IR 05000348/1980026
| ML19345F711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1980 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F692 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-80-26, 50-364-80-37, NUDOCS 8102190095 | |
| Download: ML19345F711 (8) | |
Text
.
.
-
.
.
. _. _
,
nna
/o uS
c UNITED STATES
!'% t/I, 7/[,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf.it.;lSSION
{.h,4.. [p
.,
.
E FIEGION il i,
g, f
10 uAnitTTA sT., N W., sulTE 3:o0 v
ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30303
,
- ....
'
Report Nos. 50-348/80-26 and 50-364/80-37 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name: Farley i
Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364
License Nos. NPF-2 and CPPR-86 Inspection at Farley site, near Ashford, Alabama
Inspector:
d%db A /v /J't:'
J. J. p yenahan~
/
Dale S'igned j
Approved by:
a h
,/0[v/g T. EO onlon, Sectiorf Chief, RCES Branch Dite' $igned
SUMMARY j
Inspection on September 10-12, 1980.
[
Areas Inspected
.
This special, ar. iounced inspection involved 17 inspector-hours e9 ::i::e in the areas of IEB 80-11, Unit 1 containment tendon surveillance quality records, and Unit 2 containment structural integrity test quality records.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in two areas; one item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infrac-
.
!
tion - Inadequate procedure for survey of concrete masonry walls - Paragraphs 8 and 9).
.
+
8102190M 6 '
-.-
-.. ----
-
-.
.
.
.
{
.
.
k DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- J. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- M. Stinson, Supervisor, Systems Engineering
- G. S. Waymire, Nuclear Engineer, Systems Engineering
- R. S. Fucish, Project Engineer C. Buck, Project Engineer D. Mansfield, Start-Up Superintendent L. Ward, Start-Up Supervisor
- J. Mooney, Unit 2 Construction Project Manager Other Organizations D. Pruitt, Civil Engineer, Daniel Construction
- T. Merrill, Civil Engineering Manager, Daniel Construction J. Marrichi, Structural Engineer, Bechtel NRC Resident inspector
- W. H. Bradford
- J. Mulkey
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on September 12, 1980, with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above.
The noncompliance described in Paragraphs 8 and 9 was discussed.
i 3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
!
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or t
deviations.
New unresolved items identified during this _ inspection are l
discussed in Paragraphs 6, 8, and 9.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort There was no independent inspection effort conducted during this inspection.
,
.:
..
...
. - -
, _ - -
~
.
.
-2-6.
Containment Tendon Surveillance - Unit 1 The inspector examined procedure number FNP-1-STP-609, Rev.
4, " Containment Technical Surveillance Test," to determine if the test procedure complied with NRC QA requirements. This procedure specifies the requirements for performance of the contairrent building tendon surveillance inspecticut.
The inspector reviewed Bechtel report entitled, " Containment Struct..e Post-Tensioning Sy.ctem, Three Tear Surveillance," dated August 1930, Bechtel letter AP3142, dated May 16, 1978 and attached report, " Review of Data, Containment Post Tensioning System, One Tear Surveillance," and VSL Corporation report entitled, "First Tendon Surveillance Test of the Reactor Containment Building."
Review of the above procedure and reports disclosed the following unresolved itea.
Procedure FNP-1-STP-609 does not specify the requirements for the frequency of calibration or the acceptance criteria for use in calibration of test and measuring equipment.
The procedure does not address the training and qualification requirements of inspection and craft personnel performing the tendon surveillance.
The procedure also does not address the action to be taken when deficiencies are found during the tendon surveillance inspec-tion in order to assure that the deficiencies are unique, and not evidence of degradation of the containment structure post-tensioning system.
The following problems were identified during the first and second tendon surveillance inspections:
a.
Three tendons of the total of the 25 tendons inspected during the first inspection were found to have more than eight ineffective wires.
One additional tendon was found to have seven ine.'rective wires.
b.
One tendon void was found to have several gallons of water in it during the first inspection. One additional tendon was found that had a few ounces of water in the grease can.
During the second inspection, two horizontal tendon voids were found c.
to be almost devoid of sheathing filler (grease).
Also, the ducts for several dome tendons were found to have low grease levels.
d.
A grease can with a failed gasket was identified during the second inspection.
I Five of 49 samples of grease had nitrate ion concentrations higher e.
than the inspection procedure limit.
II by the licensee in a letter dated AugustThis was reported to NRC Region 19, 1980.
f.
Following the completion of the second tendon surveillance inspection, problems were experienced calibrating the stressing rams.
,
The differences j
in calibrations between the initial calibration and final calibration
'
were approximately five percent.
-
.
.-.
-
-.
- - -. - _ _ _ _ _
-
-
- - _.
_ =._.
-_._
-- -..
-
,
-3-t The licensee has determined that no immediate corrective action is necessary to resolve or further investigate the above problems, liowever, the licensee is considering performing the next tendon surveillance inspection in Spring, 1981, one year earlier than the Technical Specifications require.
