequence.}

ýContainment Opening - Tendon Removal Timeline.xlsx: {Spreadsheet containing some interview questions and

!responses as well as some plant shutdown/mode times and tendon detensioning sequence information.}

ýZ3R5 PSC Field and Quality Control Manuall.pdf: {PSC Procedures [ALL], F&Q 8.0, 8.1, and 10.0 specifically

address Tendon Detensioning/Removal, Plasma Tendon Detension, and Tendon Removal}

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 1_1/2/2009' Status: Open Date Closed:

rotAII Questions Page 7 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 8 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 RD q...........

a ..N Requestor/Inspector: :Dan Naus Category: Information Request Request: Any information on significant repairs (concrete related) between buttress 3 and 4 from original

• constructionto today.

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

Performed a search of the document control system, both the SEEK system and historical QA records. Looked for any Work Orders, NCRs, Correspondence, or other documents using the keywords "concrete repair" and "concrete crack." There were several "hits" on these key words. The majority of these "hits" were screened

away by reviewing the title of the document. Any "hits" where the title was not clear were reviewed individually.

The results were several AR's and Work Orders to repair damaged or cracked concrete on the RB containment.

However, none of the items reviewed were in the area of concern. Document search summaries are here:

L:\Shared\CR3 Containment\NRC SIT Team Questions & Info\Request 8, Q2 Response Info- Pugh In addition, conversations were held with several people in maintenance and engineering, including one person that was employed in the early 1970's. No one could remember making any repairson the RB shell concrete in

'the area of interest. No modifications could be identified. Conclude that the concrete between buttress 3 and 4 original construction.

ois Misc Notes:

Response By: Glenn Pugh Reviewed By: Chales Williams Date Response Provided: . 10/28/2009, Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAll Questiors Page 8 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 9 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Questio n Requestor/Inspector: Dan Naus Category:

Request: Was there any analysis of why re-tensioning was required in past tendon surveillance activities (done at that time of surveillance testing)?

Follow up request: Since lower than expected lift-off loads have been obtained in the recent 3 tendon surveillanceds for a significant number of horizontal tendons, describe your plan, if any, to dtermine, evaluate and eliminate the cause(s) of the condition not meeting the IWL acceptance by examination criteria.

References:

Response Assigned Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: I 10/26/2009

Response

There was no analysis performed during past surveillance testing years in which tendons were re-tensioned.

Additional information in response to the above question: See License Request No. 24- NRC SIT Question# 18

ýfolder, under sub-folder: "IWL - Tendon Surveillance History" for information, discussions and actions taken

.related to tendon lift-off testing and re-tensioning.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/2/2009; Status: Open Date Closed:

ritA/I Questions Page 9 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 10 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorlinspector: Dan Naus Category: Question Request: When CTL is using IR and IE, can they determine relative concrete quality of locations tested as part of CTL NDE procedures?

References:

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: ... -2.....

12.. ..................

Response

In general, the Impulse Response (IR) test results is influenced by concrete quality and existence of defects at

ýthe test point. The aspects in concrete influencing IR results include presence of delamination, cracking, significant void orhoneycomb and change in concrete properties. The most significant factor is the presence of

delamination which effectively reduces the thickness of wall or slab responding to the impact. Considerable difference in quality of concrete is typically reflected in the test results. For example, a core removed from panel

,RBCN-0014-N (Core #13) where a higher mobility value was obtained by NDT, had less coarse aggregate in

.the concrete, which changed density and modulus in that localized area, no delamination was noted in these

areas with subsequent boroscope examinations.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009 Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptA{I Questons Page 10 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 11 Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller i ............................................. ........:................

Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: :Louis . . Lake i.. ... .....................

.. . . . ............... . .. ...... ........... . Category: .......................

Question i ........

Request: Does the PGN Testing Procedure identify how CTL calibrates their equipment, qualification of personnel, and equipment set-up (i.e., frequencies)? Provide Testing Procedure to NRC.

References:

R seespA os igned to : # ui ~ag....... n............................................. .. ... .. . ..... t......t........................262..................

Response Assigned to: :Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

This question pertains to PGN procedure PT-407T, Reactor Building Concrete Examination and Testing,

'Revision 2.

The question is split into three areas with specific procedure steps stated to address each area.

Area 1 - Calibration

.Step 3.2 Responsibilities Step 3.2.1

The Condition Assessment Consultant is responsible for:

,Provide equipment list and associated calibration documentation iStep 3.3 Limits & Precautions

ýStep 3.3.2 The equipment utilized to perform the NDT was calibrated in the field during trial use by CTLGroup. This method

.of validating the test process and equipment for a specific application is standard practice for concrete condition

.assessments utilizing NDT.

.Step 5.3 Reports

.Step 5.3.1 An equipment list with calibration documentation will be provided for the NDT used. The NDT process calibration/validation document will be included in the report.

.Enclosure 7

.For a critical structure of this scale, more correlation data is desired in order to finalize a more comprehensive calibration.

Enclosure 8 Individual equipment packages have been established to track specific calibrated equipment in order to link individual NDT locations with a calibrated equipment package. The Exterior Containment Inspection Log

requires an Equipment Package Number to be recorded for each NDT location. The Equipment Package

.Number is traceable to a permanent plant record documenting the calibration records for the equipment.

Area 2 - Qualification Step 3.2 Responsibilities Step 3.2.1 The Condition Assessment Consultant, CTLGroup, shall be responsible for assuring that all individuals under his supervision are properly trained in the use of this procedure and associated equipment.

'Step 3.2.1 The Condition Assessment Consultant is responsible for:

Provide personnel qualification records for lead Engineer Step 3.5.2 Initial Conditions

ENSURE that all personnel are familiar with the operating manuals of the equipment to be used during the inspection.

rptAlI Questions Page 11 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection R Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM

.Step 5.3 Reports

.Step 5.3.1

,The report will include personnel qualification records of lead engineers who performed the NDT.

Area 3 - Equipment set-up

ýStep 3.2 Responsibilities

.Step 3.2.1

.The Condition Assessment Consultant is responsible for:

.Provide calibration/validation documentation to substantiate the NDT methods to be used and to support the

.dedication of the software (SMASH) being used to evaluate the NDT data.

ýStep 3.3 Limits & Precautions

.Step 3.3.2

The equipment utilized to perform the NDT was calibrated in the field during trial use by CTLGroup. This method of validating the test process and equipment for a specific application is standard practice for concrete condition assessments utilizing NDT.

Enclosure 5, page 1 TURN ON the computer to start setup process.

Enclosure 6, page 1 NR_O ~

iT.U ~.N u.!...

to. t r s e u ........

TURN ON the .h

.o.

computer to start setup_pprocess.

_.... o e s . . .. . . . .......

Misc Notes:

Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 1-1/12/2009 Status. Open Date Closed:

rp[All Questions Page 12 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 12 Ind ividual Contacted.. Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009..

Re questor/Inspector: Dan Naus Category: Question Request: Once the construction opening is refilled with concrete, how and for how long will the concrete be.

allowed to cure, and what is decision process for start of post-tensioning the structure?

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

.Response located in L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\DYKSTERHOUSE Q-A Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAAl Quesionrs Paqe 13 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 13 r . ..... . . . . . .. . . . . . .-...................................

Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Re r/In qu esto sp ecto r:......... g Thomas -~oo ..

T a .................................... .......... .............. C ate g o ry : ..................... Q uestio Requestor/Inspector: George Ctgr:Q eto n ................

Request: Before additional tendons are de-tensioned, will there be as-found lift off measurements taken for these tendons.

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

Planning and scheduling are currently in progress to obtain lift-off measurements of some of the tendons which

are going to be detensioned. The root cause team has requested lift-off data on vertical tendons 34V3 thru 34V7T

& 34V18 thru 34V22 and horizontal tendons 42H22 thru 42H26 & 42H35 thru 42H39.

lift-off data provided

ýSee.Se.e..........d.at in ............

-.[ .............

e !..... Requeste.u.e...... s ...... 6 .... response.

. n..s e...

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By:

S te............d.:....................

Date Response Provided: [L 11/4/2009, Status: Closed Date Closed: .............. .

rptAiI Ouesnions Page 14 of 85

2009 RC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 14 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorlinspector: 'Dan Naus Category: Question Request: For the original structural integrity test, were there any strain gauges in the SGR opening area or near it?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to inspector: 10/26/2009 i

Response

,Section 5.3.2 of the Dome Repair report included with Letter 3F1276-10 outlines where the strain gauges were attached.

In addition to the final report, Attachment 1 to Supplement number 2 (transmitted via letter 3F1076-05) contained

a detailed listing of strain gages for the SIT. The construction opening is centered on azimuth 150o (between

'buttresses 3 and 4) from Elevations 180' to 210'. The listing in Attachment 1, does not show any gages in this

area. The closest would be at azimuths 90o and 200o at Elevation 204' (gages 13, and 15).

The SIT report (GAI Report 1930, dated 12/7/76) contains radial displacements for these gages (See Appendix

ýB, Page B-5 of the GAI report).

