ML102910644
| ML102910644 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/2009 |
| From: | Jones T Progress Energy Co |
| To: | Lake L NRC/RGN-II/DRS/EB3 |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116 | |
| Download: ML102910644 (65) | |
Text
_jp Lake, Louis From: Jones, Tai [Brandy.Jones@pgnmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 12:44 PM To: Lake, Louis
Subject:
CR3 Open Requests Attachments: Open Requests.pdf Lou, Here is the report you requested.
Hope you have a wonderful holiday!
Tai I
P//3'7
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:07 P Request Number: 1 Individual Contacted: ýSid Powell Date Contacted: 10/15/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 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
Response
Ilwas 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 357670357670. 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.
Misc Notes:
Response By: Joe Lese Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/16/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 1 of 64
4-C Sp cii XseciooRB CcrtSe e tion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 2 Individual Contacted: 'Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 Fe questor/spector: MnY iviasters......... Category: Information Request Request: The Inspector has requested a procedure that was used for tensioning the tendons originally.
References:
Response Assigned to: Sid Powell Date Due to Inspector: 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 Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
Page 2 of 64
AI i~ R Crcrt ~
17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 5 Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 Requestorlinspector: 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:
Respon As igned to: Sid Powell Date Due to Inspector: 10/17/2009 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 I
,the various load combinations. Each load element (dead load, pressure, liner plate thermal, thermal gradient, etc.) were individually evaluated. Additionally each were run at unit values, as to support the various amplificatior 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.
Misc 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.
Response By: :Dan Jopling Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/20/2009 Status: .Open Date Closed:
rptOpem Que~stions Page 3 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 6 Individual Contacted: Sid Powell Date Contacted: 10/16/2009 Requestorlinspector: ;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.
Response By: ;Sid Powell Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/16/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questionsa Page 4 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Seprtion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 7 Individual Contacted: :Garry Miller Date Contacted: -10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: :Dan Naus category: InformationRequest 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?
References:
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009
Response
R16 Tendon Detensiong sequence.pdf: {E-mail from the SGR Tendon Field Engineer on the detensioning
- sequence.)
,Containment Opening - Tendon Removal Timeline.xlsx: {Spreadsheet containing some interview questions and
ýresponses as well as some plant shutdown/mode times and tendon rdetensioning sequence information.)
Z3R5 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)
- Follow up Response: Interviews were performed with craft and supervisory personnel associated with idetensioning and hydroblasting. None indicated any abnormal noises occurring during these evolutions. Some
- were asked specifically if any loud noises were heard and no one identified any abnormal loud noises.
Additionally, seismic monitoring data was obtained and reviewed for indication of movement. WO 1654188-01 shows no evidence of movement. Note: One direction was invalidated due to disturbance that occurred during data retrieval. The other two directions showed no movement. See Seismic Data - PT-379.pdf file at
ýL:\Shared\2009 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 7, Q1 Response Info -
Portmann Misc Notes:
Response By: iRick Portmann / Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/2/2009 Sta tu s : nD.Cs...........
.pe ............. ...... t e....d...................d...............e...d..
ed: ....................................
rptOpen Questions Page 5 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 9 Individual Contacted: ýGarry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 'Dan Naus Category: Question Request: Was there any analysis of why re-tensioning was required in past tendon surveillance activities
ý(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 idtermine, evaluate and eliminate the cause(s) of the condition not meeting the IWL acceptance by examination criteria.
References:
Response Assigned to: 'Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 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# 1l
'folder, 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:
rptOpen Q u (esfiorwl,. Page 6 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 11 I.iid a ............
....
.......
.e. ........
....
......................
. ...................
...........
............
.......
...........
.......... D a e on ct d ...........
.....
1 0.....
-./ - 0 .......
..................
Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 q u es ect Reorllns Requestor/Inspector: L..uis.
.r
. ..Lake Louis _..a....... ......... . .. . . ...................
........ C ateg o ry :
Ctgr:Qeto Q uestion 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:
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
,Step 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:
lof validating the test process and equipment for a specific application is standard practice for concrete condition
ýassessments utilizing NDT.
.Step 5.3 Reports
'Step 5.3.1
.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.
rptOpen Questions Page 7 of 64
2009 N C cia IInsp ction ° RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P 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 Step 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 ldedication of the software (SMASH) being used to evaluate the NDT data.
'Step 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 TURN ON the computer to start setup process.
