ML12054A643: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
: 1. Review NEXTERA implementation review and associated action plans in order to understand activities including walk-down assessments and testing for the ASR problem and establish a comprehensive list of disconnects between the contractor plans and implementation schedules - tentative list noted below. | : 1. Review NEXTERA implementation review and associated action plans in order to understand activities including walk-down assessments and testing for the ASR problem and establish a comprehensive list of disconnects between the contractor plans and implementation schedules - tentative list noted below. | ||
: 2. Identify activities and tests not to be done by NEXTERA, but potentially need to be done by either NextEra or NRC - tentative list noted below e.g., Triaxial test. | : 2. Identify activities and tests not to be done by NEXTERA, but potentially need to be done by either NextEra or NRC - tentative list noted below e.g., Triaxial test. | ||
: 3. Laboratory testing on a selective basis (first time use at WJE, in IL, Nov. 16-18, 2011) with emphasis on: | : 3. | ||
Laboratory testing on a selective basis (first time use at WJE, in IL, Nov. 16-18, 2011) with emphasis on: | |||
: a. Calibration of test equipments, | : a. Calibration of test equipments, | ||
: b. Proper implementation of Procurement Documents and Test Procedures, | : b. Proper implementation of Procurement Documents and Test Procedures, | ||
| Line 47: | Line 48: | ||
QUESTIONS RELATED TO ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES/TESTING - not evident from implementation schedule: | QUESTIONS RELATED TO ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES/TESTING - not evident from implementation schedule: | ||
Site VP promised a gap analysis between what MPR action plan suggests and implementation schedule BUT when ??? Is there a need for a NextEra produced corrective action plan (requirement not needed; a license is being held up). | Site VP promised a gap analysis between what MPR action plan suggests and implementation schedule BUT when ??? Is there a need for a NextEra produced corrective action plan (requirement not needed; a license is being held up). | ||
Discrepancies between Action Plans and Implementation Schedule: | |||
: 1. In-situ monitoring of temperature and moisture conditions (last bullet of 4.3.2 in ASR Action Plan from MPR) | : 1. In-situ monitoring of temperature and moisture conditions (last bullet of 4.3.2 in ASR Action Plan from MPR) | ||
: 2. Use of alternative surfaces such as in Unit 2 in order to assess investigations that might damage surfaces both internal or external in Unit 1 (section 4.3.3 in ASR Action Plan from MPR). | : 2. Use of alternative surfaces such as in Unit 2 in order to assess investigations that might damage surfaces both internal or external in Unit 1 (section 4.3.3 in ASR Action Plan from MPR). | ||
: 3. Impl. Schedule does not describe an interim and long term structural evaluation of each affected building by ASR per section 4.4 of the ASR action plan - only a structural evaluation is stated. | : 3. | ||
Impl. Schedule does not describe an interim and long term structural evaluation of each affected building by ASR per section 4.4 of the ASR action plan - only a structural evaluation is stated. | |||
: 4. Long Term monitoring and Remedial Plan are suggested in ASR action plan per ppl3-14, not evident in the implementation schedule or is it to be assumed in the project SBRK.EN.05.03.20.09, Develop Eng. eVal. To address requests identified in RAI B.2.1.31-1 | : 4. Long Term monitoring and Remedial Plan are suggested in ASR action plan per ppl3-14, not evident in the implementation schedule or is it to be assumed in the project SBRK.EN.05.03.20.09, Develop Eng. eVal. To address requests identified in RAI B.2.1.31-1 | ||
: 5. Page 12 of ASR Action Plan on Core Analysis suggest the use of a Stiffness Damage Test (qualitative but shorter term results on progression of ASR reaction) - not evident that it will be done on implementation schedule. | : 5. Page 12 of ASR Action Plan on Core Analysis suggest the use of a Stiffness Damage Test (qualitative but shorter term results on progression of ASR reaction) - not evident that it will be done on implementation schedule. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 58: | ||
Implementation schedule does point to Phase I and II assessment walkdowns and the potential to identify additional core/tests - Phase II won't get done until the end of Jan. 2012 which appears relatively late in the schedule. | Implementation schedule does point to Phase I and II assessment walkdowns and the potential to identify additional core/tests - Phase II won't get done until the end of Jan. 2012 which appears relatively late in the schedule. | ||
: 7. Why isn't the Mitigation of Water Intrusion (section 4.2 of Action Plan from MPR) not on the implementation schedule of 24 Oct 2011 | : 7. Why isn't the Mitigation of Water Intrusion (section 4.2 of Action Plan from MPR) not on the implementation schedule of 24 Oct 2011 | ||
: 8. Building floor slabs, most of the discussion has been on basement walls. | : 8. | ||
Building floor slabs, most of the discussion has been on basement walls. | |||
Needed Tests and other Activities not planned by NextEra: | Needed Tests and other Activities not planned by NextEra: | ||
: 9. Need to review how NEXTERA is establishing a correlation between Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity, if no tensile test are done (tensile strength testing current planned per Test Plan for ASR section 3.2) | : 9. Need to review how NEXTERA is establishing a correlation between Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity, if no tensile test are done (tensile strength testing current planned per Test Plan for ASR section 3.2) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:50, 12 January 2025
| ML12054A643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook |
| Issue date: | 02/16/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2012-0119, IR-11-003, IR11-005 | |
| Download: ML12054A643 (3) | |
Text
NEXTERA CONTROL OF CONTRACTORS FOR ASR ISSUES Resource Estimate:
- 1. 3 inspection weeks (90 hrs direct inspection) from November, 2011 to February, 2012
- 2. Time charge to IP 71111.15, Operability (92701, Follow-up on URI,05000443/2011003-03).