Documents for this response are located here: L:\Shared\CR3 Containment\NRC SIT Team Questions &

lInfo\Request 14, Q8 Response Info- Pugh S.. . e s............................... .............................................................................................................................................................

Misc Notes:

Response By: Glen Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided: I 10/28/2009 Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAII (QtJes*.ons Page 15 of 85

2009 NRC Special nispection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 15 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category: Question Request: When the 1976 roof delamination issue occurred, was there any evaluation of the rest of containment, including a "notch sensitivity" review? Refer to the FPC Final Report Page # 110.

a) was the concrete different in the containment versus the dome?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

... . . . . . . .I. . . . . -. .. -. . . . . 1. .................

1 I

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: .............. Date Response Provided:

................................... ed:

Open Date Closed.

Status:

q.>tAil Questions Page 16 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 16 Individual uindaivl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~..........

idContacted: 'Garry ar lv Miller iie r...............

....................... Date D t CContacted:

o ac e : ..........110/22/2009

)/ 2 2 )9 ..

Requestorlinspector: Louis Lake Category: Information Request Request: Discuss the planned NDE method, its reliability, industry experience, and other pertinent information.

B) Discuss supplementary verification plans to ensure results are reliable.

References:

Response Assigned to: iPaulFagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

.A) Impulse Response (IR) test was chosen as the primary NDT technique to evaluate the extent of delamination.,

'The IR method uses a low strain impact from a hammer equipped with a load cell to send a stress wave through

the element under test. The response to the input stress is measured using a velocity transducer (geophone).

Both the hammer and the geophone are linked to a portabie field computer for data acquisition and storage. Time records for both the hammer force and the geophone velocity response are transformed into the frequency domain using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm.

'Average Mobility is the key parameter that the dynamic IR test produces. It is defined as the structural surface velocity responding to the impact divided by the force input [(m/s)/N]. The mean mobility value over the 0.1-1 kHzi

.range is directly related to the modulus, density and the effective thickness of the element. In general, presence of significant voiding or an internally delaminated or un-bonded layer will result in an increased average mobility

value. On the other hand, a sound concrete element without distress will produce a relatively low average mobiliti ivalue. The test results can be analyzed and presented in the form of contour plots. The suspect areas can be

!identified through a scaled color scheme.

Comparing to another well-known NDT method Impact-Echo (IE) test, the IR test uses a compressive stress

,impact approximately 100 times that of the IE test. This greater stress input means that the plate responds to the IR hammer impact in a bending mode over a very much lower frequency range (0-1 kHz for plate structures), as

,opposed to the reflective mode of the IE test which normally requires a frequency range of approximately 5 to 30

.kHz, The influence of reinforcement and tendons in the structure has generally less impact than it would for IE test, while delamination at relatively shallow depth, if any, will dominate the signal response in IR testing. It imakes it ideal to evaluate the presence of delamination without having to layout locations of tendon and reinforcing bars prior to the testing in a time critical project. However, the IR test cannot detect with high certaintyz

.the absolute depth of delamination; rather it's on a comparative basis. The width or size of crack cannot be

'determined in the IR testing.

.The IR test method has been used to evaluate concrete structure condition in the past 20 years. The test method,

is in the process of being standardized by ASTM. CTLGroup has extensive experiences in utilizing this method to icharacterize defects in concrete. IR test has been used in evaluating concrete structures in both nuclear and fossil power plants. CTL Group experience for nuclear related structures has been compiled (see attached).

iB)According to the Progress Energy procedure PT-407T, Rev. 2, concrete core samples are removed in areas with high mobility values (greater than 1.0) to confirm the presence of delamination. Core samples are also removed in areas where mobility value is in the "Gray" (between 0.4 and 1.0) range to verify the condition, unless

the slightly elevated values can be dispositioned through evaluation. Many cores have been removed based on the IR test results along the boundary of delamination in the section where steam generator opening is located.

At this time, the approximate 20 cores so far removed indicated the IR results have been accurate in characterizing the extent of delamination in the steam generator opening area. Also according to the test

procedure, a population of core samples is also removed from areas where low mobility values (less than 0.4)

are obtained to confirm the sound concrete condition. Based on the core samples removed, the IR results have

been accurate to detect a delamination in the concrete.

85..............

1 7 of.....

Page................

............ 1 ................

rNA1/\1 Quest'orns Page 17 of 85

2009 1RC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Misc Notes:

Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 111121200q, s ta tu s : e n..............

.p ...........................

Date Closed:

rO.All CQues.*fon, Page 18 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 17 indovnidtal c te : G .[r M ile r .............................

D at C o n a c t d.. .. ......... ......................

Individual Contacted: ýGarry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Reqsuepsetocr/In to r: G e o~~~g e -[h.0ma~.s ...........................................

-.... C a e.ry . ........................

Q.t.n.......................

Requestor/lnspector: George Thomas Question.

.aegry........ .

Request: For petrographic analysis, who are the labs and what are their credentials?

.Follow up Request: Provide information on the qualification of the petrographers from CTL and Photometrics who are performing/supervising petrographic examination work for CR3.

References:

Res pAonsss ig n e d to : ii~~a u i i __.................................................

a t D u to n s e fo : ..... ....... ..............

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: j 10/26/2009

Response

Two labs have performed petrographic analyses in accordance with ASTM C 856: MACTEC Engineering

.&Consulting and CTL Group. MACTEC performed petrographic analysis under their Appendix B program, while CTL performed an informational "comparison" analysis as an additional, independent data point. The resume and qualification package of the Mactec individual who performed the analysis

'for CR3 is attached, as well as the CTL analyst's resume and petrography literature from the CTL website.

A third laboratory, PhotoMetrics, is also performing material analysis, although not per the ASTM

,standard. The material examinations being performed by Dr.Mostafa at the PhotoMetrics laboratory

involve methods intended to examine similar conditions and attributes evaluated under petrographic examinations, but using tools and techniques more frequently used in material science, e.g., scanning

.electron microscope (SEM) and micro-hardness examinations that are more thorough. Information from the PhotoMetrics website is attached.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Craig Miller Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11 /18/2004 Stat s : O pe ................................ ...................

rptAV Questions Page 19 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 18 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 i Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Question Request: How are core samples being processed and sent to the labs for petrography?

A) How will you determine that the results are consistent between the labs?

Follow up Request: Please expand your response on the quesiton of determining consistency of results between the labs. This may be provided with response to new quesiton _ below.

References:

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

• Each of the cores used for petrographic analysis was obtained with a 4" diamond core bore bit, sealed in aluminum foil and plastic, wrapped in bubble wrap, and packaged in wooden crates. The packages were shipped via Fedex for overnight delivery. Chain of Custody forms are used to track each core. Cores #5

• and #7 were sent to MACTEC for analysis. MACTEC cut core #5 longitudinally and sent half to CTL. Core

1. 6 was sent to PhotoMetrics using the same process.

,The labs are each performing independent analyses. The primary goal of the analyses was to estimate the relative age of the cracked surface. Each lab was given this objective when the work was authorized.

.Final reports will be issued with results.

Misc Notes:

s o e  : C............ ............................ ....

R e s p o n s e B y : C ra ig M ille r: ....................................................

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009;,

Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAIl Questions Page 20 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9!05:23 AM Request Number: 19 Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 1 Requestoe.Inspector: George Thomas category: Question Request: What is the sampling plan for NDE and core samples,

References:

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

The nondestructive testing (NDT) and core bores are being executed based on the requirements specified by thet iRoot Cause Team in support of the root cause analysis, design basis evaluation, and repair requirements. NDT

is performed on the exposed surfaces of the containment in each of the six bays, where a bay is defined as the

.area between each of the six buttresses. NDT is also planned to be performed on the dome surface and is in

.progress on the containment walls accessible from within adjoining buildings such as the Auxiliary Building, Intermediate Building, and the Fuel Transfer Building.

Exposed Surfaces Exposed surfaces accessed via work platforms, scaffolding, ladders, and roofs of adjoining buildings are included in the condition assessment of structure. A small percentage of the overall surface area of exposed

surfaces has physical constraints that make access impractical.

Adjoining Building Surfaces

,Surfaces within adjoining buildings are accessed via permanent platforms, scaffolding, and ladders included in Ithe condition assessment of the structure. A large percentage of the accessible surfaces are included in the plan; however, physical constraints exist in each of the three adjoining buildings that limit access. Examples are

1) areas with wall attachments that limit access to the concrete surface, 2) locked high radiation areas, and 3)

contaminated areas.

Core Bores

.The location and number of core bores is defined by the on-going NDT results and input from the Root Cause

'Team. Core bores are taken to provide samples for concrete testing. Cores in both solid and delaminated areas,

.characterized by NDT are used to confirm the test results. Core bores have been drilled around the perimeter of:

the delamination in the bay between buttresses 3 and 4 to confirm the boundary of the delamination ccharacterized by NDT.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed Status:.. By: Op en ..............................

.....- Date Response Provided:

Da te....C losed:.. 1 o....e....................... 11/12/2009 Status: Open Date Closed: ,

rpVAI Questions Page 21 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation Mý V=ý 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 20 Individual Contacted: ýGarry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 n Requestor/inspector: ............

