IR 05000324/1981022
| ML20032B455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B451 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-81-22, 50-325-81-22, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8111050563 | |
| Download: ML20032B455 (6) | |
Text
_
<
.
'o,,
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
$
E REGION 11 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 o,%
~
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 s
Report Nos. 50-324/81-22 and 50-325/81-2?
Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name: Brunswick Docket Nos. 50-324 and 50-325 License ilos. DPR-62 and DPR-71 Inspection at Br unswick Site near Southport, North Carolina Inspector:
/C-/~ f/
J. J. Lenahan Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
T. E. Conlon Approved by:
M
/ C -- / ~ E l T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspection on September 15-18, 1981 Areas Inspected This special, announced inspection involved 39 inspector-hours on site in the areas of follow-up on IE Bulletin 80-11 and corrosion protection of the reactor building tendons.
l l
Results I
Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
l l
[
!
0111050563 811002 (
PDRADOCK05000g (
t
..
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. K. Dietz, Plant Manager
- J. G. Titrir.gter, Mechanical Engineer
- E. A. Bishop, Engineering Supervisor D. Noe, Plant Engineer W. Well, Mechanical QC Specialist R. S. Beverage, QA Technician C. Lovell, Civil Engineer Other Organizations United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.
J. Rucki, Supervisory Mechanical Engineer R. Satterwhite, Structural Engineer K. O'Shoughnessy, Structural Engineer NRC Resident Inspector
- D. Johnson
- L. Garner
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findinqs were summarized on September 18, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Itams Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acctptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are disco; sed in paragraph 6.
~
l
I
_
_
_
--
.
.
2.
5.
-Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined the grease cans covering the horizontal tendons in-the beams supporting the refuelling floor of the Units 1 and 2. reactor buildings to determine if there was any leakage of tendon sheathing filler (grease) from the tendon voids. The inspector noted that grease was leaking
-
from some grease cans on the north side of.the Unit 1 reactor: building. The inspector discussed the apparent grease leakage with licensee engineers.
The licensee engineers indicated that the apparent grease leakage-will be investigated. The results of this. inspection will be-reviewed.by NRC in a subsequent inspection. This was identified to the licensee as Inspector Followup Item 325/81-22-02, " Investigation of grease leakage from contain-ment building tendon voids".
No deviations or violations were identified.
6.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design - Units 1 and 2 a.
Summary of Licensee's Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 The licensee submitted its 60-day response to IE Bulletin 80-11 for Brunswick to NRC Region II on July 7,1980. This response summarized the method used to identify the masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment, discussed the prioritized program for re-evaluation of the walls, and listed acceptance criteria being used to re-evaluate the walls. The report also included General Arrangement drawings showing the location of the masonry walls in the plan, the drawings showing construction details of the walls, and the results of the onsite review of the masonry walls. This review described the wall detailed construction, and listed safety-related and non-safety-related equipment attached to or within the influence of the walls.
CP&L submitted its 180-day IE Bulletin 80-11 response to NRC Region II on November 5, 1980.
The response discussed the function of the i
masonry walls, discussed the practices employed in construction of the walls, and summarized the analytical techniques employed in the masonry
'
wall re-evaluation program.
The response presented the results of
!
on-site survey conducted to verify whether or not the control building l
masonry walls were constructed in accordance with the drawings and l
specifications and presented the results of the design re-evaluation performed on the control building walls. The response stated that the results of the analysis for the reactor building masonry walls would be provided to NRC by November 25, 1980, and the results of the analysis
'
for diesel generator walls would be provided to NRC on December 9,
1980.
c l
t I
.
L __
.,
. -
1 On November 25, 1980, the licensee submitted the results'of the design i
re-evaluation program for the masonry walls in the re* actor building.
- .
The licensee submitted the results of the design re-evaluation for the
masonry walls in the diesel generator building to NRC Region 'II on.
December 9,.i980.
.
The November 5, November 25, and: December 9 responses listed. masonry walls which had not been constructed in accordance with the details
- -
shown on the construction drawings. These problems were noted during,
'
the on-site su,9eys. conducted by UE&C structural engineers. A total of approximately 20 walls were. involved. The problem with the majority of
'
these walls was that the restraint angler had not been installed it the tops of the w311s as required.
I b.
. Summary of Procedure Used to Identify Masonry Walls in Proximity of Safety-Related Equipment The inspector discussed the inspection methods used to identify masonry walls and equipment in their proximity with the UE&C. engineers responsible for conducting the field survey of the walls.
