IR 05000280/1989037
| ML18153C093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1990 |
| From: | Belisle G, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153C092 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-89-37, 50-281-89-37, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 9002060083 | |
| Download: ML18153C093 (5) | |
Text
Report Nos.:
.UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 50-280/89-37 and 50-281/89-37 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company Glen Allen, VA 23060 Docket Nos.:
50-280 and 50-281 License Nos.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 Facility Name:
Surry 1 and 2
-
Inspection Conducted:
1989 Inspector:..,,.....-,,---,-~.--~.../-d:.A:~;...._;:~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. J Lena an Approved by: cz:~'4 *"R ~~,,
G. A. Belisle, Chief Test Programs Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
l/5"('/'P Date Signed I -S'- iD Date Si gr1ed This routine, unannounced inspection was* conducted in the ar~as of IE Bulletin 80-11 and licensee action on previous inspection finding Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not i'dentifie The approach to resolution of IEB 80-11, ~iasonry Wall Design, was timely, thorough, and technically adequat The licensee's program for final review and closeout of IEB 80-11 went beyond NRC initiative and indicates a clear understanding of the issue * Persons Contacted Licensee Employees REPORT DETAILS
- B. Bilyeu, Licensing Engineer
- E. Grecheck, ~ssistant Station Manager D. Hart, Supervisor, Quality R. Orga, Quality Assurance (QA) Auditor, Quality M. S. Whitt, Structural Engineer, Engineering
- Attended exit interview -
- - - - - - - - (Closed) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design (25537, 92701) Bae kground The licen~ee responded to IE Bulletin 80-11 in letters to the NRC dated July 7, October 24, and November 3, 198 The July 7 letter was the licensee 1s 60 day response to the bulleti In the October 24 letter, the licensee requested an extension until July 31, 1981 to complete the masonry wall re-evaluation progra The November 3 letter provided an interim report and masonry wall evalua-tion criteri The licensee submitted an estimated schedule for completing the re-evaluation program in a )etter dated December 26, 1980, and interim progress reports in letters dated April 15 and June 15, 198 In a 1 etter dated July 29, 1981, the 1 i censee provided information on the status of installation of wall modifica-tions required to upgrade the masonry walls to meet the IE Bulletin 80-11 evaluation criteri On August 21, 1981, the licensee submitted Licensee Event Report 81-020/03L which notified the NRC that seven masonry walls in the fuel handling building did not meet seismic design requirements; and that in the event of the design basis earthquake, the walls may possibly fail and portions of the walls could fall into the spent fuel poo The licensee notified the NRC in a letter dated July 29, 1981, that 20 walls had. been identified that had not been constructed in accordance with the original design requirements, and the further required evaluation of these walls would not be completed until the end of October 198 The licensee provided the analysis results of the re-evaluation program which was completed on July 31, 1981, to the NRC in a letter dated September 14, 198 The licensee submitted their final report to the NRC on IE Bulletin 80-11 in a letter dated October 29, 1981.. Masonry Wa 11 s were designated by the 1 i censee to be Cl ass I, a wa 11. with a significant amount of safety-related equipment in its proximity; Class II, a wall with a limited amount of safety related equipment in its proximity; and Class III, a wall with no' safety-related
>
~'
- *
equipment in its proximit The result of *the masonry wall re-evaluation program showed that 79 walls were ~cceptable, two walls were *acceptable after equipment was removed from the walls, 31 walls*
were modified, and the 7 walls reported in LER* 81-020/03L were not acceptabl In letters dated July 6, 1982, and October 26, 1984, to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) the licensee responded to requests for additional information concerning masonry wall desig Based on the information provided in the letters listed above, NRR issued a Safety Evaluation Report dated August 11, 1988, *
which accepted the licensee's design methodology used to qualify the
.majority of the walls, with the exception of an item concerning boundary conditions and the ass!,lmptions used in the 1 icensee I s analysis that the walls were free standing cantilever In order to resolve the acceptability of the licensee's analysis for walls which were evaluated as cantilevers, the licensee provided additional information to NRR in letters dated April 7, and May 12, 1989, which listed the walls analyzed as cantilever walls, identified the conservatisms in the analysis as~ociated with these walls~ and stated the results of a walkdown the licensee conducted. to confirm the actua 1 boundary cond it i ans re 1 a ted to these wa 11 Members of the NRR staff visited the Surry site on July 20, 1989, and confirmed the data and conditions provided in these letter NRR issued a Safety Eva 1 uation Report on October 2, 1989, which accepted the licensee's design methods regarding cantilever wall Inspection of Modifications to Masonry Walls The inspector examined structural modifications to masonry walls which were iristalled to reinforce selected walls so that the walls would-not be overstressed during the design basis earthquake. These modifications were installed under Design Change Packages (DCPs)80-86A through 80-86V. * The i nspettor examined the records documenting Quality Control (QC)
irispections of installed modifications (structural supports) on the masonry wall These records included records documenting inspections of welds, concrete expansion anchors, material certification records, and nonconformance report The inspector examined the installed modifications on wall numbers SB-9-6-8, AB 27~6-2, AB 27-6-7, and AB 27-6-34 and verified that the modifications had been installed in accordance with the details shown on the design drawings, or that deviations from the design require-ment were addressed on approved variation notice The inspector compared the installed modifications with those shown on the following 11as-bui lt 11 drawings:
-
- (1)
Drawing No. 12846.60 cs~17AR through CS-17AU, Service Building Bl ockwa 11 Supports, Wa 11 No. SB-9-6-8, Sheets 1 through 4
.....