ýGeorge 111111.a..s.........................

Thomas

-l-1.1............... 11 11..........

..... . . . .... Category: Question Request: What are your examination plans for below grade?

References:

Response Assigned to: :Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: I 10/26/2009

Response

The containment exterior concrete surfaces not exposed to the elements are accessed from within the Auxiliary, Intermediate, and Fuel Transfer Buildings. The containment wall rests on the foundation mat. The top surface of

.the foundation mat is at EL. 93'-0" (ref. drawing 421-004). No portion of the containment wall is inaccessible due'

'to concrete being in contact with backfill (below grade). Surfaces within adjoining buildings are accessed via

,permanent platforms, scaffolding, and ladders are included in the condition assessment of the structure. A large

.percentage of the accessible surfaces are included in this assessment; however, physical constraints exist in each of the three adjoining buildings that limit access. Examples are 1) areas with wall attachments that limit

• access to the concrete surface, 2) locked high radiation areas, and 3) contaminated areas.

M isce s sNote....ai.d o ....

.t.es. ...... .... .. r s ..............................................................

Misc Notes:

Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009.

Status: Open Date Closed:

rNtA11 Questions Page 22 of 85

2009 RC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 21 In udaiv lC ido n ta te d ........... e ......................... ......................................... . . 10 2 2................ 2 i 0 9........ . ......

Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorllnspector: George Thomas Category: Information Request Requst:iew~~seisr~idenie aiins fom ersnnelnvoved iihlyclo-d mol..on nc................................. ................

Request: Provide interview observations from personnel involved with hydro-demolition and detensioning/cutting of tendons (when their comments note something of interest).

Provide information from additional interviews of personnel when they become available. Also, include in du iinterviews t e r .e-...............................

.. n d u t f ..bby ..P11.

conducted ...:..................................-

References:

RessepoA~n sIg ~ ~e ~ ~......... .......................... ....... ................. .......................................... D.eD e t n p c o : .......... 1 / g 2 (............ 9.. .

Response Assign ed to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

'Response located in L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 21, Q15

'Response Info - Portmann Misc Notes:

Response By: Charles Williams Rd e vB ieyw:e .................... . ............ ~ ~..................

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAiI Questions Page 23 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 22 Individual Contacted: :Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009

.George Thomas Qus....................

..ion Requestorilnspector: Category:

Request: Have removed tendons been inspected and were there any significant findings?

Does CR3 plan on performing tension testing (i.e., ultimate strength, yield strength and elongation) on a wire sample from one or more of the removed hoop tendons that exhibited higher than anticipated loss of prestressing force (i.e., hoop tendons that did not meet the 95%

p.predicted value criteria in IWL)?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: I 10/26/2009

Response

'There was no requested/required inspections performed of the removed tendons. Various questions were askedl of the SGR Tendon Field Engineer and PSC Lead Individual, responses documented in the enclosed.

{Containment Opening - Tendon Removal Timeline.xlsx}

{10 28 interview Cliff Peters Gary Goetsch.pdf}

{Interview with Gary Goetsch.pdf Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: i 11/2/2009q Status: Closed Date Closed: I rptAll Questions Page 24 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: ....

ii~ii12............i 23 Ind ua livCido nta................... ......... .................

..... . .........Co na teg or : Quest209 io Requestor/Inspector:

Re sq o r In s e.G co.

....... George e o rg. Thomas ....................... ... ............. .. Ctgr:Qeto C t or : i . .. ..... ....

Q u e... s.i n .................. ..

Request: When were observations of surface feature changes and water leakage noted below the construction opening?

At what location of the SGR opening area did hydro-demolition begin and what was the sequence of progression for the creation of the opening?

Provide a copy of NCR 358724 that identified voids in the RB concrete in the area of hydro-demolition.

References:

RessepoAn s s ig n e d to : ................ ..........................

m- .... . ...........................................

. D t u I s e t r .......10 ................

/26 /2 0 09...... ......

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

'The below is the timeline of events as noted in the Outage Autolog system (relevant Autolog pages attached):

10/1/2009 4:28:59 AM Begin hydro-demolition 110/1/2009 1:15:08 PM Hydro-demolition to first layer of rebar is complete, begin cutting rebar 10/2/2009 3:55:53 AM Restart hydro-demolition 10/2/2009 5:15:30 AM Stream of water identified exiting RB wall from below/to the right of the transfer opening. Hydro-demolition suspended.

10/2/2009 6:41:11 AM Voiding identified in RB wall 10/7/2009 12:52:15 PM 2 ft x 4 ft loose concrete below the containment opening.

• Copy of NCR 358724 also provided in L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-

A\Request 23, Q17 Response Info - Miller isc Notes:............................................................................. ........................................................................................

Mis N tsc ...................... . .................................... .. .. ........ ........................................ . . . . .... ..............................................................

Response By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009 Status: Open Date Closed: I...........

rpV01I Qu-est.'ions Page 25 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 24 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 I te y : .......... i /*2 2 09................

IndCi oidu ta a ct d : ............... i

-- llliiil D t CCoa te o Requestor/In pector: George Thomas atgr:Question Request: What were results of the last three IWE/IWL surveillance reports (provide actual complete reports)?

Provide inspection procedures and including qualification of personnel information?

Recfeeresn :~ "~~~~

...... . .~ . .................................

~ ~~~~~ ..................

References:

.......... ' ......~ .............. ..... ..........

Response Assigned to: 'Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

'Response located in L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 24, Q18

Response Info-Portmann Misc Notes:

Response By: Charles RW.i espo nse~~.........

Williams m .....................................

. ........ .hre

.y Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Statu s : C os e ............................... C lo s : ........................

Stts ClsdDt lsd rp[AII Questions Page 26 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - R Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 25 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller ,Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: Provide results of current visual inspections.

References:

Response Assigned to: iPaul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

In response to your E-Mail Clarification on 11/30/09 for information regarding "all IWL examinations, being performed during this (R16) outage, "to let you know there were no scheduled As-Found IWL examinations for ithis outage as they are performed every 5 years and were performed last in outage R15 (2007) [that information has been provided to you under NRC Folder "WILLIAMS Q-A" file "Request 24, Q18 Response Info-Portmann"].

The only IWL examinations scheduled are the As-Left Pre-Service IWL exams to be performed prior to, during,

.and following the ILRT on the repair/replacement area which is yet to be completed.

'However as a result of the containment crack we did an augmented IWL scope between buttresses 3-4 to

'compare to the R1 5 information as part of the root cause investigation. I have included these reports, reference file RO-16 IWL Exam Reports.pdf enclosed in the NRC folder "FAGAN Q-A" file "Request 25, Q19 Response Info".

• The SGR-QC also performed visual inspections of the tendon ends, bearing plates and surrounding concrete for those tendons affected by the containment opening Engineering Change (EC). These inspections were not

.required lAW IWL.

Rev. 1: The SGR-QC examination reports ( File: Tendon Bearing Plate and Concrete Inspections.pdf) has been

• provided in this NRC folder.

Misc Notes: i~!r!~idids i R C Q~d !*:.................. ................................. .........

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/30/2009, Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAII Questions Page 27 of 85

2009 NRC pecial Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 26 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorilnspector: Louis Lake Category: Question Request: Will PGN be doing the overall IWL inspection this R16 outage concurrent with ILRT?

References:

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

,The IWL Inspections required by ASME Section XI are required every 5 years. CR3 last performed this inspection in R15 (2007). During R16 the ASME Section XI Repair/ Replacement requirements require that a Pre-Service ISI VT examination be performed on the containment opening repair area prior to, during and

following the ILRT. In support of the containment root cause it has been requested that an Augmented IWL Visual Examination be performed on the containment between Buttresses 3 and 4. This Augmented area includes the tendon gallery and the vertical face of containment only._

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/4/2009i Status: Open Date Closed:

ritAl Questionis Paqe 28 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 27 Ind lividual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009

-g q ur/esntos pe c t.........r.

.~o .................................... Ca teg o ry :

i o a .................................. ....................Qu e stio n .....

Re questor/inspector: George Thomas ctgr:Qeto Request: What was technical analysis for decision to detension only specific tendons? Provide the analysis?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

rpfAil Quesdons Page 29 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 28 Individual Contacted: :Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Question Request: What were forces acting on SGR opening area and adjacent areas:

A) Prior to tendon de-tensioning and concrete removal?

B) After de-tensioning and tendon removal?

C) After detention and concrete removal?

By this question, the NRC is seeking information to understand the structural behavior and response of the Containment Wall under real loads (i.e., Dead + applicable Prestress Load) in and around the SGR construction opening area for the configurations prior to, during and following creation of the SGR construction opening. Provide the pertinent information in an easily!

reviewable form.

References:

Rness epoA s s g n e d .................. s .............................................................

.:.. et..n p e to.

...... ............... 2.....

... .0 /. ]9.........

i . .. .....

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 01i26

/ /20 0 9

Response

Refer to Calculation S09-0048 stress plots. These plots are for dead load + vertical and hoop prestress as requested by George Thomas.