Misc Notes:
Response By: Paul Fagan
.........................
...... ................
. . .................
. ...... .... . .. ..........
... .................
...... ..................
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009 Status: Open DaCoed Page 8 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 12 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/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 M
Misc N ot : ..............
Notes: .... ...... ......
I .......................
........ ........... . .............
................................. ........... . . ....... . . ............
...... . .
..... ...
..
......
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 9 of 64
29 N Sp c Inisp~ctron C12c:t gprc 0ti8P 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 15 Ind tividual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Re questorlinspector: Louis L.ake 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 Response' Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen (uetsP1ons6 Page 10 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P R
setqeN u ber (.................16.....................
Request Number: 16
......... ....................
...............................
.
Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorllnspector: '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: Paul Fagan 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 portable 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 kHz.
.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 mobilitý value. 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 makes 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 certainty.
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
.characterize 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).
B) 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. Page..of.. 64..............
e ..-11 ston
.p~ ... ......
rpt~pen Questions Page 11 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Misc Notes:
Response By: 'Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/1212009.
SOp n ..............
Status: 'Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 12 of 64
20 9 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 17 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Question 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:
Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 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.
~Notes:
~ ~ ~~.........
Misc*!fro r.c .t s
............
. a t~ .......
e.t.eb
....... ................................
........... . ............................
... ...............
.. .................
................ ............... .......... ......
..... ......................... ......
..................................
................
Response By: :Craig Miller Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009 Status: ýOpen Date Closed:
rp[Open Questions Page 13 of 64
4 -
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 18 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 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: PaulFagan 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
- 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
ýthe 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:
Response By: Craig Miller Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 14 of 64
20 9 *RC Specia Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 19 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/lnspector: 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 the' Root 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
.the 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 limitaccess. 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 t~r z e bbyY NDT.
......
...........
.characterized D.....
T...... . .. .. .. ..................
... ..... .......................... .. .............
..........
....... .. ........
..... ............
.......... . ................
... ............
Misc Notes:
ns g a.....
....
...
.... .......
....... ............................
.............
.. .......
.. ........
..... .......
...... ......... .. ...... ..
.....
Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: .11/12/2009 Status: !Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 15 of 64
209 NRCSpeiansc- 2Cncrt4Sprtin 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 20 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorlinspector: ,George Thomas Category: Question Request: What are your examination plans for below grade?
References:
Response Assigned to: :Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009 Reponse:
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.
Misc Notes:
Response By: Paul Fagan Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009 Status: Open Dat Cosed:
rptC~pern Questions Page 16 of 64
2009 N C SpeciaO Inspec ion - BRConcrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 21 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 'George Thomas Category: Information Request 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 interviews conducted by P11.
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 21, Q15 Response Info - Portmann Misc Notes:
Response By: 'Charles ....
Williams
~~~~~
!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. ............................
.. . .. ................
.......... ....................
...... . .
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: :Open Date Closed:
rp[Opcn Que silonsPg Page 17 of 64
2009 NRC SpecialI Inspection - RB Co0 crete e rtio 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 23 Individual Contacted: GarrytMiller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Question 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-e....
m t. 0 n
.... .. .. .....
...............
....................
.. .........
...........
......
. ...............
.. ..........
......
.................. .............
. .. ...... ... . .. . . . . . .. ........... ....--
...--
...
-i. . ...
References:
Rpeos n s e ~ ....e
.... o ris iii m..............................
n............... ...........
....
............................
D ate In s p cto r .u
..... 2/2 .. 0
..
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 10/1/2009 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 Misc Notes:
Response By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009 Status: Open.. ...... ........ Date Closed: ..... .. ..
rptOpen Questions Page 18 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Sep r tion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 1 25 G r. .....
......
. .
Individual Contacted: Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorlinspector: ,George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: :Provide results of current visual inspections.
References:
Response Assigned to: .Paul 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 this 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 R15 information as part of the root cause investigation. I have included these reports, reference file RO-1 6 IWL Exam Reports.pdf enclosed in the NRC folder "FAGAN Q-A" file "Request 25, Q1 9 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 N RC folder.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Misc Notes:
Response By: ,Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/30/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 19 of 64
C d e~ ~ C0ri~crete Sq~ratiorb 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 26 Individual Contacted: CGarry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/h spector; :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 Xl 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 Date Response Provided: 11/4/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptop Cue Page 20 of 64 Pg20o6sfions
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 27 Ind lividual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Re questor/inspector: George Thomas Category: Question 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:
rpt()pen (uestions Page 21 of 64
2009 RCp nspct Con1 r: 43:o 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 28 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorllnspector: 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:
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009
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.LiJCalculation S09-0048, Revision 1, Stress Plots for SGR Containment Analysis Misc Notes:
Response By: iDon Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
Page 22 of 64
209 NC Speci nspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 29 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 RequestorlInspector: 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 the centerline of each buttress. Note thatthe 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).
