ML20128Q771
| ML20128Q771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1980 |
| From: | Tolson V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Woodruff R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126K036 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-301 NUDOCS 8507270048 | |
| Download: ML20128Q771 (10) | |
Text
i
- >3 E f %
/ . 0, ' UNITED STATES g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 l W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
~%,,,,,/
JUL 161360 k
MEMORANDUM FOR: g er W. Woodruff, TP, ROI, IE FROM: Virginia K. Tolson, RMB, X0MA, IE
SUBJECT:
TASK ORDER INFORMATION FOR PIPING INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS The Task Order information transmitted with Ed Jordan's memo of May 9, 1980, to obtain the services of Computerized Interference Elimination (CIE) through the Parameter contract, is not descriptive enough. Please expand on each item and resubmit to me. Enclosed are examples of the two previous Task Orders to the Parameter contract which may assist you in rewriting.
If I can be of any assistance, please be sure to call. G W-Virginia K. Tolson Resource Management Branch X0MA, IE
Enclosures:
Task Orders 1 & 2 to Parameter Contract
/
8507270048 850618 PDR FOIA HERRMAN85-301 PDR
c i -
S .
TASK ORDER #1
- 1. Scope of Work: .
Provide NRC-IE assitance as a technical consultant in the review of 1) concrete deficiencies, known as "honeycombing," found at the Marble Hill facility through visual observation, 2) the program to determine if
. internal voids exist, 3) the repair p.rocedures, 4) the completed repairs, and 5) e' valuation of the affected structures to meet the original design intent. ,
The effort will involve a review of the techniques used to locate voids, discontinuities, etc., to determine if all significant deficiencies have in all probability been detected. These techniques included coring and pulse echo. .The repair procedures and repairs made as a result of the findings of the investigations are also to be reviewed for adequacy. The main basis of the consultant's review effort will be the report submitted by the licensee and its references as prepared by Sargent &.Lundy, Report SL-3753,11/20/79, " Evaluation of In-Place Concrete, Marble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 2," dated November 20, 1979. '
~~
- 2. Objectives of Tasks:
- a. To provide an independent assessment of the type and extent of deficiencies in concrete construction defined as honeycombing and/or voids that could have safety significance; '
- b. to provide an independent assessment of any needed repairs er remedial actions;
- c. to provide independent conclusions regarding the capability of the affected structures to perform the intended design functions.
- 3. Statement of Work: *
. a. Determine that any strugturally significant honeycombing and/or voids visually detectable have been located and identified.
- b. Evaluate the need for and adequacy of the nondestructive techniques used by the licensee in the investigation of possible internal voids. If other techniques or additional investigation are neces-sary to assure structural adequacy, rec.ommendations should be provided. This. evaluation and any necessary recommendations should consider sample location and size.
g g 9
e D
. .Iw
, . . 2
- c. Review and evaluate the repair procedures the licensee has used or plans to use to correct deficiencies which have safety signi-
. ficance. If other techniques are more advantageous or will result in better assurance of restoration of the structure,
. . recommendations should be provided. -
- d. Review and evaluate typical areas requiring repair, if any, to determine whether procedures are or have been followed. If any repaired areas are subject to question, recommendations for additional investigation or repair are to be provided.
- e. Utilize the facts and engineering experience to evaluate the adequacy of the affected structures to meet the safety require-ments defined in the original design criteria or any revised criteria as approved by the t4RC. ,
- f. In the course of completing Items a-e above, it is to be under-stood that it may be necessary for travel to make observations -
in the field at the Marble Hill site, to meet with the licensee and his consultants, and to meet with the f4RC. It is also possible that the effort may include providing expert testimony in public hearings and/or providing responses to Congressional
, comittees. NRC representatives will accor.pany consultants. -
- 4. Report Requirements: '
- a. Weekly contact should be maintained with Region III', James G.
Keppler, Director (AC 312/932-2500), or his designee regarding the progress of work, schedules, arrangements needed with the licensee and any other details. This contact can be by telephone.
- b. For each 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> of effort associated with this task a brief written summary (1-2 pages) should be provided noting all signi-ficant items in the effort that have been completed during the reporting period. Any significant problems which could affect resumption or continuation of concrete work by the licensee, .
shall be included. This'shall be completed within (5) working days after end of the period.