References:

.1. Calculation S09-0048, Revision 1, Stress Plots for SGR Containment Analysis Misc Notes:

RsosByDon.......

e........rh.

rh.. ......... . .

Response By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

rmtAll QuestionsP Page 30 of 85

2009 NRC Special Insp etion - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 29 Individual Contacted: GaryMle Date Contacted: 1/220 Req n tor/lCnspector: George Thomas Category: Question Request: How were the forces acting on the buttress analyzed when the horizontal tendons were released and the forces became unbalanced?

References:

Response Assigned to: ..Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: .

10/26/2009

Response

The unbalanced force(s) and moments from detensioning hoop tendons were evaluated for Buttress numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Ref. 1, Pages 90 thru 95) and these forces and moments were applied to the appropriate nodes along ithe centerline of each buttress. Note that the forces and moments shown on pages 90 thru 95 of Ref. 1 are in the, direction of the tensioned tendon. When these tendons are detensioned the signs reverse (Ref. 1, Attachment 2, load cases 6 and 10 and load combinations 102 and 104). The unbalanced forces are derived from the original

lock-off stress - tendon losses at the time of the steam generator replacement outage (Ref. 2, Section 4.2.1.2).

i

References:

11. Calculation S06-0005, Revision 1, Containment Shell Analysis for SGR - Shell Evaluation During Replaceme!

Activities.

2. Calculation S06-0004, Revision 0, Containment Shell Analysis for SGR -Properties of new Concrete for Acce Access ss O pe n ng Opening .....

and Number of Hoop o an and .n d ..

....... .o Vertical !a ! Tendons ~d n to.... ._.~

be ..... Detensioned.  ! e ..................

d .......................... -_......

Misc Notes:

Response By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAil Questions Page 31 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 30 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: 10/22/09 Request: Where is PII based, and provide a description of their credentials?

A) What is their root cause approach?

Provide P1l's failure mode chart referred to in item (5) under the title, "Unique Qualification" of the response.

Identify the root cause failure analysis report for the MOX facility referred to in Item (6) under the title "Unique Qualification" of the response, if submitted to the NRC, or provide a copy of the report. ..........:.............................................

Rnefceres i...... s. ..................

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

P11 location, background, qualification and methods were reviewed with George Thomas. A hard copy of the

response was provided and discussed on 10/28/09. Electronic copy of this file is in L:\Shared\2009 NRC LSPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 30, Q24 Response Info - Williams Misc Notes:

R esponse B y: C.arles William.......................................... s . . ............. .

Reviewed By: , Date Response Provided: 10/28/20090 Status: Open Date Closed:

rpiAlI Questions Page 32 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 31 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Question Request: What are the various root causes and fault tree scenarios being considered?

Provide a list of root cause failure modes being considered under each of the 9 broad categories (i.e., break down each of the 9 categories into the approximately 79 failure modes being evaluated for CR3 containment).

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:  ! 10/26/2009

Response

A listing of potential causes categories and examples were reviewed with George Thomas. A hard copy tresponse was provided and discussed with George Thomas on 10/28/09. Electronic copy of this file is in

'L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 31, Q25 Response Info -

Williams Misc Notes:

Response By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009:

Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAll Que<s;ions Page 33 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation z = mm=ý ý t 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 32 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 ion.............

Requestor/lnspector: .George Thomas Category: Question Request: When and what will be the deliverable for the NRC to review, i.e., schedule for root cause, NDE, results of core bore samples, and design basis analysis?

Provide a response to part of the original question "What deliverables related to root cause analysis, extent of condition (NDE/core bores), design basis analysis and repair options would be.

provided to the NRC for review?"

Provide weekly updates to the schedule.

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

I asked George Thomas for a clarification of this request on 10/28/09. He said he would like a copy of the current schedule for activities for the Root Cause, Condition Assessment, Design Basis and Repair teams. A hard copy was provided on 10/29/09. Electronic copy of this file is in L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL

,INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 32, Q26 Response Info - Williams M iscANot..... .S u. 26-s

.21111111

. . !.... vvi.!i s ....................................

IMisc Notes:

Response By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: I ....... /.

.o28/200.

Op..n................. ........ ....

.a e Cos d:....................

Status:

rptAfl Quiestions Page 34 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection a RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 33

.Garry Miller ..

Individual Contacted: Date Contacted: .10/22/2009 n........f

... . R..........

e.

Rie questorllnspector: George I nomas Information Request

................. C a te g o r y :

Request: Provide copy of PGN's and P1l's Root Cause Analysis procedure.

Include a statement on P1l's root cause analysis procedure or if they would be working to PE's procedure.

p[c d r :........

1- 1-.................................................. ....

References:

Reseon s s g n d o : c ta res iiia s ............................................... ................... e....ns p .ate.Du cto.... ...................

- 0/2 6/0..-9..................

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009 i

Response

Ahard copy of the PGN root cause procedure CAP-NGGC-0205 was provided to George Thomas on 10/28/09.

'PI1 does not have a written procedure. The PHI Root Cause process was discussed with George Thomas as part of response to Request 30. Electronic copy of this file is in L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM

Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 33, Q27 Response Info - Williams Misc Notes

Response By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009, Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAIt Questions Page 35 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 34 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Rto equrtl es s p e cto r:

Requestor/Inspector: G George F *.o rn~a s ..................................

e o.[g~e ...-

Thomas ............................. C a e or....

Category: .................Question u..o.................. .

Request: Who is the contractor doing Design Basis Analysis? How does this relate to Root Cause analysis:

efforts?

R ef er e n c e s :................... .....................................

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: i 10/26/2009

Response

The selected vendor to perform Design Basis Analysis is MPR Associates, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia. Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) Associates, Middlebury, Connecticut, is supporting MPR in the development of the 3-Di Ifinite element model.

The Root Cause Analysis team efforts are being supported by Performance Improvement International, Pll,

Oceanside, California and has independent technical capabilities to support the Root Cause Analysis team. The,

root cause(s) identified by the Root Cause Analysis team will be evaluated by the Design Basis Analysis team for.

Impact on the design analysis and on the design basis.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAl! QuestoPns Page 36 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 35 Ind ividual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 que /In to pe tor Re rquestor/Inspector: iG e.)[ e..Tlom a GereThomas .................................

.............. Ca e o y Category: Q e to Question Request: Are you changing the design or licensing basis? Will a License Amendment or 10CFR50.59 type analyses be required?

A) Are you changing the ACI 318-63 code of record?

References:

Response Assigned to: D yonDyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

M is c N Mis N ottees..................................................

s : : ................... ................ .................................................................................................................................... ..................

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 1 o p e.........................

n . .......................................... C s........................................

d:

Status: Ope DaeClsd rp AlIQ esin Page 37 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 36 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/lnspector: ýGeorge Thomas Category: Question Request: Will there be a past-operability analysis completed?

References:

Response Assigned to: DnDyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

................................................... o ed :

Open Date Closed:

Status:

rl(AII QuestornsP Page 388 of 85

2009 -1CSpecial Inspecti L RB C-ncrete Separation I= = M, , I", ------ - M 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 37 Individual Contacted: lGarry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009

,,ec questortnnspector:

R.questr Whato typ eGeorge Ii nomas

.ofn.a.e ....a............. Ctgr:Qeto (b.n me ) it e.....................

b...........................

Category: Q uestion Request: What type of analysis and codes (by names) is expected to be used in the design basis analysis?l

References:

Response Assigned to: 'Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009 Response:.

The analysis computer code that will be used for the design basis analyses is ANSYS Version 11.0 SP1.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed: I rpwAl Quetiaons Page 39 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 38 Individual Contacted: Gary Miller . .

!... ............I... ................

Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 I RequestorlInspector: ýAnthony Masters Category: Information Request Request: Provide procedures and drawings for tendon installation and stressing in original construction (containment walls and dome), and also after the 1976 dome repair.

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009

Response

• Design drawings for both original design and post-dome repair are included in the CR3 Document Control System. Generally the drawing series that start with 421-001 is the original plant design drawings. The series that starts with 421-300 contains the dome repair drawings. Specifications for concrete and reinforcement are included in the shared drive. Drawing copies are included in the drive where available. Several of the 421-300

!series of drawings are available only on aperture cards. A drawing list is in the Excel file.

........ CAUSE ANALYSIS

.L:\Shared\CR3 Containment\ROOT Concrete Design\Concrete

. Files\(1))~~~~.

... c.c~ Design n.c.e ..e .. Drawings ........

i...a.!lg Misc Notes:

Response By: Glenn Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams .Date Response Provided: ' 10/28/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAl Questiors Page 40 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 39 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Question Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category:

Request: Were there any changes to the dome made in 1976 (additional new anchors and/or radial rebars)?

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: i 10/26/2009 .

Response

IThe referenced report and drawings indicate radial #6 reinforcing bars were added and # 11 bars were used to

,replace damaged # 8 circumferential bars. There were approximately 1,850 radial #6 reinforcing bars added. If any #8 circumferential bars were damaged during concrete removal and the entire hoop was to be replaced, a

1. 11 bar was used in place of the #8 bar. If any #8 circumferential bars were damaged during concrete removal and only a portion of the bar was exposed, a new # 8 bar was cadwelded to the embed bar.