.
References:
1..Calculation S06-0005, Revision 1, Containment Shell Analysis for SGR - Shell Evaluation During Replacemei
- Activities.
2.LlCalculation S06-0004, Revision 0, Containment Shell Analysis for SGR -Properties of new Concrete for Access Opening and Number of Hoop and Vertical Tendons to be Detensioned.
M is c N o te s : ............................................................................ ............................ .....................................................
.............................. .............................................
.i .....
.. . .. . . ...............
. .... .........
. ............. ............................
. ....... .............
... ..................
....... .. ... ..... . . ... ..... . . ............... ... .. .................. .. ... ..... ..... .......... . .
.... ........ ..................... . .. . . ............... ... ................ .... ..
.Response By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: !Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 23 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 30 Individual Contacted: Garr Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 'George Thomas Category: 10/22/09 Request: Where is PHI based, and provide a description of their credentials?
,A) What is their root cause approach?
Provide P11'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.
References:
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009
Response
PiI 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
'SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM Q-A\WILLIAMS Q-A\Request 30, Q24 Response Info - Williams Misc Notes:
Response By: 'Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009 Status: 'Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 24 of 64
20 9 NC Special Inspection - CI rocrete Separa~tion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 31 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestort-nspector 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 response 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:
Respo By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
tptOpen Quesiý< Page 25 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 32 Individual Contacted: :Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 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 beý 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 Misc Notes:
Response By: Charles Williams Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009 Status: 'Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 26 of 64
2009 NRC Special ecPion onetio 1ns0 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 33 Individual Contacted: ;Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: Information Request Request: Provide copy of PGN's and P11's Root Cause Analysis procedure.
include a statement on P11's root cause analysis procedure or if they would be working to PE's procedure.
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009
Response
A hard copy of the PGN root cause procedure CAP-NGGC-0205 was provided to George Thomas on 10/28/09.
PII does not have a written procedure. The PII 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:
- ptOpoen Qooe:'fior,* Page 27 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Sep ration 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 35 Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: George Thomas Category: 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: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009
Response
MiscMisNotes:
cN o t e s : i ~~~...........................
..... ......................
..........
............
................. ..... ......................................................
... ........................... ..................
................ .......... ........ ..............................
................................. ........
......
........
..............
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: !Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 28 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 36 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 RequestorlInspector: lGeorge Thomas Request:.Will.there.be.a.past-operability.analysis.lCateeord: C Question Request: !Will there be a past-operability analysis completed?
References:
~ ~
Response ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.......
on 'llne
.o
..
y..ster.. 0use
.. -........ . ......................................... D at to or .u..............
...... 0-0-9.
............... .... .......
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector: 10/26/2009
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rplOpen Questions Page 29 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 37 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 o~ l s e t r R.us Requestorllnspector: e
- George.. mas_...
o..........
.....
...........
Thomas ............
........ ................
................ .. .................. C a e g o ry :
Ctgr:Qeto Q es i n . .
Request: What type of analysis and codes (by names) is expected to be used in the design basis analysis?.
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 SPI.
Misc Notes:
Response By: 'Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By: Date Response Pro.vided:
Status: 'Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 30 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concret Spration 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 38 Individual Contacted: ,Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 'Anthony 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.
L:\Shared\CR3 Containment\ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS Files\(1) Concrete Design\Concrete Design Drawings Misc Notes:
Response By: iGlenn Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Queslions Page 31 of 64
20~9 NRC SpeciaI Xispect~io R3 Co~c ete Seprat 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 39 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorlinspector: ,Louis.Lake Category: Question RequestU Were there any changes to the dome made in 1976 (additional new anchors and/or radial rebars)?
References:
Respons. Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to inspector: 10/26/2009
Response
.The 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
- 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:
ýFinal 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 SC-421-343, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement North Half- Bottom Reinforcemen SC-421-344, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement South Half- Bottom Reinforcement SC-421-345, Reactor Building - Concrete Dome Repair Dome Reinforcement Sections & Details Misc Notes:
Respons By: Don Dyksterhouse Reviewed By. : Date Response Provided: 11/13/2009 Stat s: :Open Date Closed.