,.. *
(2)
Drawing No. 12846.60 CS-245 and CS-24T, Auxiliary Buil_ding Blackwall Supports, Wall No. AB-27-6-2, Sheets 1 and 2 (3)
Drawing No. 12846.60 CS-24BA and CS-24BB, Auxiliary Building Blackwall Suppoits, Wall No. AB-27-6-7, Sheets 1 and 2 (4)
Drawing No~ 12846.60 CS-24H and CS-24J, Auxiliary Building Blotkwall Supports, Wall No. AB-27-6-34, Sheets 1 and 2 No discrepancies were identifie Modifications were previously examined* during an inspection documented in NRC Inspection Report Numbers 50-280,281/81-1 Review of Licensee I s Program to Contra 1 Modi fi cations to Masonry Walls The inspector examined the licensee 1s program for controlling modifications to block wall Procedure NDCM STD GN-001, Instruc-tions for -DCP Preparation, includes a precaution that no equipment and/ or components may be attached to a Cl ass I or *u wa 11 un 1 ess *
specified, and that no safety-related *equipment and/or components may be.attached to or located in the collapsed envelope of any Class III block wal Design Procedure,. Civil Engineering STD-CEN-0040, provides' direction not to install safety-related equipment within.the proximity envelope of Class III block walls, and that any attachments to Class I or II walls are to be approved by ~ngineerin The inspector reviewed a draft copy of QA Audit Report 89-424, Evaluate Block ~Jalls/Surry 1 arid 2, and discussed the audit finding with 1 i censee quality personne The audit was conducted by the 1 icensee to. review the IEB 80-11 program and determine if any unauthorized modification had been made to any walls since the 1980 wa 1 kdown inspections required by IEB 80-11 had been performe: The audit was performed using 11as-built 11 sketches of the masoriry walls which were originally prepared in 1980 for the initial IEB 80-11 design evaluation. These sketches showed the location and identified equipment attached to Class I and II masonry wall The results of the audit field walkdown inspection showed that only minor changes or modifications had been made to th~ walls examined by the auditor The changes were noted on marked up as-built sketche The inspector examined wall numbers AB 27-6-2, AB 27-6-7, AB 27-6-12, AB 27-6-33, and AB 27-6-34, compared the existing as-built masonry walls to the revised sketched, and verified that the revised sketches were accurate. -
The audit finding concluded that minor modifications had been made to severa 1 Cl asses I and II masonry wa 11 s s i nee the I EB 80-11 design evaluations had been complete Licensee design engineering personnel will review these changes and determine if it is necessary
I.
'
to update the IEB 80-11 design calculatio The audit report recommended strengthening existing design control procedures which would p,rovide additional clarification to assure that future modifications do not affect the IEB 80-11 progra Cone l us ions Based on review of the licensee I s actions to complete IEB 80-11 during inspections documented in NRC Inspection Reports Numbers 50-280/80-42, 50-281/80~46, and 50-280,281/81-18~ followup on LER 81-020/03L during an inspection documented in NRC Inspection Report Numbers 50-280,281/85-10, and review and acceptance of the licensee's design evaluation methodology by NRR, the inspector concluded that the licensee has complied with the requirements of IE Bulletin so~1.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)
(Closed) Unresolved Item 281/86-36-01, Status of Liner Weld Leak Chase Channel Plug The licensee had installed plugs in the containment liner weld leak chase channels during the Type A containment building integrated leak rate tes The licensee's basis for permitting installation *of the plugs during the leak rate test was the exemption granted by the NRC to the Beaver Valley**
Nuclear Plant (Dusquesne Light Company) since the containment building at each sit~ had similar Stone and Webster Engineering designs. Discussions with NRR and licensee personnel disclosed that the Beaver Valley exemption was specific and did not apply to any other facilit The licensee submitted a technical evaluation of their containment liner weld leak chase channels to the NRC in a letter dated February 8, 198 On August 5, 1988, the licensee provided additional information to the NRC which included the technical basis and supporting calculation of the leak chase channel syste NRR reviewed the licensee's technical evaluations and toncluded that the licensee does not need to vent the channels during the Type A test. A Safety Evaluation Report documenting this position was issued by NRR on March 6, 198.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized by NRC inspector L. Mellen on December 14, 1989, with those persons indicated in paragraph The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection result Proprietary information is not containeci in this repor Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.