References:

Final Report - Reactor Building Dome Delamination Report, December 10, 1976 SC-421-341, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement North Half - Top Reinforcement

SC-421-342, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement South Half- Top Reinforcement iSC-421-343, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement North Half- Bottom Reinforcemen iSC-421-344, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement South Half - Bottom iReinforcement ISC-421-345, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement Sections & Details i.sc. 2.....

3 45...--a.........u............... n---c...............

Misc Notes:

Response By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/13/2009 Status: .Open Date Closed:

rptAII Questions Page 41 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 40 Individual Rt e r/ n pe ~ r:

ueContacted: Garry A f~hQ ry..~ Millera te s..................................

............... Date Contacted: .....

C t g r :Q

................... 10/22/2009 e to Requestor/lnspector: Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: What is the cause of the low spot on the dome?

A) Email from Lese said it was same as previous inspections since 1976. Can this be confirmed from the final documentation and photographs in 1976?

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009 1

Response

The construction microfiche database contains a listing of microfiche for the dome repair project. The cards

.range in number from 2C01024 to 2C02089. A search of the database titles showed several microfiche cards

.(2C02064 and 2C02065) containing nonconformance's and corrective actions for the repair project. A review of these microfiche records did not reveal any information on a low spot. A check of the pour cards also did not

ýmention a low spot or other problem.

However, to help in answering this question a conversation was held with Mr. Earnest Gallion about this repair.

.Mr. Gallion was an employee at the time of the dome repair. He reported that the concrete finishers used at the

'time of the repair where not as experienced as could be. There were several low spots and other imperfections that existed from the initial concrete pours. These are not considered detrimental to the qualification of the dome. Would also consider that these existing since the repair project.

This confirms statements by Mr. Joe Lese.

A copy of the Construction Microfiche log is included here: L:\Shared\CR3 Containment\ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS Files\(2) Concrete Conrstructi*on\Construction MicroFiche ndex.pdf d Misc 5d Notes:

Ni c t e s Related Rl ....t ..d.. to

....... q u s i n.. ..#1 question o........................ #.. .............. ...........................

Response By: Glenn ..... ..

Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009, Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAII Questions Page 42 of 85

2009 NRC Sped Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 41 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009

... ........... C a e....... .......

o ......y . . .. . . ........... Q e t o Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters

.............................:. ............................................................. Ctgr:Qeto Request: NCR 360269 mentions SGR expected flexible tendon sheaths? What was the basis for them expecting a thin wall sheath?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due .........

to ...Inspector:

. ........................ 1 10/26/2009

Response

ýEnclosed in this folder in response to the above question:

FW NRC Question - D Jopling Response.pdf Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/2/2009, Status: Closed Date Closed:

nrMA"HOur-ý1:nr,,; Page 43 of 85

2009 RC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 42 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/2.2./20.09 Requestor/lnspector: 'Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: Were radial tension stresses due to the hoop tendons considered in the original design?

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 1/2.6./2°00 I I .............

Response

• Cannot readily determine from the old Gilbert Calculations what the direct answer is to the request. It appears

.that the tendon design is based on limiting the concrete tensile stress to 212 psi. This limit bounds the tensile stresses in meridional, and hoop directions. See Book 2, Section 1.01.7, pages 1.01.7/6 and 1.01.7/7 for a brief memorandum outlining the critical loading of the cylindrical RB wall. The tendon pre-stress is designed to limit

'the tensile stresses in the concrete for the load combinations. However, it does not appear that the calculations iconsidered the tensile stresses in the concrete outside the tendon's influence.

Copies of calculation pages are included at following drive location:

L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 42, Q36 Response Info- Pugh Misc Notes: Consideration is on-going by George/Anthony Response By: Glenn Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided: 10/28/200 Status: Closed Date Closed: _

rptAII Questions Page 44 of 85

2009 NRC Specia I nsp ction - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 43 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/2/2009 1 Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Category: Information Request Request: Please provide Drawings: SC-400-007, 008, 009, and 015; and S-425-011 and S-425-012 Specifications: SP-5566, 5569, 5583, 5618, 5648, and 5909 Reports: VT-3C Report VT-07-106 and VT-3C Report VT-07-1 11 Calculations:

S-07-0019....... and .......

S-07-0033 Rerfee n c e s : ~........................

1................ .. ...........

Response Assigned to: iDon Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: i 11/2/2009

Response

Enclosed in this folder in response to the above question: All requested information provided except for SP-

.5566, SP-5583. 11/3/09 Update. The last 2 spec's requested have been included in the file.

Misc Notes:

Response By:. Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Closed Date Closed: I rMAI I Queag4tionos Page 45 of 85

2009 NRC Special ,ispection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 44 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009

............... q..e..

Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Information R~equest Category:

Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

If possible, I would like to speak with Mr. Bernard Komara and Mr. Marc LeBlanc as they were listed as the inspectors on two previous inspection reports that. I have reviewed.

References:

Response Assigned to: 'Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

,Mr. Marc LeBlanc (NIC Contractor Inspector) was here in refuel 15 (2007) and to my knowledge is not here for

,refuel 16. Mr. Bernard Komara (NIC Contractor Inspector)has returned to CR3 for refuel 16 and is working for

.the site QC Organization. The Supervisor for Mr. Komara is Jeff Bennett.. Please contact Jeff (x-3323) for

Bernie's availability.

Misc Notes: Evaluation of containment liner bulges still in progress.

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/9/2009, Status: Closed Date Closed: I rptAll Questior* Page 46 of 85

2009 NRC Speci Inspection - B Concre t Separation MMUM=

03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 45 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Requestorlinspector: Anthony Masters Category: Information Request Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, indicates compliance with the 1992 addenda of the 1992 Edition of ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL, while the document titled ASME Section XI/ASME OM Code Program, Interval 4: Containment Inspection Program (2nd CISI) Revision 3 (Dated 5/6/09) indicates the 2001 Edition through the 2003 Addenda. Please clarify. .. . .

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: I

Response

iThe last performance of the Tendon Surveillance under SP-182 was in 2007. The ASME Section XI code of

record during that time was the 1992 addenda of the 1992 Edition of ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL. In accordance with 10CFR50.55a, licensees are required to update their ISI Programs to meet the requirements of ASME Section XI once every 10 years or inspection interval. The 3rd inspection interval was completed on August 13, 2008 and the new interval (4th) began on August 14, 2008. Forthe 4th interval, the 2001 Edition

'through the 2003 Addenda is the code of record. The SP-182 will be revised to reflect the new code edition prior to itss:,t..Q rnext

. e!tx t required 5. yyear q.r .......... a tendon ......................

surveillance.

Misc Notes:

Response By: .Rk P....o.t............

Portmann i .

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: , 11/9/2009' Status: Closed Date Closed:

IA Qstions Pag 47 Page 47ofsof 85

2009 NC SPec~i Inspection - RBConcrete Separation H - Ell a _- ý ý W 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 46 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 t Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Category: Information Request Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, has some concrete inspection activites associated with it as part of the tendon survelliances. Are the documented and reported in separate documentation or are the VT-1C and VT-3C examinations credited for this (i.e. VT-07-1 11 and VT-07-289)? If not, I would like to review the additional documentation.

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

.The visual examinations for the tendon surveillances are documented separately from the IWL concrete

.examinations. The last two tendon surveillances and the last two IWL examination reports have been supplied.

,See the Request #24, NRC SIT Question #18 folder for these examination reports.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/9/20091 Status: Closed Date Closed: I Page 48 of 85

2009 NRC Specia Inspection - RB Concrete Separa tion 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 47 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Category: Information Request Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program,, Section 3.5.3.1 specifies requirements for calibration for all measuring devices. I

...!...k..t....w.....e would ...

like .............................................................

to review a sample offthsere those records a. also. ..............................................

References:

Response Assigned to: ýDon Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

.The tendon surveillance reports have the calibration records for the tendon testing equipment. The last two tendon surveillances reports have been supplied. See the Request #24, NRC SIT Question #18 folder for these

.examination reports.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 1 11/9/2009:

Status: Closed Date Closed: I rpiAU ul torsPg Page 4 49 off885

2009 NRC Specia Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 48 Individual Contacted: :Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Rs etoq r/In u e s pe c to r ........ as e r

....... Ca e o y ... ..........Q u st o .............. ..........

Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters ctgr:Qeto Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, Section 3.6 specifies acceptance criteria. Section 3.6.2 states that "abnormal conditions determined as the result of a visual inspection of the exterior concrete surface of the containment shall be recorded and documented, and investigated by Engineering for possible degradation of the structure."

Also, "Cracks found in concrete adjacent to the tendons (within 2 feet of the bearing plate) having widths greater than 0.010 inch shall be recorded and reported to Engineering for evaluation and resolution. Any crack widths greater than 0.050 inch shall be cause for investigation by Engineering to determine the cause and if there is any abnormal degradation of the structural integrity of the containment."

Photographs VT-07-289-8 and VT-07-289-1 1, which are associated with VT-1C Report VT 289, appear to show cracks within 2 feet of the bearing plate. Have these been documented and evaluated?