This discussion disclosed that the preliminary identification of masonry
walls and all equipment in th91r proximity was performed by electrical
-
and mechanical craftsmen who were. familiar with the plant systems.
~
These individuals were responsible for completing an inspection form
-
and noting all equipment attached to, penetrating, or within the j
influence (proximity) of the masonry walls. This inspection data was then transmitted to UE&C's home office (Philadelphia) for determination
of what' walls had safety-related equipment in their proximity. After
this was ' completed, a structural survey was made by UE&C structural
engineers of all walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment to verify that the walls were constructed in accordance with the construc-tion plans and specifications, and determined the condition of the
walls.
Sketches were made of any walls which were found to have details different from those shown on the original construction plans.
'
' -
The design re-analysis was based on the information obtained during this onsite structural survey.
'
i c.
Field Walkdown in Safety-Related Areas to Identify Masonry Walls
[
The inspector, accompanied by a licensee engineer, walked down the i
following areas to verify 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 and the licensee's 60-day
.,
response.
(1) Control Building, Elevations 23, 49, and 70 (2) ' Diesel Generator Building (3)
Intake Structure (4) Unit 1 Reactor Building, Elevations -17, 20, and 50 (5) Unit 2 Reactor Building, Elevations 20, 50, 80, and 117 a
-
a
.
No additional masonry walls were identified by the inspector during the walkdown. The field survey performed by the licar.see appears to have been adequate to identify all masonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment.
d.
Review of Quality Records Related to IE Bulletin 80-11 The inspector examined the following quality records relating to IEB 80-11; (1) " Marked-up" General Arrangement Plans for the reactor buildings, the diesel generator building, and the control building showing the location of masonry walls (2) Field inspection data sheets for wall numbers ic, 6c, 6d, 9a, and 9d in the control building (3) Field inspection data sheets for wall number 6c,12b and 12c in the Unit I reactor building and for wall numbers 1, 8a,10a, IOb,
,
ano 10c in the Unit 2 reactor building (4) Structural survey data sheets and as-built drawings (sketches) for wall numbers Ic, Cd, 9a, and 9d in the control building (5) Structural survey data sheets and as-built drawings for wall number 6c in the Unit I reactor building and wall number 1 in the Unit 2 reactor building (6) Structural survey data sheets and as-built drawings (sketches) for wall numbers la, Ic, 2b, 2c, 2d, 6a, 6c, 7b and 8c in the diesel generator building.
The records listed above were reviewed during the walkdown inspection discussed in paragraph 6.c. to verify that thc as-built details of the masonry walls were accurate and the equipment in the proximity of the walls was properly identified.
c.
Review of Masonry Wall Repair Program As stated in paragraph 6.a., during the onsite surveys of the masonry walls conducted by UE&C engineers, it was discovered that approximately 20 walls had not been evnstructed in accordance with the design drawings. The inspector discussed the masonry wall repair program with
,
licensee and UE&C engineers.
The inspector examined the folicwing documents which control the masonry wall modifications:
(1) Plant Modification Number 80-232 and 80-255 (2) UE&C Specification Number 9527-01-29-1, " Specification for Masonry and Caulking (3) rP&L Procedure WP-103, " Torque Wrench Calibration" (4) CP&L Procedure WP-105, " Anchor Bolts".
-
_. ~.
_-
-
-
-
ae
.
During review of Plant Modification 80-255, the inspector noted that sketches showing masonry wall repair details were not with the modifi-cation package.
The inspector discussed this problem with licensee engineers who stated that tha sketches had teen attached to the package when they made the technical review of the documents.
There was-insufficient time durin'g this inspection to determine if failure to have the design sketches filed with the Plant Modification package is a.
violation of the licensee's QA procedures'or NRC requirements. This
-
was identified to the licensee.as Unresolved Item 324/81-22-01 and 325/81-22-01 " Control of. Plant Modification Drawings". This item will-be reviewed by NRC in a subsequent inspection.
The inspector examined the work completed to date on wall number 4A in
the diesel. generator building associated with the installation of-t i
restraint angles at the top of the wall.
The inspector reviewed the records documenting inspection of anchor
'
bolts and welding for the restraint angle installation.
}
This Bulletin remains open pending completion by the licensee' of repairs to the walls as stated in the licensee 180-day response
(letters 'of November 5, November 25,.and December 9,1980) and further i
review of the licensee's IEB 80-11 analysis by NRC.
No deviations or violations, were identified.
.
!
!
l l
l L
P l.
i I
,
l'
.
!o i
f L