Page 32 of 64
209 RC S eia uns cion- R Concrete 5ep rtion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 40 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 10/22/2009 Requestorinspector: *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
Response
The construction microfiche database contains a listing of microfiche for the dome repair project. The cards range in number from 2C01 024 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 mention 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 Construction\Construction MicroFiche Index.pdf Misc Notes: Related to question #1 Response By: ýGlenn Pugh Reviewed By: Charles Williams Date Response Provided: 10/28/2009q Status: ,Open Date Closed:
Page 33 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P 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-182, 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 .mN o.tes.:....
W_.. r .. .la.e ...n.c....... ... .to ..................................
............. ................
Misc Notes:
......... .... ......... .. . .......
.........
....
Response By: .Rick iRic k .P_Portmann
.o rt ......
_m ....
.a_..
.....
..........
- -....
............ ...... .......
... .............
.... .. ....
............... . . .. .. ...... ................................................... .......
- .............
.....
.......
........
..
Reviewed By:
..D. ............
.
Date Response Provided: o........s.d..............
11/12/2009
...
. . .. . . . . . ..................
. . .... ..........................
. . . . ... ..............
......
..... ..... .....
. ...................
. ......... ............ . ....
i~e .......
.......... . ............
........... . ...............
............ ..i a e l s d : ................
.......... .. ...... .....
Status:
rpIC)pen QuestionP Page 34 4 of 64
2009 NRC Special )nspecton o RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 50 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:
iSP-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
Measuring 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 Date Response Provided: ...... .I..
Reviewed By:
Status: :Open Date Closed:
rplOpen Questions Page 35 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 52 ualivid ~ ~ ~
Ind ~ ~ ~ ..... ~
.ont.ted
- e ..........
.......
... ri ....................
.................. .................. a e n a t d ...
........
..... 1/3 2 0 .. ...
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-182, Rev. 16 (Dated 5/22/09) Reactor Building Structural Integrity Tendon Surveillance
.Program, Enclosure 5 is titled "Reduced Force Dome Tendons" and lists 18 tendons. 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:
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
iFollowing 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 lift, 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 ianchorage, 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.
Misc Notes:
Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009.
Status: :Open Date Closed:
rpt.Open Questionls Page 36 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 55 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:
IVT-07-1 11 and VT-07-289 documents somescracks and spalls and measured depths. How were
'the depths obtained for the cracks and spalls?
References:
..
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
ýDirect Visual Examination was conducted on RBCN-001 5 during R15 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" scale.
Misc Notes:
Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009 Status: 1Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 37 of 64
2009 RC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 57 Individual Contacted: Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 R~e questori inspector: Antnony Mwasters 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 inspections/re ports_done on the same day by the same staff?
References:
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
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.
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: :Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 38 of 64
209 Specia JRCInspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P 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:
R.e.o.........................................................
.......................
..
Response: '.
.Yes - Significant deterioration or abnormal behaviors are being reported to the Commission. SP-1 82 (Para's
.5.3.2 and 5.3.4) and the Improved Technical Specifications (5.7.2 Special Reports) describe the reporting requirements.
Misc Notes:
.i . ...........
. ...... .... . .......
.. . .. . .. ... . . . . .. ............. .. . ....... ...... .. . . . . ............. .... ... . ... ....... . ... . . . . . ..... ... . . . .. ... ...... . ... . .. . .. . . . ... .. . ....... ...... . .. . . ...
Response By: Rick Portmann Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/12/2009, Status: .Open Date Closed:
rptOC)pen QuestionsP Page 39 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separttion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P 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:
would like to review SP-180 and understand the basis surrounding the use and discontinuance
'for inspections of the dome repairs.
References:
Rceef se:~
r e n.. ... ~
. ......
.. ...... .. . .. . ... . ...........
... .. ...........
.. ................
..-----.. ..... . . . . -----
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:
rptOpen Questions Page 40 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 60 Individual Contacted: !Dennis Herrin Date Contacted: 11/4/2009 Requestorlinspector: :Louis Lake Category: Question Request: 'What are the repair options being considered as a fix to the CR3 containment delamination issue.
References:
Response Assigned to: Sammy Radford Date Due to Inspector: 11/6/2009
Response
There were two options that had being considered.