References:

Response Assigned to: !Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

The SP-1 82 criteria specified applies to the anchorage and bearing plate inspections performed for the tendon surveillances. The reports discussed are from the ASME Section XI IWL examinations performed. The recording and acceptance criteria may differ as the performance requirements come from separate

.requirements. These particular indications described on R1 5 IWL Report VT-07-289 were included in NCR 1256010 for evaluation.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 1 1/9/2009' Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAll Questions Page 50 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 49 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-1 82, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, Section 3.7.1 recommends equipment for implementation of this inspection and 3.7.1.12 lists "optical comparators with 0.005 inch accuracy for measuring crack widths in concrete." Is this being used? VT-07-1 11 and VT-07-289 do not have it listed in the inspection equipment area on the reports. These reports list a 6"scale and measuring tape. Is 0.005 inch accuracy (or the 0.010 inch as acceptance criteria section 3.6.2 states) possible with these?

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

The inspection reports referenced were performed as part of the IWL Examinations. The controlling procedures

,are NDEP-0620 and NAP-02. The SP-182 surveillance procedure referenced is used in conjunction with the

.Tendon examinations (not the IWL Examinations). The accuracy stated comes from the PSC Procedures and equipment utilized for the Tendon Examinations. An example of the certification record for one of the past surveillances can be found on pages 77-78 of the 6th surveillance report {WR 341602 6th-Surv.pdf}. Copies of

.the certifications have been enclosed in this file. This report can be found:

'L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q'A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 24, Q18 Response Info-

,Portmann\IWL Tendon Surveillance History M isc Notes:..........................................................................................................................................

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009, Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAAl Q!etions Page 51 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separ tion 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 50 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Requestor/lnspector: Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, Section 3.7.2.11 states as an prerequisite to "verify that stressing jacks, pressure gauges, comparators, and all other measuring devices have been calibrated per Step 3.5.3.1 ...

Are the measuring devices used calibrated per Step. 3.5.3.1 ?

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Meas uring-devices are calibrated per Step 3.5.3.1 of SP-182. An example of the certification records for one of the past surveillances~can be found on pages 58-82 in the 6th surveillance report {WR 341602 6th-Surv.pdf}.

This report can be found:

,L:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 24, Q18 Response Info-Portmann\IWL - Tendon Surveillance History Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:

rptAII Questions Page 52 of 85

cti o0 R3 Ccnete Sep9r05i2 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 51 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Requestor, nsp etor: Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, Enclosure 1 lists tendons in the 5th and 7th surveillance as 46H21, 46H28, etc...;

however, Enclosure 11 indicates that they are numbered as 64H21, 64H28, etc... I believe these are in fact the same tendons, but should the numbers not be consistent?

eferences:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

!sponse:

.These are the same tendons. The first two digits of the horizontal tendon identification refer to the tendon series on the containment buttresses it spans (ie. Between buttresses 4 and 6 [46Hxx] is the same as between buttresses 6 and 4[64Hxx]). Over the years CR3 has not been consistent in the use of one versus the other. A spreadsheet has been provided showing the tendon identifications used over prior surveillances. [Note: the spreadsheet is not a controlled document, just an aid for review of previous surveillance documentation.]

Enclosed in the Request# 51 folder:

Spreadsheet: Tendon Identification History (#51).xls wlis cNotes.

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 1119/2009 atus: Closed Date Closed:

Page 53 of 85

~OO9N C I I Spc in- ettI~

03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 52 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/3/2009 Requeso "'n pector: Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, Enclosure 5 is titled "Reduced Force Dome Tendons" and lists 18tendons. What is meant by this term "reduced force"? When, how, and why did they become reduced? D 125 is shown on this list and is also listed as tested in the 3rd Surveillance. Please clarify.

References.

I'sponse Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: i Following the investigation and evaluation of the 1976 Dome delamination event the dome tendons were re-

• stressed to predetermined values, of which approximately every 8th tendon was stressed at a value much, much lower than the remaining tendons (Approx. 646 KIPS vs. 1635 KIPS). These tendons are exempt from tendon liftý off, and wire removal testing.

During the random selection process if one of these exempt tendons (or in general a tendon that is inaccessible

or due to interferences cannot be safely tested per the IWL code) happens to be selected for testing, then a

substitute tendon located as close as possible to the exempt tendon gets selected for examination and testing.

Although still classified as exempt, the original exempt tendon is still subject to the examination tendon anchorage, free water and corrosion protection medium examination requirements if possible.

A review of the 3rd Surveillance tendon lift-off data shows that tendon D123 was tested. No test data was found for D125.

c Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009, Open Date Closed:

Page 54 of 85

2009 NRC SpedI Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 53 Co t a t d....is .......... H r r n........ .................. ..........................

........... .. ....... Da e C n ct d .......................................

Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Retou e /i s p c t r:

Requestor/Inspector: ýAnthony ~

i; n h 0 y Masters .s*e ..........

r ........... ................ c a t e oo r y :

C tgr:Q Q u e stio n .....................

i................................C eto Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

SP-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance Program, Enclosure 11 lists original lift-off values. Are the values for the dome in this listing e . ...........

before or.t....

Q e [ the after h e .[repair?

p a ![........ . ..... .. . . . .................. ...................................

References:

~~

Response ~ ~ ls*ei~~ s~~ge~ ~ ~ ~ ~................ .o.)n~

eto:

=. .. . ...

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

.The values listed in SP-182, Enclosure 11 are following the 1976 delamination event repair of the Dome.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: L 11/9/2009, Status: Closed Date Closed:

Page 55 of 85

2009 NRC Specia Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 54 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 R e s p e c to r s etq ur/In Requestor/Inspector: .......

Anthony ................

MastersCaeoyIn C a te g o ry :

..................................................................... fo rm

[ Iiiiiiiiin a tio n R e q u e stiiiiiil rmtnRqus Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

I have reviewed some inspection reports for-the IWL inspections for the shell, but would like to some re ports and evaluations for inspections on review ...............

.......................... the dome. .......... . ...... .. . .. ..........

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: ,

Response

!The last two IWL examination reports for 2001 (Ri 2 and 2007 (Ri 5) have been supplied and include examination of the dome. See the Request #24, NRC SIT Question #18 folder for these examination reports.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/9/2009' Status: l e Closed S.a t. ................. a...........................

Date Closed: ..........

i i)Wl Ouesýions Page 56 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection RB 8 Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 55 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Category: Question In o n in.n..iu ti n.f......is

...................p ct o n n da.te a n e p oga. .....................

Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

VT-07-1 11 and VT-07-289 documents some cracks and spalls and measured depths. How were the depths obtained for the cracksa s .and .r ..sspalls?

a..........

. s ? ....... ....................

References:

Ress psnsgeA n e d to : !Do [:)y ste ho u e .......................................

.......... Da e u e ............

t sp c o : ......................---.........................

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Direct Visual Examination was conducted on RBCN-001 5 during R1 5 using the suspended work platform, a man

,lift (around the equipment hatch), and a step ladder (lower elevations not accessible by suspended work platform.

or man lift).

Using the procedure and criteria provided in the Engineering letter as threshold for recording, the VT-3C was performed and any areas of distress identified were further evaluated during a VT-1C. The VT-3C also considered areas of distress not previously identified, as well as changes to previously identified areas of distress

During the VT-1C, previously existing areas of distress were compared with previous data and further characterized to document changes to previous data recorded. Areas of distress not previously identified were

.characterized and recorded. In all cases, size and depth were dimensioned and recorded with a tape measure

,and 6" scale. A short length of 3/32" bare wire welding rod was used for tight spots where the 6" scale would not fit. Technique used with the bare wire was to insert into the opening, and measure maximum depth against the 6" Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann ReviwedBy:Date R e v ie w e d B y :i................................

.......................... Response Provided: 11/18/2009

.......I........

i ./.2..

Status: Open .Date Closed:  !

rpAII Qu estions Page 57 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 56 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 I boxes (shown in photographsvT )7-2896andv-T-289 5) wh.at were these cables?...........

References:

A

........... ....... .... -.1-11.................

Response........................ ..................................... D ate D ue to Inspector:

Response

lit is believed that these cables and boxes are abandoned remnants from the testing equipment utilized during the Reie eStructural original d B y ............. .. . . Test Integrity ......... ...........................................

in 1976. (stress .......................................

& strain ............ gages etc.) ns r v d d i...............................................................-.....

i/ 9 2.......... 0 1 Sst a:..

tu se ......

.. i... ....... .... .................................. ............ ......... ............

Reviewsed By: ndto o yktro DateResone Providsedto:11920 Rstatuse: ClsdatCoe:

Response By: Rick Portmann rptAIt QuestonPs Page 58 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concret S epar tion 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 57 Inldivdouna ta c e d : [ e n n is e rr.n....................

.1 D t o t c e :i.... 4 2 0 ........

Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009

i. .....

R seto quer/[n s pe c to r:~

Requestorlinspector: ......... -~~ y a t ..

.................... r ..............

................................................... C t g r : .... .. Q u s co ....................

Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: in continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

The names and dates on theVT-1C and VT-3C reports are identical. Are both inspection

............... s/reports

........................ done on the samee day by the same r P--..............................-...................................................

