IR 05000261/1982018

IE Insp Rept 50-261/82-18 on 820504-06.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Followup on IE Bulletin 80-11 & Reactor Bldg Tendon Surveillance Program

ML20054K212
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	05/25/1982
From:	Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20054K210	List: IR 05000261/1982018 ML20054K209
References
50-261-82-18, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8207010298
Download: ML20054K212 (5)

Text

. .

.

y'

[% t, URITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l!

• E REGION 11

• 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100

$, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

.....

Report No. 50-261/82-18 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name: H. B. Robinson Nuclear Plant Docket No. 50-261 License No. DPR-23 Inspection at Robinson site near Hartsville, South Carolina Inspector: _ _

YU J.J.L<a an Date Signed __

Approved by _

e m' 3 2. f 8 2

T. E. Conlon, Section Chief 'Date Signed _

Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on May 4-6, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 15 inspector-hours on site in the areas of followup on IE Bulletin 80-11 and the reactor building tendon surveil-lance progra Results

'

Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie PDR ADOCK 05000261 PDR G

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

I REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees R. B. Starkey, Plant General Manager J. Carley, Manager, Technical Support '

• S. Crocker, Manager, Environmental and Radiation Control

• C. Wright, Specialist, Regulatory Compliance

• W. Farmer, Mechanical Engineer

• D. Baur, Project QA/QC Specialist NRC Resident Inspector

• S. Weise

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 6,1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. Subsequent to the inspection, on May 10 and 13, 1982, the unresolved item described in paragraph 6 was discussed with the plant general manager. In order to resolve this item, the plant general manager agreed that the evaluatian of the control room walls would be completed by June 15, 1982, and that an updated IE Bulletin 80-11 response, if required, would be submitted to NRC Region II by June 30, 198 . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspecte . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph . Independent Inspection Effort The inspector . reviewed the tendon surveillance inspection program for the tendon surveillance inspection performed after five years of operatio This included review of the procedure for performance of the inspection and the results of the licensee's QC inspections of the contractor performing the inspection, the Battelle Memorial Institut Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in Technical Specification 4. The

- .

2-results of the inspection were reviewed by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatio No violations or deviations were identifie . (0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design Summary of Licensee's Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 Carolina Power and I.ight Company submitted its 60 day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to NRC Region II for Robinson Unit 2 in a letter dated July 7, 1980. This response included general arrangement drawings showing locations of the walls, the results of a survey performed to identify walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment, and briefly dis-cussed the approach to be used in the design re-evaluation of the walls in proximity of safety related equipmen CP&L submitted its 180 day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to NRC Region II in a letter dated November 5, 1980. This response summarized the criterion used in the design re-evaluation of the masonry walls in proximity of safety-related equipment, and the results of the rean-alysis. The license concluded that, due to a lack of data verifying the quality of wall construction, upgrading of the walls using external steel supports was necessary to elimintate any possible concerns regarding the ability of the walls to be stable under seismic loadin The details of the wall modifications were included as an appendix to the 180 day respons ' Field Walkdown in Safety Relate'd Areas to Identify Masonry Walls The inspector discussed the inspection method used to identify masonry walls and equipment in the proximity of these walls with licensee engineers. The inspector then walked down the araas listed below to veri fy that all masonry walls in _the proximity of safety related equipment had been identified for design re-analysis in accordance with IEB 80-11 requirements. Areas examined during the walkdown were as

! follows:

!

i (1) Control room complex

! (2) Auxiliary building, elevations 226 and 246 (3) Reactor building, elevation 228, 251, and 275 During the field walkdown, the inspector identified a group of masonry walls in the control room complex which had not been identified by licensee engineers during their preparation of the IEB 80-11 60 day

'

'

response. Additional review will be required to determine if there is any safety related equipment in the proximity of these walls. If

safety related equipment is located in the proximity of these walls, the licensee will perform a design evaluation of the walls as required by IEB 80-11. As discussed in paragraph 2, this evaluation-will be

completed by June 15, 1982. This was identified to the licensee as

.- .___x

- .__ - - _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___--___. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __

- .

T

.,

Unresolved Item 261/82-18-01, "IE B ' 80-11 ' Program" pending further review by NRC and the licensee, Masonry Wall Modification Program As discussed in paragraph 6.a. the licensee concluded during the design re-evaluation of masonry walls in the proximity. of safety related equipment that, due to a lack of data verifying the quality of wall construction, reinforcement of the walls was necessary to meet seismic design requirements. The walls were reinforced by placement of steel supports on the outside surfaces of the walls. The inspector examined design drawings, quality records, and the completed work associated with modification (reinforcement) of the masonry walls. Details of the inspection of the wall modification program are stated in the following paragraphs: -

(1) Review of Procedures for Modifications to Masonry Walls -

The inspector examined the following documents which controlled the masonry wall modifications:

i

(a) Modification number M-574, Seismic Support for Masonry

,

Walls - General Instructions t

(b) Sketch numbers CAR 2762 SK401 through SK 406, Block Wall

{ Location Plan and Support Details

,

(c) Field Change Requests (FCR) numbers FCR1, FCR2, and FCR3 1 l (2) Inspection of Completed Wall Modifications The inspector examined the walls listed below and compared the

modification which had been made to the walls with the details shown on the design documents. Walls examined were as follows:

Wall 6 in the reactor building, and walls 3a, 3b, and 4 in the auxiliary building. During inspection of the modification to wall 3b, the inspector noted that the lower horizontal steel member (a 6" channel) had been installed approximately 8 inches lower than shown on the design sketc Discussions with QA/QC inspection personnel disclosed that installation tolerances permitted instal-ling this member at an elevation lower than shown on the design

drawing. There was insufficient time during this inspection for the inspector to verify that this member had been installed within 5 the required tolerance This problem will be made part of

Unresolved Item 261/82-18-01 and reviewed on a future inspection.

(3) Review of Quality Records Relating to Masonry Wall Modifications The inspector examined the following quality records relating to the masonry wall modification program:

l

i

--- _ , - __ , . _ . . - . . , . . , _ _ . - , , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ - -, ., , _ , , - . . , _ _ . . . - . . _ _ - - - -

.. .

(a) QA/QC inspector records documentary inspection of the wall modification for wall number 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 4 in the auxiliary building and wall 6 in the reactor building. These records included expansion anchor bolt installation inspec-tions, structural steel erection inspections, and welding inspection (b) Receiving inspection documentation for structural steel and expansion anchors used in completing the wall modification (c) EBASCO Structural Design and Analysis Report, dated October, 198 This report contains the design calculations for the l masonry wall reanalysi !

During review of the structural design and analysis report, the inspector noted that the designer, EBASCO, did not consider the numerous existing penetrations in wall 4 in the design analysis of this wall. There was insufficient time during this inspection to contact the designer and determine the effect of the penetration on the design analysis. This problem will also be made part of Unresolved Item 261/82-18-01 and reviewed in a future inspectio IE Bulletin 80-11 remains open pending resolution of Unresolved Item 261/82-18-01 and completion of review of the licensee's response by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatio No deviations or violations were identified.

<. .. .

m