- 1. [1Remove 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.EDThe next option we considered was to install anchors into the solid concrete portion of the wall on a spacing tc be 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 isome NDT to ensure we have filled all the voids between the two layers. This option was eliminated due to iproblems identified with the use of the grout with the potential of the debris blocking flow paths of the grout and
- size Misc.of some hs : of the crack areas. . . . . . . . . . ....... ....
MsN.e.........s:.
iN cS oO1te... °. ... ~.....
............
................................... .... ....
..............
..........
......
.......... ..............
..... ..............
...... . .............
..........
.............
................
........................ ...........
......................
.............. ............ . ....... .........
.... ... . ...............
. . ........ ......
...........
.............. ........... ......
....... .........
.. ..
..........
Miscotes Response By: Sammy Radford Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 11/18/2009 Status: 'Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 41 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P 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
',integrity?
References:
Response Assigned to: Sammy Radford Date Due to Inspector: 11/6/2009
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: 11/18/2009 Status: Open Date Closed:
rp.Open (uestiorPs Page 42 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 63 Individual Contacted: jGarry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 'George Thomas Category:
Request: iProvide survey data results for the dome [repeated survey surveilance test], internal diameter of containment and survey data results for external buttresses.
References:
Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rpp*.Opn (Q)uestions Page 43 of 64
2 09 HRC Special 2 :ti1 - Co 7rete epa1:tii08 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 64 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Re questor/inspector: Louis Lake Category:
Request: :Provide evaluation of crack identified in AR 368389368389[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: Open Date Closed:
rpt.Open (Ouesons Page 44 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concret Sep rtion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 65 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category:
Request: Provide credentials of MPR Associates and CAE specifically with regard to concrete containment structural analysis and design for nuclear plants.
References:
R: esp ...........................
o n se As ig n ed to e.Due.to Ins pecto r ........................
Response Assigned to: :Don Dyksterhouse s.oe.Dy
...r o s
.. ...... . ..... .... .. Date Due to Inspector: ....... ... .. ........
.........
.......
...........
..........
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 45 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 66 Individual Contacted: .Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake 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 1construction sequence (initial tendon detensioning, concrete removal, additional tendon idetensioning, 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: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Mi.....
c o........
ts ............................... . .. ... . ......... .........
........
.......................
... ................
..... ........................
......................
.......................
...... ....................
....... ..............................-
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rpCt4pern Questions,- Page 46 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 67 Individual Contacted: 'Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category:
Request: Refer to Slide #59 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation. This is with regard to how the liner is, imodeled 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?
References:
ns A s.g e ....
.... o.D n
...... .......
h ..... se........
.......
... ......................
........
.......
.................
.........
.............
....
............
.n s p e c tor............... ... . . ...........................
..........................
Response Assigned to: Don
=. . . . .
Dyksterhouse
......
......... . . .. . . ................. ..............
.............
.......
Date Due to Inspector: . .. .. ...............
...........
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: ,Open Date Closed:
rpt.Open Questions Page 47 of 64
2009 NRC Speciae Inspection ° RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 68 Individual Contacted: :Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009~
Requestor/Inspector: !LouisLake Category:
Request: 'Refer to Slide #75 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation. Slide states: "Run comparison to ioriginal 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, iliner 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?
References:
Response Assigned to: ýDon Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
.. ..............
. . ................. . ...... ---...............
...................................-.............................................
-...................................................
.............
........................................................................--- ...
........
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: '
Status: !Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 48 of 64
2009 NRC Special nspection - RB Concrete Sep7ration 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 69 Individual Contacted: CGarry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: ;Louis Lake 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
ýincorporated into your analysis?
References:
Response Assigned to: DnDyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 49 of 64
2009 NRC Special nsp ction - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 70 Individual Contacted: Carry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestorlinspector: ;Louis Lake 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 refine your model around the EQ hatch area.
References:
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: iOpen Date Closed:
rptOpen Questicos Page 50 of 64
2009 C i In Ctiono Concr S nrtion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 71 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/inspector: Louis Lake 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:
Response
Misb Notes:
Response E3y:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
q 4C)pe{'* ©tle!i;ti': Page 51 of 64
2 09 "RC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Sep r tion 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 72 a M ..............
Individual Contacted: Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: 'Louis Lake 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 icombination.
References:
Response Assigned to: Don Dyksterhouse Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rpt0pen Questions Page 52 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 73 aidl~~~~
Inudiv ~ ~ ~~...........