/.............. a. staff? .......................

References:

S....

Rn es se p o ~ ~ i.......o ....................

y k t r o se .o ......................................................... t..np e to. ......

.u Response Assigned to: ;Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:I

Response

.Yes, the VT examiners know that certain indications found during a VT-3 examination require an additional,

.closer VT-1 examination and may elect to perform both examinations in series since they are already at the area.!

Mt...........

c ........... . .................................

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

retail QuesTk:OPs Page 59 of 85

2 09 NRC Special Inspection - R. Concrete Separ ti n 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 58 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Requestor/Inspector: :Anthony Masters Category: Question Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

FSAR, Section 5.2, Section 5.2.5.2.1.1.h.5 states: 5. The surveillance was performed 1, 3, and 5 years after the initial containment structural integrity test and is performed every 5 years thereafter. A report of each inspection will be recorded and significant deterioration or abnormal behavior reported to the Commission.

Are significant deterioration or abnormal behaviors being reported to the Commission?

References:

Response Assigned to: 'Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: I

Response

Yes Significant deterioration or abnormal behaviors are being reported to the Commission. SP-182 (Para's

.5.3.2 and 5.3.4) and the Improved Technical Specifications (5.7.2 Special Reports) describe the reporting requirements.

No :...............

S.............. ............... ....... ........................................ .......... ............................................

Misc Notes:

Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/20095 Status: Open Date Closed:

ri)tAU Questions Page 60 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection -.RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 59 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Anthony Masters Category: Information Request Request: In continuing evaluation of the IWL inspection and maintenance program:

I would like to review SP-180 and understand the basis surrounding the use and discontinuance for inspections of the dome repairs.

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

• A copy of SP-180 for inspection of the dome was provided to George Thomas on November 18, 2009. The

,document was obtained from microfiche and is not available electronically. Also note that the procedure was

'developed and implemented prior to the development of the IWL program.

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Open Date Closed:

Page 61 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:23 AM Request Number: 60 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Requestor/Inspector: ,Louis Lake Category: Question Request: What are the repair options being, considered as a fix to the CR3 containment delamination issuel

References:

Response Assigned to: Sammy Radford Date Due to Inspector: 11/6/2009

Response

S..........................

- Ti1r - ..............

1. There were two options that had being considered.

'.. Remove the delaminated concrete that is between is between Buttress #3 and Buttress #4 and install addition rebar ties. The wall will be reformed and replaced with new concrete. This was the method used to repair the

.delaminated dome section during construction and the method we will be using.

2. The next option we considered was to install anchors into the solid concrete portion of the wall on a spacing tc ibe determined and anchor the delaminated section and solid section together. Then we will be pressuring

grouting the delamination using a cementitious grout and epoxy grout to bond the two layer.We will be using some NDT to ensure we have filled all the voids between the two layers. This option was eliminated due to

.problems identified with the use of the grout with the potential of the debris blocking flow paths of the grout and size of some of the crack areas.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Sammy Radford Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/ 18/200q, Status: Open Date Closed:

nrAHl Questions Page 62 of 85

2009

. RC Special Inspection - Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 61 Individual Contacted: :Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category: Question Request: What post modification testing of the CR3 containment is being planned to be performed following repair of the delaminated condition in order to demonstrate structural and leak-tight nt g !........

y.......

integrity? ...... .........

References:

Response Assigned to: !Sammy Radford ............. ..................

.............. ... Date Due to Inspector: .............. 11/6/2009 --1-1.1 .......... ii

Response

We are looking at the requirements for post mod testing. At the present time we plan to use the ILRT as the post

.mod testing.

Misc Notes:

Response By: Sammy Radford Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/II17!II8/2*0 Status: Open Date Closed:

rDwAll Questions Page 63 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection. Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 62 Individual Contacted: !Charles Williams. . .....

. . .I......

. . .. .. . . . . . .. . .. . . ... Date Contacted: 11/18/2009 1 r....................... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

Requestor/Inspector: :George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: Provide strain gage data and map.

References:

r ..........................

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 11/18/2009

Response

Strain gage and displacement data provided on 11/18/09. Electronic copies available on L:\Shared\2009 NRC

SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\FAGAN Q-A\Request 62 - Worthington - Williams M i S.c N ......................

c........................................................ .........................................

N..............................................................................................................................:

tss .... . . .... .................... ........... ................ .......

Response By: Worthington Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009, Status: Closed Date Closed:

rptAll Ques!ions Page 64 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 63 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 In udaivl~

id ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~......... . . ....... ....................

ler. .......................................

D t Co ac e : .......... i / 2 09 ......... i Requestor/Inspector:.. ............................ .

........Category:

y Request: Provide survey data results for the dome [repeated survey surveilance test ], internal diameter of containment and survey data results for external buttresses.

References:

............... Date Due to Inspector:............

Response Assigned to: auFagan

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

rw)All Qu~esiions Page 65 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 64 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 sRte ur In p.t r ......................................................................................

Requestorlinspector: category:

Request: Provide evaluation of crack identified in AR 368389 [core number 54 below the equipment hatch].

References:

Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

nmAil Ouestions Page 66 of 85

2009 NRC SpecialI Inspction - RB Concrete Sep rz tion WZý Z- j -Zý E 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 65 IndividualIndividual~ ~tctd~ ~

Contacted: ~~~~~..........

Garry *.iie .......

Miller ...............

i iiiiiiiiii.ii.........i..ii..iiiiii D tCoContacted:

Date ate  : ................

2220 12/2/2009 eute r n s e t r Requestorlinspector

Caeoy ,...........................

.............. ..................... . ................. C t g r:...........................

.. a te ..

..... g o ry:....

Request: Provide credentials of MPR Associates and CAE specifically with regard to concrete containment structural analysis and design for nuclear plants.

References:

1 ness epoA s s ig n e d to : i....o.........11r......................

R D t D e to n s

-111--................................................... c or ...... .

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

rptAll Que,;tiorls Page 67 of 85

2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 66 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/inspector: Category:

Request: Please confirm that the condition assessment, design basis analysis, root cause analysis, and repair option analysis efforts, currently ongoing for CR3, account for the following: SGR construction sequence (initial tendon detensioning, concrete removal, additional tendon detensioning, concrete placement, repair, tendon retensioning) loading and stiffness, based on the extent of condition of the affected areas, and is properly considered to account for the stress redistribution in the containment wall within the opening and its adjacent areas.

References:

Response Assigned to: ýDon Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: I

Response

Misc Notes:

R esponse B y: ...................... . ........... .

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

rp(Ail Questions Page 68 of 85

OS9NA R3 C~c~ t 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 67 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 ReoquestoI lns "toil Category:

Request: Refer to Slide #59 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation. This is with regard to how the liner is.

modeled for the Design Basis Analysis. Based on your current design basis in the FSAR and Containment Design Basis document 1/1, the liner serves as a leak-tight membrane during operating and accident conditions, and not as a structural element resisting design basis loads.

However, in your current FEA model developed for the delamination issue, the liner seems to be included as a structural load-carrying member.

Explain and justify how the way the liner is modeled in the ANSYS model are consistent with your:

current design basis?

How will the liner be evaluated against design basis acceptance criteria?

How will you evaluate the effects on the liner during detensioning, repair, and retensioning?

sponse Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Misc Note.

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

itatus:

Page 69 of 85

Of!i~ I cn e rncete tion 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 68 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Re.questorInspe.tor:

Category:

Reou Refer to Slide #75 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation. Slide states: "Run comparison to original design building elastic design results."

Explain how you plan to evaluate your analysis results for design basis loads and load combinations against acceptance criteria in accordance with the code of record, i.e., ACI 318-63,.

in the FSAR. How would you process your analysis results to perform code checks for stresses, strains, displacements or other applicable design basis acceptance criteria for concrete, rebar, liner and prestressing tendons? How is reinforcement being accounted for in your design basis evaluation?

The slide only inidicates evaluation for controlling factored load combinations. Are there not service or other load combinations in the design basis with a different set of acceptance criteria that needs to be documented? How would your calculation document the design basis of the modified containment following repair of the delaminated condition?

How will stresses in the concrete and rebar be determined from the ANSYS analysis? Provide your approach to performing the finite element analysis and design checks in support of the Design Basis Analysis considering the various interim configurations associated with the creation and restoration SGR construction opening, the delaminated condition and the associated repair?

ýponse s nied to: Don Dyksterhouse te Due to ispector:

Response By:

Reviewed By: ate Response Provided:

Page70 of 85

4 Aoceu S1rt 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 69 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 1 Requesto#lnsector: Category:

Request: Refer to Slide #74 - "Planned Analysis Steps" of the 11/20 public meeting presentation. Footnote, (1) against "Delamination states "Analysis will consider time of delamination and specific concrete properties."

Since the final root cause analysis results will not be known until later, do you plan on running two different cases with regard to timing of delamination at this time? Specifically, with regard to making a decision on the number of tendons that will be required to be detensioned prior to repair and retensioned following repair.