- c. At the completion of each of the steps 3a-3e a written report shall be provided with the supported conclusions. This report shall be submitted in draft form within,(10) ten working days after the specific work step is completed. The final report for each step is to be completed (7) seven working days after any NRC comments are provided.
q .
D
g', .
3
( -
- d. At the completion of all steps, 3a-3e, a draft report encompassing all aspects of the independent assessment will be provided. This
. shall be within (10) ten working days after the completion of the final report on the last step. The final report for the task is to be completed (7) seven working days after any NRC comments are provided. ,
- e. 'All written reports are to be provided in (20) twenty copies '
with (10) ten being sent to each of:
. Mr. James G. Keppler, Director Region III
,U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .
799. Roosevelt Road .
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 ,
Mr. Harold O. Thornburg, Director . -
Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Office of Inspection.and Enforcement '
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D. C. 20555
. f. At the outset the consultants may agree to a consolidated report format with each signing in total or noting their specific view or each may submit separate reports. Once.the pattern is set, ,
all reporting will continue in that pattern. -
.5. Desired Completion Date:
December 31, 1980.
- 6. Special Instructions: * .
- a. Initiate task effort wit.h a review of Vols. I Sargent and Lundy Engineers, entitled, "Evalua,.& tionIIofofIn-Place a report by Concrete - Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,"
dated November 20, 1979 (copy to be provided).
- b. It is imperative that all steps in this independent assessment be adequately documented and supported. Photographs, dictated tapes such as one might use in the field as well as written notes are recommended. .
- 7. Place of Performance:
Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station construction site near 4
Madison, Indiana.
o ..
~-
4 3 .
- b. Sargent and Lundy offices in Chicago, Illinois.
. c. . Public Service of Indiana offices in Plainfield, Indiana.
- d. Region III offices in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. .
- e. NRC offices in Bethesda, Mariland and Washington, D. C.
s
- 8. Cost Ceiling c
$50,000 e
e D
+
e
+
0 e
- e .
S 4
0 o
o O
e e
e e
. l 4
. . e D
- e 0 e
k F
~
. . . Date: June 30, 1980 6,,, , , .
l l
PARAMETER INC.
NRC IE CONTRACT - NRC 05-80-251
. TASK ORDER NO. 2
- 1. Sco of Work Provide NRC-IE assistance and services in the independent metallurgical analysis of cracked stud bolts as outlined in the statement of work below.
- 2. Background Duke Power Co. reported to NRC-IE on June 26, 1980 that during scheduled steam generator tubing maintenance at Oconee Unit 3, visual and ultrasonic examinations. indicated cracking in 8 of the 64 stud bolts used to attach the upper and lower manway access covers on the steam generators. All ,
studs for the manway covers will be replaced in kind.
These studs are 2-inch diameter (8 thread / inch) studs reportedly manu-factured by B&W from certified SA 240 grade L-43 low alloy steel supplied by Ryerson Steel Co. and were furnished with the steam generators.
Since the studs are a critical part of the reactor coolant boundary integrity, it is essential that the nature and probable cause of the cracking be detemined so that appropriate steps can be taken to prevent
- recurrence of the problem.
- 3. Statement of Work The actual laboratory analysis and evaluation shall consist of the following:
(1) Photographs will be taken of the two studs in the "as received" condition to preserve physical features, especially crack areas, prior to specimen removal for other tests. If some decontamination to reduce radioactivity levels is necessary, this is to be done using appropriate methods and solvents which will not result in removal of surface deposits, characterics or otherwise damage the cracked sections for failure analysis studies.
(2) Perfom optical examination of the stud surfaces at suitable magni-fications to detemine crack initiation sites. Surface conditions and characteristics of defect sites (cracks, mechanical abuse, ;
machining' deficiencies, etc.) are to photographically recorded. -
(3) Perfom optical metallography of selected specimen sections containing cracks. Provide evaluation of grain structure, carbide substrates, nature of cracking and other microstructure anomolies observed.
.,s., .