The licensee's evaluation of the tendon surveillance test results and the apparent lack of clear acceptance criteria in the test procedure will be reviewed by the h7C in a subsequent inspection. This was identified to the licensee as unresolved item 348/80-26-01, " Containment Tendon Surveillance
<
!
Program." Previously identified inspector follow-up item 348/80-12-01,
!
" Evaluation of rendon Surveillance Test Results," is closed.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Containment Structural Integrity Test (SIT) - Unit 2 The inspector examined Bechtel report entitled, " Structural Integrity Test, Unit 2 containment Structure," dated July 1980.
Review of the report disclosed that all deflections were within pr dicted FSAR values.
T' e inspector discussed previously identified inspector follow-up item h
364/80-14-02, " Veri fica tion of Sit Dome Extensometor Locations," with licensee engineers. The measured deflection of the apex of the dome was less than half of the predicted value and lower than the dome deflections measured 14, 28, and 42 feet from the center of the dome. At the end of depressurization, the dome apex deflection readings became slightly negative. The report concluded that this was probably due to a kink in the invar wire which connected the extensometer (instrument used to measure deflections) of the apex of the dome to floor of the containment structure.
Bechtel engineers had verified that the dome deflection instrumentation
,
'
(extensometers) were properly located following the completion of the SIT. Previously identified inspector follow-up item 364/80-14-01 is closed.
,
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
l 8.
(Open) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, Unit I
a.
Sr:aary of 1.icensee's Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 I
Alabama Power submitted its 60-day response to NRC Region II for IE Bulletin 80-11 for Farley Unit 1 in a letter dated July 7,1980. This letter summarized the method used to identify the masonry walls and safety-related equipment in their proximity and established a schedule for completing the design re-evaluation of the walls. The response also included a table which listed all masonry-walls in Unit 1, their i
location and function, and a summary of the type of safety-related equipment either attached to or in the proximity of the walls.
i
b.
Review of Procedures for Accomplishment of IE Bulletin 80-11 Requirements The inspector examined Bechtel " Survey Procedure for Concrete liasonry Walls," dated June 16, 1980. Examination of this procedure and dis-cr.asions with Bechtel and Daniel engineers disclosed the following noncompliance:
_. _.. _
_.. _ _ _._ _.._ ___ _ _ _
_ _ -.__ _ _..-_.....__....._ _ _.-.~.
-
yy3--4,s.9-p-v-.-*~7-".
_-. -
- -
-
.
%
-4-
.
Daniel Construction is preparing the as-built drawings of all concrete masonry walls for use in the seismic design re-evaluation of the walls. However, Daniel had no documented instructions or procedures (required by Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50) to prescribe as the process for preparation of the as-built drawings.
The preparation of the as-built drawings is discussed briefly in the Bechtel procedure, but there were 1.o written instructions to specify which portions of the procedure was applicable to Daniel, and there were no additional detailed instructions to describe methods for surveying the walls, determination of type of wall construction, identification of attach-ments to walls, and preparation, checking and control of finished as-built drawings.
Also, the Bechtel procedure did not contain appropriate quality control procedures for determination that the
'
finished as-built drawings are accurate. This was identified to the licensee as Infraction Item 348/80-26-02, " Inadequate Procedures for Performance of Unit 1 As Built Masonry Wall Drawings."
j
c.
Field Walkdown in Safety-Related Areas to Ider.tify Masonry Walls The inspector, accompanied by Bechtel and licensee engineers, walked down the 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 (letter of July 7,1980):
(1) Diesel generator building. Wall DG-1 was examined. This is a masonry wall with safety-related conduit and cable trays attached to it.
This wall had been identified in the licensee's response
'
as the only masonry wall in this structure.
(2) Service Water Building Elevation 188.75 Level.
Walls SW-1 and SW-2 were examined. These are masonry walls with safety-related conduit attached to them and safety-related conduit, equipment, and piping in their proximity. These walls were identified in
]
the licensee's response as the only masonry walls in the service water building.
!
'
(3) Auxiliary Building. The masonry walls listed in Table below were examined.
These walls are in the proximity of safety-related
,
equipment, piping, cable trays, and conduit. The wall also has various types of safety-related attachments.
>
TABLE Auxiliary Buildinr, Wall Mark Floor Elevation Numbers 121 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17,19, and 23 139 24, 25, and 30 155 33, 33A, 43, and 44
.
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ -
....m
.
- - - - -
- - - - - - - -
-
- - - - ' ~ - - - - ' ~~~
- _-
____-
__-_
_
. _..
-. _.
- _ - _. _ _ _ - _ - _ _
_ _
_ -
_ -.
- _ _.
- -. _.
_
,
i
-5-
!
I I'
l
}
In each of the above structures, the inspector examined several l
.
walls in addition to those identified as being of casonry construc-
!
l tion to determine if the field walkdcwn performed by Bechtel was i
adequate to identify all the casonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment.
No additional casenry walls were identified by the inspector during this inspection. The walkdown performed by Bechtel appears to have been adequate to identify all casonry walls in the proximity of safety-related equipment.
I d.
Review of Quality Records Related to IE Bulletin 80-11 The inspector examined the following records relating to IEB 60-11 l
requirements:
!