~...............-
r ....
.............
.......... .........
.....................
...............
....... ............. Da eC n a t d .......... 1
- 2/ -( 9...........
Individual Contacted: iGarry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 1 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake 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 XI, 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 ianalysis." For the major containment repair/replacement activity involved at CR3, describe how ithe 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
(1)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.
i(2)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 linstrumentation 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, (3)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.
Enclosed in this folder in response to the above question:
i(1) The designated Responsible Engineer for the SGR Opening Project is John Holiday. Enclosed in this Iresponse folder is a copy of John's completed Progress Energy COMMON ESP TRAINING GUIDE
- (ESGO090N) - CONTAINMENT INSPECTION RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER TRAINING GUIDE. [See enclosed pdf
- ESGO076N-Holliday.pdf]
(2) The effective date of John's designation as the SGR RE was the date on his training guide completion approval 7-14-09.
(3) See the excerpt below from the "Containment IWL Repair Plan" contained in the SGR Opening EC 63016,
,attachment Z58R26 for the IWL-5000 Pressure Test information. It is anticipated that this information will be
ý15.0 PRESSURE TESTING AND PRESERVICE EXAMINATION 15.1 A reactor building pressure test will be performed after de-tensioned and replaced tendons have been re-rptC~pern Questions Page 53 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P tensioned. The test will be conducted as specified in EC 63016 (Reference 19.28), which incorporates the applicable requirements of ASME Section Xl, Article IWL-5000 i(Reference 19.2). The IWL Responsible Engineer will authorize performance of the test.
- 15.2 The pressure test will be conducted at the design basis accident pressure, Pa = 54.2 psig (calculated peak icontainment DBA pressure), as specified in Reference 19.2, prior to returning reactor building to service.
.15.3 The surface of all containment concrete placed during repair/replacement activities will be visually examined
,in accordance with the requirements developed in EC 63016 (Reference 19.28), which incorporates the requirements of ASME Section XI, Article IWL-5250 (Reference 19.2). The examinations will be done (1) prior to
.the start of pressurization, (2) at test pressure, and (3) following completion of depressurization. In addition,
- concrete surrounding the bearing plates of all new and detensioned / re-tensioned tendons will be examined per ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL Section 2524.1(Reference 19.2) following the completion of depressurization.
The preservice examination required by IWL-2230 will be conducted in accordance with procedure EGR-NGGC-
.0015 (Reference 19.23) following completion of depressurization2
.2 A single examination can satisfy the requirements of both IWL-5250 and IWL-2230..
,Ifthe results of the post-test and preservice examinations do not meet the acceptance standards developed by the IWL Responsible Engineer in accordance with IWL-31 10, corrective action will be taken as required by IWL-3113 and IWL-5260.
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open . Date Closed: .............................
rptOpen Questions Page 54 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 74 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category:
Request: ;Refer to photos on Slide 14 of the 11/20 public meeting presentation.
ýExplain 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.
References:
..... ..
............
........
Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: ýOpen Date Closed:
rpfOpen Ouestions Page 55 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 75 i In C o ~t ~ct ~d u daivl~id ~ ~ ~.......
- M iie
...............
. ............. .... ...................
............
..................................
i D t Co a c e : ......... i2 /2 0 9 .... ...........
.........
.
Individual Contacted: GryMiller
~~. ~.~ ...~~~~~
i~~~~ . .. . ............. . .... ... .. .. .. .... .... Date
- .......... Contacted:
..................... 12/2/2009
.... ........... i....i Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category:
Request: :Describe your plans [Pll] 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: Open Date Closed:
rpt.Open3 CQwetsfons Page 56 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 76 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: :Louis Lake 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-found condition (Tendon installation specification must have had a tolerance for tendon sheathing installation)?
References:
Rees oss n i ne t : C ha le W lla msD a e ue to ns ec o r
............. .......
..............................
...........
.....................
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By: I Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 57 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 77 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake Category:
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.
References:
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed i~ ~i
..............
.y ....
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: 'Open Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 58 of 64
209 ec~ Inpecto~RE Corcrteerio LC 17-Dec-09 12:43:08P Request Number: 78 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/inspector: Louis Lake Category:
Request: 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
,spot or depressed area on the dome.
Referen cs:
Response Assigned t6: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
Page 59 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 79 InldC ounatac te d :
ivid !Gar* Mi ..e.........
