IR 05000244/1981014
| ML20010H492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1981 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258A181 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-81-14, NUDOCS 8109240536 | |
| Download: ML20010H492 (4) | |
Text
,,.
..
_
..
- __
_
_
_ __
-.
-
-
____
.
.
..
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-244/81-14 Docket No.
50-244 J
License No.
DPR-18 Priority Category C
-
Licensee:
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14649 Facility Name:
R.E.Ginna Nuclear Station Inspection at:
Ontario NY Inspection condu ed:
July 13-17,1981 Inspectors:
. [. N/
f F/
!
. K. Chatidhary, Reactor Inspector dhte signed date signed date signed Approved by:
44h[
f!f/
.
1.. E. Trippf, Chief, Materials and
'date signed (
Processes Section, EIB Inspection Summary:
Areas Inspected: An inspection was conducted by a recional based inspector in the areas of planning, preparation, and oerformance of post-tensionino tendon lift-off test. The inspector witnessed several lift-off tests. The itspection involved 50 inspector hours at the plant site and an additional 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> off-site at the NRC regional office.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
8109240536 810910 gDRADOCK05000g
,
Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
..
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-..
.
.
-
_
- _ _-_.-
-
- -
_.
..-. --.
-.
i
..
.
.
I
-
.
-
!
DETAILS
.
1.-
I 1.
Persons Contacted
.
RG&E
,
C. Forbes, Associate Engineer
!
D. Gent, Results & Test Supervisor
!-
- J. Noon, Asst. Superintendent
- B. Snow, Station Superintendent R. Paul, Results & Test
-
'
- J. Lorriza, Results & Test Engineer
Gilbert / Commonwealth
J. Fulton, Structural Engineer I
K. Murrey, Structural Engineer
US-NRC
Persinko, Stt JCtural Engineer, SEB, NRR (Persons denoted * attended exit interview)
q 2.
Documents-Reviewed
!
The inspector reviewed documents and held discussions with cognizant
'
licensee personnel to determine the adequacy of planning, preparations,
'
and the technical requirements for the lift-off test.
The inspector j
reviewed the following documer.ts;
,
i RG&E Proc. PT-27.2, Rev. O " Tendon Surveillance Program Following Re-tensioning."
Inspection and Test Personnel Qualification Sheets i
a)
C. Forbes - 530077 b)
D. R. Gent - 530085
>
c)
G. E. Joss - 530105
j d)
R. W. Paul - 530155
RG&E Proc.-A-1102, Rev. 3, " Qualification of. Test Personnel."
'
p RG&E Proc. A-1101, Rev. 1. " Performance of Tests" (Contractor Test Personnel Qualification 3.1.4.1)
'
L
$
i i
,
,,e
-,,.
-m,-,,-
.-
,.~-y
.,
., -,.
.~...-,,y---
- ,.,, -
,,-,4-----,m-,,-
-, -
w e re.. -, -
r-
-
w.
+,
,,. _ -,..
r
.--, we i~r
- - -.
-.
_
.
.
_
_.
.
....
.
RG&E Proc. A-1701, Rev. 5, "Ginna Records."
Q.A. Manual, Sec. 11, Rev. 8, " Test Control."
Q.A. Manual, Sec. 7, Rev. 12, " Control of Purchased Material, Equipment, and Services."
Q.A. Manual, Sec. 18, Rev. 8, " Audits" Q.A. Procedures Manual, Proc. # QA 1101, Rev. O, " Test Program Require-ments."
Based on the review of documents and discussion with licensee personnel, the inspector determined that the technical requirement as specified by RG&E engineering, the test procedure, planning, and preparation for test was adequate. The equipment was calibrated and the test personnel were certified to perform the test.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
3.
Preparation for Tendon Lift-off Test The inspector visually inspected the test setup located at the top of containment building. This test setup was designed to measure lift-off forces in previously selected tendons. The objectives of the lift-off test were to compare two different systems of lift-off force measurement, to compare lift-off forces with those predicted, and to test the 6% overstress effect.
The test setup consisted of two different systems; a strain gaged stressing rod, and a pressure gage and effective ram area. The inspector verified that the equipment was calibrated as evidenced by a current calibration sticker on the pressure gage and other equipment. The inspector also verified that an approved test procedure was available at the test location, test personnel were qualified per plant procedure to conduct the test, and the procedure contained suf*icient instructions and details to preclude misunderstanding.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
The Tendon Lift-off Test
.
The inspector witnessed several lift-off tests.
In addition to the licensee engineer and test personnel, two engineers from the licensee's consultant, Gilbert Associates, were also present to provide technical support for the tests. The lift-off forces were measured by two independent methods. One method consisted of a strain gaged stressing rod mounted on top of the hydraulic jack with the associated electronic equipment to measure the rod deflection through the strain gage. The other sy, tem utilized a calibrated pressure gage to determine the jack pressure at the lift-off. To determine the lift-off puint, both l
i
-
- -,
--.
-
.
-
-
r
....
.
.
'
methods relied on 0.035 inch thick feeler shims. After recording all
<
!
the initial readings on the data sheet, the hydraulic jack was loaded to a pressure of 2000 psi and data at this pressure were recorded. The oressure was further increased to 4000 psi and the hydraulic system
was inspected for any excessive leakage. The pressure was then further increased until 0.035 inch thick feel shims could be inserted into shim slack at.two equally spaced positions around the shim stack.
The pressure was then reduced to 1000 psi or until the feeler shims could not be removed.
The pressure was again increased to the point where the feeler shims could be removed from the shim stack. This point was defined as the tendon lift-off point.
The inspector verified that during the test the test equipment properly functioned, data were properly recorded, the test personnel were properly qualified to perform the test, and the te: ting operation complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the test procedure and other plan adninistrative procedures.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted * in the first paragraph of this report) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 17,-
1981.
The inspector summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of this inspection.
...
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
- _ _ _.
_
_-