(1)
Layout drawing showing locations of casonry walls in the diesel
!
generator, service water, and auxiliary buildings.
(2) Summary of Bechtel field notes, in tabular form, of masonry walls, safety-related attachments and safety-related systems in proxicity of masonry walls.
.
Review of the above records and discussions with Bechtel engineers disclosed the following unresolved ' tem:
j Paragraph 3.3 of the Becht 1 " Survey Procedure for Concrete Masonry Valls," requires that systematic search be made in safety-related a
.
areas to identify the location of any concrete casonry walls not shown
on the design drawings and that areas inspected or not inspected be identified and documented.
Discussions with the Bechtel engir.eer disclosed that this requirement had been performed, but that a7.1 the original field notes documenting the effort was located in Bechtel's Gaithersburg Office.
The original notes will be returned to the site following completion of the IEB 80-11 work. The lack of this required documentation of areas inspected for casonry walls was identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 348/80-26-03, "IEB 80-11 Safety-Related Area Vall Inspection Documentation." This documentation will be examined by NRC in a subsequent inspection.
No deviations were identified.
9.
Design Re-Evaluation of Concrete Masonry Valls it. Unit 2 Structures Review of Program and Masonry Vall Survey Procedure a.
IE Bulletin 80-11 does not apply to Unit 2, which is still under construction.
However, in response to an NRR letter dated April 21, 1980, requesting information on Category I sasonry walls in Farley Unit 2, Alabama Power stated in a letter dated September 2, 1980, that all masenry walls in Unit 2 would be re-evaluated as per IE Bulletin 80-11 requirements. Discussions with if censee and Bechte; engineers disclosed that the Bechtel " Survey Procedure for Concrete Masonry
-
_. _ _ _ _
_ _. _ _ _ _ _
_ _ __
... _ _. _ _..._._
...
.,
.
.
.
-6-
.
Walls," is also being used to perform the field survey work on Unit 2
+
to obtain the data necessary for use in seismic design re-evaluation of the Unit 2 casonry walls. Examination of this procedure and dis-cussions with Daniel and Bechtel engineer, disclosed the same noncom-pliance against Unit 2 as discussed in Paragraph Eb. In addition to the lack of documented instructions for Daniel Construction to prescribe the process for preparation of the masonry wall as-built drawings, and the lack of appropriate quality control instructions in the Bechtel procedure for checking of the f.nished as-built drawings, the inspector noted that Bechtel procedure did not contain appropriate instructions to insure that revisions to masonry wall as-built drawings would be made af ter Unit 2 construction had been completed. The field walkdown inspection, discussed in the following pacaeraph disclosed that masonry walls are still under construction in Unit 4, and that installation of attach:ents to completed masonry walls is still in progress. Daniel and Bechtel engineers stated that preparation of as built drawings for masonry walls in Unit 2 is more than half co=pleted. However, at the present time, there is no procedure which requires reverification of the as built after all construction is completed. This was identified to the licensee as Infraction item 364/80-37-01, " Inadequate Procedure for Preparation of Unit 2 Masonry Wall As Built Drawings."
b.
Field walkdown in Unit 2 Safety-Related Areas to Identify Masonry Walls The inspector, accompanied by Bechtel and licensee engineers, walked down portions of the Unit 2 Auxiliary Building on elevations 155, 139, 121, and 100. Based on this field walkdown, the inspector concluded
,
that the walkdown performed by Bechtel appears to have been adequate to identify all masonry walls which have been constructed to date in the proximity of safety-related equipment.
However, the inspector noted that construction of masonry walls and installation of attachments to the masonry walls was still in progress.
Review of Quality Records Related to Decign Re-Evaluation of Unit 2 c.
Masonry Walls The inspector examined Daniel drawing number 2CBW25, sheets 1-5,
" Concrete Block Vall Number 25, Elevation 139, Cable Spread Room."
This is an as built drawing of a masonry wall in the cable spreading The drawing was reviewed during the Unit 2 field walkdown to rocm.
'
verify that wall openings and penetrations and support attachments, including the manner of attachment to the wall, were accurately recorded.
With the exception of one recently installed 2 1/2 inch electrical conduit, all attad.ments to the wall greater than one inch in diameter were accurately recorded. As discussed in Paragraph 8d, the original Bechtel field records were not available at the site for review during this inspection. Paragraph 3.3 of the Bechtel procedure requires that a systematic search be made in safety-related areas to identify the locations of any masonry wall not shown on the drawing. The inspector could not determine if this requirement had been accomplished due to
.. _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
_
. _ _. _.. _ _ _.._,_ ~. _... - -
m
.
.
O-7-
.
lack of the required documentation on site. This was identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 364/80-37-02, "Sa fety-Related Area k'all Inspection Documentation." This is the same unresolved item as discussed in paragraph 8d against Unit 1.
The documentation will be reviewed by NRC in a subsequent inspection.
No deviations were identified.
. - -
.
.
l
- - + - - - - - -... _. -
..,,,_
'
- F
- T" * * # Fe e -mog s w g m 4. e.w wggm,,
,
.
p
-, -
,-,