.........
. ......
............................
................... ... Da e C n a t d .................
... ...... .
2..../2.......
Individual Contacted: GryMiller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 -
Requestor/Inspector: iLouis Lake 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: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: Open Date Closed:
rp[Open Questions Page 60 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Conc rete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 80 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake 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 iexamination?
References:
sRee~
s pA ons i.e ~..... ........ ...............
har s.......m..
... ........
...........
.u .........
..........
.......
.. D at ...to n s pe.........r.
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:
Response
There have been a total of seven core samples that received some form of petrographic examination. The core
.identification numbers and test labs are:
1.[]Core 5 [']MACTEC (1/2 of Core 5 tested at MACTEC) 2.oCore 5CLDCTL (1/2 of Core 5 tested at CTL)
.3.L1] Core 60i 11Photometrics
- 4.LiCore 71][]MACTEC i5.LICore 180]Photometrics 6.[]Core 190Photometrics 7.LiCore 870MACTEC MACTEC and CTL performed petrographic examinations in accordance with ASTM C 856. Photometrics
,evaluated similar conditions and attributes as those evaluated under the ASTM standard, but used tools and
'techniques more frequently used in material science, e.g., scanning electron microscope (SEM) and micro-hardness examinations that are more thorough. Progress Energy did not provide any directions that would influence how a particular test or examination was performed, other than convey the main objective of the
.particular examination (i.e., determine age of the break). The purpose of using multiple labs was to obtain
'independent results; therefore there was no explicit effort to ensure consistency in the examination techniques or
.results.
- Note that not all samples were examined for fracture age determination. For example, Core 87 was taken from
'the containment dome (area repaired in 1976). The purpose of the petrographic examination on this sample was
- to compare the aggregate from the dome to the aggregate from the wall.
The number of samples that received petrographic examinations is believed to be adequate based on the cossetresults obtained from the various labs and the diversity of the sample locations.
Misc Notes:
Response By: :Craig Miller Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 12/7/2009 Status: ýOpen Date Closed:
rptOpen Questions Page 61 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 81 Individual Contacted: iGarry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake 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
. . w.here
. . is. .it docum
. . . . ented?R...
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References:
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:
Response
.Per discussion with the MACTEC petrographer, the lab did do some limited observations on Core 2, but I did not see anything particularly useful in their analysis. It was originally intended to use the fracture surface of Core 2
,as the "control sample" since the fracture was made during the core removal process. However, the lab created
.a fresh fracture surface in a portion of Core 5 instead for the "fresh vs. existing" comparison. Therefore, Core 2 was essentially unused in the examination.
sc N ote s:..
Mi..............................-............
...........
. --.........
................
.....................
........
......... ........
......... ........
......... ........
...........
..............
.....
.........
............ ................
Response By: 'Craig Miller Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 12/7/20091 Status: Open Date Closed:
rptC)per (,'uestions Page 62. of 64
,111 A.
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 82 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 Requestor/Inspector: Louis Lake 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
ýNovember 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 ddocumented?
References:
Response Assigned to: Charles Williams Date Due to Inspector:
Response
-The MACTEC report does say that halfof core #2 was sent to CTL, but it does not specify what tests are to be
.performed on it. CTL has this half of Core #2, but has not done any testing on it at this time. This sample was taken from an area that did not contain delamination. There are currently no plans to perform any tests on this sample.
Misc Notes:
Response By: 'Craig Miller Se....d....................
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided: 12/7/2009.
Status: Open Date Closed:
Page 63 of 64
2009 NRC Special Inspection - RB Concrete Separation 17-Dec-09 12:43:08 P Request Number: 83 Individual Contacted: Garry Miller Date Contacted: 12/2/2009 1 Requestor/Inspector: iLouisL Lake
... ... . .......... ...... .. ...........
....
. .. . ......... . Category:
C a t e g o r y :. . . .. ... .... ... .... . .. .
Request: :Describe what confirmatory NDE would be performed, after detensioning of additional tendons, inl
'the areas that did not show any delamination in order to verify that the delamination has not
- propagated any further due to additional detensioning.
References:
Response Assigned to: Paul Fagan Date Due to Inspector:
Response
Misc Notes:
Response By:
Reviewed By: Date Response Provided:
Status: ;Open Date Closed:
rptC.)pen Quesfions;Pg Page 64 6 off664