Regarding the bullet that states: "SAVE path dependent model for starting point to Run 5 controlling design cases." As you go through the planned analysis steps, explain how your analysis model or ANSYS software is capable of starting the next analysis step using the deformed configuration of the previous step as the initial conditions for the next analysis step?

Are you planning to use the same concrete mix design as for the SGR construction opening in implementing repair of the delaminated area? How are properties of the new concrete being incorporated into your analysis?

References:

peon e e d to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Response

eviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

Page 71 of 85

O2>9 aC. Lnecsp X pction Crncr r tk~i 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 70 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Re estorlnsp ecor: Category:

Request: With reference to 11/20 public meeting presentation, Slide 65 - shows approximation in Equipment Hatch modeling; and Slide 34 - shows that the delaminated conditions extends to above the EQ hatch area; slide 35 shows hoop tendons that wrap around EQ hatch. Further, there are also removed vertical tendons that wrap around EQ hatch. If your detensioning/retensioning scheme involves tendon elements that influence forces in the EQ hatch area, how do you plan to address it in your design basis model? Describe any plans to refineyour model around the EQ hatch area.

sponse Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

!sponse:

sc Notes:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

Page 72 of 85

2009 CpciaIS Inspect[io RBf~K ~Cr t e raat 3-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 71 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 In: divi:G u al r*

CntaMc iie td r ae.Co.a.te d.....................i2 /2 2.09.

Rq tor/Inspector Category:

Request: Refer to slide 58 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation - describes a 180 degree symmetric model.

Please confirm whether, for your analysis, the explicitly developed 180 degree model is extruded to 360 degrees for your runs or not.

Please confirm if there are any unsymmetric containment features that may not be adequately represented in a symmetric model but may affect the response of the affected area.

References:

Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 1

Response

lisc Notes:

Response Sy:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

Page 73 of 85

'009 HC ap li specti9n C0:c t S 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 72 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Reqestolunspector: Category:

Request: Refer to Slide 74 (and 76) of the 11/20 public meeting presentation. The first three planned analysis steps are: (i) Dead Load + Tendons; (ii) Remove Hoop + Vertical Tendons in SGR opening; and (iii) Remove SGR opening. Provide stress and deformation plots for the area in and around the vicinity of the SGR opening (between Buttresses 3 & 4 from above the EQ hatch to below the ring girder) for each of the above configurations fo rthe Dead + Prestress load combination.

References:

,sponseAssigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:

Misc Notes:

Response-By:

Date Response Provided:

Date Closed:

Page 74 of 85

~OO N~ ~p R13 C~i A 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 73 Individual Contacted: ;Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestorlinspector: Category:

Request. Refer to Slide 81 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation with regard to Post Repair Testing.

Provide the name and credentials /qualifications of the designated Responsible Engineer, in accordance with ASME Section Xl, Subsection IWL, for repair/replacement of the CR3 containment structure related to the SGR project and the Containment Delamination project.

Provide the date the individual was designated as the Responsible Engineer.

Second bullet on the slide states: "Concrete exterior will be visually examined prior to pressurization and following depressurization." Third bullet states: "Evaluating other additional instrumentation based on the final repair that is implemented, and as driven by: root cause analysis." For the major containment repair/replacement activity involved at CR3, describe how the post-repair system pressure testing would meet the requirements of IWL-5000, and specifically provide verification of the containment structural integrity under accident pressure and.

corresponding structural behavior as predicted by the design basis analysis.

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Mis Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Jate Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

Page 75 of 85

4. -

iX09 HRC Spcia Zir sctiotoR Lcs et Se atie Ce i 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 74 Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 teuestor/Ilnspector: Category:

Request: Refer to photos on Slide 14,of the 11/20 public meeting presentation.

Explain the gap between the liner and the concrete? Have you verified how far it goes?

It is our understanding that there is bulging in the containment liner with air voiding between liner and concrete at several locations all around between approximate EL 180 and 225 ft; and that it was dispositioned as construction/fabrication errors that existed prior to concrete pour. If this existed prior to original concrete pour, explain how there is voiding between the liner and concrete. What was the acceptance criteria used to evaluate this? Provide the engineering evaluation for accepting the bulging as-is and explain how this evaluation is consistent with CR3 current design basis.

Ref rees:

6esponse Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:

R ponse:

Miisc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed: I Page 76 of 85

• I 2009 NRC Specia Inspection - RB Concrete S-p--tion 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 75 nidCo ae.................d..Garry

.M Individual Contacted. iGarry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 es~~~o qur/In s p e c to r:

Re questor/lnspector: .~~~~................................

........................ C a e o y Category:

Request: Describe your plans. [Pillj for finite element simulation of the delamination to confirm the root cause(s)?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Willaims Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

rmoAl Questns;P 7 of 85 Page 77

Et **' ..

2009 tRC ,pecial Inspection - R8 Concrete epar ation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 76

.G.

......... M...........

.Garry Miller Individual Contacted: Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestorlinspector: Category:

Request: Refer to the Refuting evidence for failure mode 2.8 "Inadequate Support of Tendons during Pouring." There are photographs of the SGR opening area that show that the as-found hoop tendon sheathing are all not centered on a vertical line.

What was the design location of the tendon sheathing?

Was the installation of the tendon sheathing out-of-tolerance in the as-fourd condition (Tendon installation specification must have had a tolerance for tendon sheathing installation)?

R ef e r e n.

n ces : .................. ....................

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed: 1 rptAI Questions Page 78 of 85

~x~ctiior~

03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 77 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Request' *rlnspector:C e nes s eo t r ...... . . ........................

.. ........ C a tteoy e g o ry :..........................

Request: Confirm whether "the lack of bond between the smooth tendon sheathing and the concrete" is included as a possible failure mode in the root cause investigation.

Respo A s g n d o c ~ ri s w iia s .. ........................................................ D a t D.e.....n.e.tor..................................... ..... ............

S...............................

Response A ssigne tio: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:

Response

s ........................... ...................

R ýicotes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

Page 79 of 85

03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 78 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 questor/inspector: Category:

Req Considering the delamination and subsequent repair of the CR3 dome during original construction, what non-destructive examination, core boring and/or other appropriate testing was extended to the dome during the current investigation of the containment wall delamination issue to confirm that the 1976 dome repairs remaind good? Provide results of the examinations performed on the dome. Also, explain how the results for these examinations would help address/resolve the concerns raised in the previous Requests #1 and #40 with regard to the low spotdor depressed area on the dome.

References:

spo ne Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:

By: Date Response Provided Date Closed:

Page 80 of 85

4- II, 2009 NRC Specia I *section - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 79 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 1 Requestorlinspector: Category:

Request: Explain how your condition assessment performed in accordance with Procedure PT-407T (NDE testing, core bore sampling, boroscopic examination etc.) provides a reasonable assurance of a comprehensive and accurate determination of the extent of delaminated condition of the containment.

References:

Response Assigned to: ýPaul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

n'i[All Questkior Page 81 of 85

2009 NRC Specia I nspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 80 Individual Contacted: iGarry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 .

Requestor/Inspector: Category:

Request: Provide information of the total number of core samples that were sent for petrographic examination for the containment delamination issue. Indicate the labs to which each sample was sent. How did you determine/ensure consistency of the examination and results between the labs? How did you establish that a reasonable number os samples were sent for petrographic examination?

References:

Response Assigned to: 'Charles i...................

.... Williams

.. ............ .. .. . ... ........ . Date Due to Inspector: . . . . . .. . . .. "

Response

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

rmtAl Qu(,essorns Page 82 of 85

4:.*

ctirn~R ~nc 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 81 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 RequestnVp sector: Category:

Request: According to MacTec petrographic report dated November 11, 2009, limited observations were to.

be performed on sample 21270A (Core #2) which was used as a control sample. However, there.

is no discussion of how it was used. Also, it does not appear that any results from these observations were reported. What examinations were performed on this sample, what were the results and where is it documented?

References:

Response Assigned to: .Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:

Response

Mise Notes.

Response By:

Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed Page 83 of 85

0 N~CSpciI>npctfl t ~rt~r~

03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 82 Individual Contacted: Garr Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requtoriinspector: Category:

Request: According to MacTec petrographic report dated November 11, 2009 from MacTec, one-half of sample 21270 (Core #2) was sent to CTL for petrographic examination. In the CTL report dated November 2, 2009 there does not appear to be any reference to this sample. Were petrographic examinations performed on this sample, and if so, what are the results and where is it documented?

References:

Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:

Response

is Notes Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Atus: Date Closed:

Page 84 of 85

V011,1-2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 03-Dec-09 9:05:24 AM Request Number: 83 Individual Contacted: .Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Category:

Request: Describe what confirmatory NDE would be performed, after detensioning of additional tendons, in!

the areas that did not show any delamination in order to verify that the delamination has not prp g te n further due to additional detensioning.

References:

.. ................ ~ ................. .

Response nRes sepA os s g....e................a....

Assigned to: Paul Fagan ..... ............................. ..................................... D Date a te.....t..ns Due to Inspector: p e c to r..

Response

i .............

i...............

Misc Notes:

Response By:

Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:

Status: Date Closed:

rF)tAtl (tl estbors Page 85 of 85