- 3. Report No. 05000443/2011005, resident quarter
- 4. Outside R1 support is anticipated. For such support all issues of concern should be brought the attention of Region I,.Suresh Chaudhary (610-337-5335) or Richard Conte (610-337-5183)
Inspection Criteria:
- 1. Procurement control document (available in CERTEX)
- 2. ANSI N 45.2.11,
- 3. NEXTERA QA Plan should commit to the above ANSI Standard. (Exceptions should be Noted)
Scope of review:
Priority of review: observe implementations as it occurs or a review test results, the adequacy of plans/procedures should be sampled as it undercuts implementation and test results.
- 1. Review NEXTERA implementation review and associated action plans in order to understand activities including walk-down assessments and testing for the ASR problem and establish a comprehensive list of disconnects between the contractor plans and implementation schedules - tentative list noted below.
- 2. Identify activities and tests not to be done by NEXTERA, but potentially need to be done by either NextEra or NRC - tentative list noted below e.g., Triaxial test.
- 3.
Laboratory testing on a selective basis (first time use at WJE, in IL, Nov. 16-18, 2011) with emphasis on:
- a. Calibration of test equipments,
- b. Proper implementation of Procurement Documents and Test Procedures,
- c. Observe set-up and test conditions are consistent with test procedures and standards,
- d. Observe and assure that the failure mode of the test cores are properly documented.
- e. Review and assure that test personnel are properly qualified and certified.
- 4. Review Phase 1 walk-down results prepared by MPR, and Reviewed by NEXTERA, including additional testing, if required, based on initial walk-down results (Week of Nov. 28, 2011).
- 5. Assess progress of Phase 2 walk-downs for Maintenance Rule Structures affected by ASR, including the adequacy of wlk-down procedures(Week of Nov. 28, 2011).
- 6. Based on inputs from R3 inspectors, and independentreview of test results, assess compressive strength values for the B Electrical Tunnel (Final review mat be delayed till January, 2012)
- 7. Assess test results of Tensile tests on concrete core samples from B Electrical Tunnel based on inputs from R3 inspectors, and independent review of test result (Final review mat be delayed till January, 2012).
LONGER TERM PROJECTS:
- 1. Review results of long term laboratory monitoring for residual concrete expansion and aggregate reactivity (Procurement plans should be available mid December 2011).
- 2. Assess NEXTERA in-situ monitoring of concrete expansion (Mapping pins for CEVA to be installed early to mid December, 2011).
- 3. Consider TIA for SGH reanalysis for CEB. Report may be available. mid January to early February, 2011 (Assess crack mapping progress in January, 2012).
- 4. Based on results of the TIA for the Control Bldg, consider the need for additional TIA for structural assessment ASR affected structures.
- 5. Decide on approach for Engineering Evaluation in March 2012, who has the lead NRR/DE or NRR/DLR.
QUESTIONS RELATED TO ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES/TESTING - not evident from implementation schedule:
Site VP promised a gap analysis between what MPR action plan suggests and implementation schedule BUT when ??? Is there a need for a NextEra produced corrective action plan (requirement not needed; a license is being held up).
Discrepancies between Action Plans and Implementation Schedule:
- 1. In-situ monitoring of temperature and moisture conditions (last bullet of 4.3.2 in ASR Action Plan from MPR)
- 2. Use of alternative surfaces such as in Unit 2 in order to assess investigations that might damage surfaces both internal or external in Unit 1 (section 4.3.3 in ASR Action Plan from MPR).
- 3.
Impl. Schedule does not describe an interim and long term structural evaluation of each affected building by ASR per section 4.4 of the ASR action plan - only a structural evaluation is stated.
- 4. Long Term monitoring and Remedial Plan are suggested in ASR action plan per ppl3-14, not evident in the implementation schedule or is it to be assumed in the project SBRK.EN.05.03.20.09, Develop Eng. eVal. To address requests identified in RAI B.2.1.31-1
- 5. Page 12 of ASR Action Plan on Core Analysis suggest the use of a Stiffness Damage Test (qualitative but shorter term results on progression of ASR reaction) - not evident that it will be done on implementation schedule.
- 6. Need for additional Core samples from Buildings other than Control Bldg in Unit 1 -
Implementation schedule does point to Phase I and II assessment walkdowns and the potential to identify additional core/tests - Phase II won't get done until the end of Jan. 2012 which appears relatively late in the schedule.
- 7. Why isn't the Mitigation of Water Intrusion (section 4.2 of Action Plan from MPR) not on the implementation schedule of 24 Oct 2011
- 8.
Building floor slabs, most of the discussion has been on basement walls.
Needed Tests and other Activities not planned by NextEra:
- 9. Need to review how NEXTERA is establishing a correlation between Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity, if no tensile test are done (tensile strength testing current planned per Test Plan for ASR section 3.2)
- 10. NOTE: pull out test section 3.4 is contingent on tensile strength testing, if tensile testing not doen the pull out testing may not be done.
- 11. Need for Triaxial Tests by NEXTERA and/or NRC (pro/con analysis needed). Not listed on the Test Plan for ASR
- 12. Need to calculate Poisson's ratio for the Core samples - not listed on the Test Plan for ASR.