IR 05000220/1981011
| ML17053C702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1981 |
| From: | Chaudhary S, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053C701 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-81-11, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8107060242 | |
| Download: ML17053C702 (10) | |
Text
5 ~
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 5 5'
. ~5.2K Docket No.
50-220 License No.
DPR-63 Pr ior ity Category Licensee:
Nia ar a Mohawk Power Cor oration 300 Erie Blvd. West Syracuse; NY 13202 Facility Name; Nine Mile Point, Unit
Inspection at:
Scriba.,
NY Inspection conducted:
May 'l2-15, 1981 Inspectors:
I S.
K. Chaudhary, Reactor Inspector da e signed date signed date signed n
Approved by:
~M~
~v >~P'd -Pi L.
E. Tripp, Chief, Material and date signed Processes Section, Engineering Inspection Branch Ins ection Summar
Ins ection on Ma 12-15, 1981 Re ort Number 50-220/81-11
~AI d:
A
.
I I
p I
51
d'I p
of licensee response and actions pursuant to IEB:80-11.
The inspection involved 28 direct inspection hours on-site by one regional-based inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
21070Ei0242 BiOe1'71 PDR ADOCK 05000220
PDR Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted NMPC
'R.Aupperle, Structural Engineer T. Goreman, Structural Engineer M. Mosier, Licensing Engineer T. Perkins, General Superintendent.
Nuclear Gen.
- T. Roman, Station Superintendent, Unit
US-Nuclear Re ulator Commission
"S. Hudson, Resident Reactor Inspector (Persons denoted " attended exit interview)
2.
Ade uac of Res onse to IEB:80-11 The inspector reviewed the two responses (60 day and 180 day) the licensee had submitted to NRC.
The inspector pointed out to the licensee that the bulletin required a detailed response at 180 days regarding the status of the masonry wali'he item 2.b.(i) and (ii) of the bulletin stated:
(i)
Describe, in detail, the function of the masonry walls, the con-figurations of these walls, the type and strengths of the materials of which they are constructed (mortar, grout, concrete and steel),
and the reinforcement details (horizontal steel, vertical steel, and masonry ties for multiple wythe construction).
A wythe is considered to be (as defined by ACI Standard 531-1979)
"each continuous vertical section of a wall, one masonry unit or grouted space in thickness and 2 in. minimum in thickness."
(ii) Describe the construction practices employed in the construction of these walls and, in particular, their adequacy in preventing significant voids or other weaknesses in any mortar, grout, or concrete fill.
However, it appeared that the licensee's 180 day response did not provide the detailed information required by the bulletin.
The licensee stated that the response followed the same general format as has been the practice of the licensee for other bulletins and NRC submittals.
This item is unresolved pending a detailed review of the response to determine the adequacy.
(50-220/81-11-01)
3.
Licensee Actions in Res onse to IEB:80-11 The inspector reviewed the,'records and held discussions with licensee personnel to determine the validity, adequacy, and timeliness of reanalysis, evaluations, and repair/modification of masonry wall pursuant to the requirements of the above bulletin.
The inspector reviewed the following documents:
Drawings:
C-18599C, Rev. 9; C'-18600C, Rev.
10; C-18601C, Rev.-9; C-18602C, Rev.
9;
'-18603C,.
Rev, 9;
'-18604C, Sheet-l, Rev.
5; Sheet-2, Rev.
3; Sheet-3, Rev.
1; B-34179-C Sheet-l, Sheet-2, Sheet-3, Sheet-4, Sheet-5, Sheet-6, Sheet-7',
Sheet-8, Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
C-27147, Rev.
2; C-27148, Rev.
4; C-27149, Rev.
3; C-27157',
Rev.
1.
C-27150, Rev.
C-27151, Rev.
C-27154, Rev.
Certificate of Compliances:
Barnes
& Cone, Inc. for CMU, dated 6/25/80 W.
F.
Saunders
& Sons, Inc. guikerton Division, for mortar, dated 6/16/80 Rochester. Portland Cement Corporation for cement in the mortar mix, dated 5/4/79 Citadel Cement Corp. for masonry cement dated 4/30/79 Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Test Reports.
To Northern Concrete Blocks Co. dated 3/5/79 To Barnes
& Cone, Inc. dated 7/25/80 Telephone Memorandum by P.
B. George regarding
"Hydite Blocks," dated 10/14/80 Internal Co~respondence, A. Olson/R.
Aupperle to D. Palmer/H. Fetterolf,
"Rebar Verification Procedure for IEB:80-11," dated 12/10/80 Memorandum, R. Aupperle to G. Goreman,
"Concrete Masonry Wall Design Criteria," dated 6/30/80 Purchase Requisition ¹605482, for Structural Steel, ASTM A36, dated 11/24/80
I Schedule of Field Verification of Rebars, dated 12/10/80 to 12/20/80 ACI Standard 531-79, "Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures.",
"Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Concrete Masonry Structures."
National Concrete Masonry Association Manual,
"Reinforced Concrete Masonry Oesign Tables,"
1971 Equipment Oescription List for IEB:80-11 Engineering Analyses:
Wall ¹47, Control Bldg.
Wall ¹65, Reactor Bldg, Mall ¹43, Reactor Bldg.
Wall ¹S8, Reactor Bldg.
Mall ¹66, Reactor Bldg.
Wall ¹59, Reactor Bldg.
Wall ¹31, Reactor Bldg.
Based on the review of above documents, discussion with licensee personnel, and personal observation, the inspector determined as follows:
1.
The licensee identified masonry walls in the plant as directed by the IE bulletin.
2.
The licensee has established the acceptance criteria (based on the accepted building standard, ACI 531-71).
3.
The walls have been reanalysed to determine the structural integrity.
5.
MaJority << the walls have met the acceptance criteria.
A few walls'hich did not meet the established criteria have, been structurally upgraded by repair/modification to meet or exceed the acceptance criteria.
Ouring the course of review of the analysis of walls, the inspector noted some inconsistency in data used for evaluation. 'lso, the inspector identified some analytical and computational errors in some of the evaluations.
The inspector pointed out these discrepancies to the licensee, and at the inspector's request the licensee reanalysed the wall with correct data and consistent assumption,
The inspector reviewed the reanalysis and determined that although the reanalysis did change the final numerical results, the changes were insignificant, and did not affect the results of evaluation.
The inspector considered'he evaluation and modification of masonry walls adequate and acceptable.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance, or deviation.
Unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 2 of this report.
5.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Section 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 15, 1981, at the plant site.
The inspector summarized the scope and the purpose of inspection, and discussed the inspection finding ".VF
.C 0