4 Parameter Inc. 2 (4) Based on optical metallography studies, conduct scanning electron metallography studies and EDA % analysis or representative crack areas. Provide an evaluation of the following:
- r. .
- k (a) Characterization of fracture surfaces - initiation sites,
- fracture morphology with respect to fatigue, stress corrosion, i
- stress overload, etc. .
. (b) Analysis of identified deposits on thread and crack surfaces, j and qualitative correlation with chemical analysis of base
. material.
1
, (5) Perfom hardness survey of crack areas and correlate to mechanical
- properties evaluation.
j . (6) Perfom quantitative chemical analysis of both studs by the most 4 appropriate method to suitably characterize the stud material and -
detemine confonnance to specification limits. '
(7) Perfom two room " temperature tensile tests of each stud in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards for materials testing and detemine confomance of stud mechanical properties (e.g., yield strength, ultimate strength elongation, R.A., etc.) to specification requirements.
i '
- 4. Report Requirements
! Upon receipt of the stud samples at the designated laboratory for analysis, the following reports are required:
i (a) Results of laboratory analysis and evaluation as the work progresses i shall be verbally connunicated to the IE Headquarters Project Officer on a weekly basis.
i l
(b) A preliminary report on the complete analysis and evaluation shall be submitted within 20 days for the Project Officer's review.
l (c) Forty (copies) of a written final report shall be submitted to 1
- the IE Project Officer within 45 days.
! 5. Special Instructions -
4 The NRC shall reimburse the contractor as invoiced for allowable costs l incurred in shi for analysis.' pment of the stud samples to the designated laboratory I
! All unconsumed portions of the studs are to be properly identified and retained by the designated laboratory, or contractor, for a period of three months or until advised by NRC-IE Headquarters regarding disposition.
l
_ l
Parameter Inc. 3
- 6. Place of Performance (a) Parameter Inc.
(b)',BCL (c) University of Wisconsin
- 7. Cost ceiling
$45,000 e
S e
O s
h---~-v- ____ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ _
a i
c~- jJ kY ,
/S { hs [ e l' % /
h ,krfc
- g. /2 w s + C, 6e Lor m 6 i
O LS f W 9 N
I. Here A e r /,i b -~ a _r L Ykl p ]as spcme sre N/U [
QM / GE'.
/
s l i,o,> i y of fC .
Y </s Iy 3, ,Ue @z IO cre f g) s3-, .Je bIc f J l ~7 sit 77 /,'
ge p % <e 4: ~p j
i 9
Ar rACH HEu ' 'o i=C H S Yol' H v3 oc h. C e t. % - --
At a- '. a c fee r ree e% r % 6e ccice'e i b y IE, pecb ~
ca in+ce9ce em cc c .<. y is Ac ate $ req =n: p ,, , . g .
Se (,pu+ % Lac w eel.3.:,: s'.all be c[c:,y c(,
- , 3 et p.p i n ey, s tru c%rc: ., ca !.,le froys, a d o+ta, sy s +~ s, e a - p o n u ft , c J e p .; e c , c.a c.ppnep c: J o, ~4,e4 i ecc loccu5e $ lrt Sycrce 3& 6$caCcf EefecYce] by 5 C' c- co&acfa r, licen s ee , ud Z E. Geo-efe:ec aq'
+ k ese sys +% , co ~p o.:en & , c~cf eguip~ed s t.c II Le. Inp u+ in ta ene 2y:s h s ac~pufer p?ogec ~ *
/
Jie H etc4c.en. <. c : p s . s. : c' i.,4cr fc r ~ e c . Tas Ge oPc sS %e o'o de it % .m Ita;+e d u ike + %
tahJ cor F does r.of e xce n / Io,eao, l
h{ reg n gg,$ hCeb y 'tC^'*<On~ -
I'Q t" ?W 8O t, VO;+ %e seieejel IL + c,+e fe *.
$, =Q OL iA c O V. j V (A Q o 3 f. '^b N. k l C E "& C 0. CL A C ,
yhe $p Ac e. csr cgesceg fi 4e eL., c / 3 e c[ ,
k, 0foYBLin $^pu+' fDf "k .w a {yll: hs (fc3 q
.