IR 05000348/1981004
| ML19350C048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1981 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350C044 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-81-04, 50-348-81-4, 50-364-81-05, 50-364-81-5, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8103240786 | |
| Download: ML19350C048 (8) | |
Text
'
b uc PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION oq'o UNITED STATES
g
[}t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g c
REGION il
-
'
O*e
101 MARlETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 V %,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
,o
+....
M ^.R 121981 Report Nos. 50-348/81-04 and 50-364/81-05 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35202 Facility Name:
Farley Units 1 and 2 Docket.Nos. 50-3.48. and.50-364,
.
,,
.
,
License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8 Inspection.at.Farley site near Ashford,' AL k
J -//- I/
Inspector:
J. J. Lenahan Date Signed J - //- 7/
Approved by ar T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, Engineering Date Signed Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division SUMMARY Inspected on February 24-27,.1981
.
~ Areas Inspected-This special, ant:ounced inspection involved 26 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of followup of IE Bulletin 80-11, licensee action on previous inspection
~
l
~
~ finding's; and licensee identified items.
"
'
Results Of the areas inspec.ted, no violations or deviations were identified.
-
.
l
,
-
,
.
.
.
.
.
<
..-
..
,
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Conf acted Licensee Employees
- J. Woodard, Assistant Plant Manager
- M. Stinson, Supervisor, Systems Engineering
- G. S. Waymire, Nuclear Engineer, Systems Engineering C. Buck, Project Engineer
- D.7M. Varner,. P.roject fanager.z.
~
,
.
.
..
c.
-
-
,.
,. <.
.
R. G. Berryhill, 5upervisor, S/ stems Perfo..,rmance
'
R. S. Fucish, Project Engineet
- 0ther Organizations-a D. Pruitt, Civil Engineer, Daniel Construction
- T. Merrill, Civil Engineering Manager, Daniel Construction
- R. B. Smith, Electrical Engineer,- Davcon Corporation A. A. Vizzi, Project Engineer, Bechtel K. Gandhi, Assistant Project Engineer, Bechtel S. Sen, Structural Engineer, Bechtel-G. W. Turner, Civil QC Inspector, Daniel Construction H. C.< Lane, Civil QC. Supervisor,. Daniel Construction-NRC Resident Inspector.
.
- W. H. Bradford.
'
-
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview j.
- 'The9tispecdon*sdopb'ahd fin'dtnis4ere "summirized by the' NRC' Rds'ident'
'
i
. Inspector on February 27, 1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 l
above.
.3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
'
.
.
-
-
.
l, e
-
.xr.a.,_.. (0 pen).. Unresolved;.Ltem (J48/80-?.6p0.1): Containment Tendon Surveillance.
.
Program
-
t TheLinspector reviewed VSL's calibration procedure for stressing rams.
This procedure does not address the ' acceptance criteria for use in calibration of the stressing rams or'the required frequency of cali-
,
l bratio'. The inspector discussed the apparent ram calibration problem
~
.
' encountered subsequent to the. completion of the Unit 1 three year
,
.
,,
.
,
'*
.
m
.
.
,
a
.
.
tendon surveillance with licensee and Bechtel engineers.
This dis-cussion disclosed that these requirements may have been covered in the Alabama Power contract documents for the tendon surveillance program.
This item remains open pending further review by NRC Region II.
b.
(Closed) Infraction (348/80-26-02) and (364/80-37-01):
Inadequate Procedures for Preparation of Units 1 & 2 As Built Masonry Wall Drawings The inspector examined revised Bechtel " Survey Procedure for Concrete Masonry Walls" dated October. 15, 1980. This revised procedure (Revi-
.r s. ion 1)'as.learly describes..those. tasks to be performed by..Bechtel. and ;.
c
'
.
those t ks' to be ' p'erformed"by Daniel Ca n'struct'i o n'.
The revised '
- '
procedure al~so provides controls to ensure that the final drawings have been properly reviewed and verified. The inspector examined completed
-
as built drawings for -several. masonry walls in Units 1 and 2 and compared them to the as built conditions in the field. Based on this review, the inspector concluded that the revised procedure is being implemented. This item is closed.
c.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (348/80-26-03) and (364/80-37-02): IEB 80-11 Safety Related Area Wall Inspection Documentation The inspector reviewed drawings showing the layout and numerical
. identification of. masonry wal:ls-in Units 1 and 2.
Licensee engineers stated that all safety-related areas in the plant have been insp'ected for.the presence of masonry walls and that the layout drawing document all areas inspected. This inspection was conducted by three organiza-t. ions; once by Bechtel, once by. Daniel, and once by licensee engineers from the site, systems engineering staff. This item is closed.
,
4.
Unresolved Items
!
!
Unresolved items were not. identified during this inspection.
, s
.. -
,%.,
-
t i.
n. c c g ; r, 4 t-
-
< <,, ;.:...; '
.,
l
,s
.
.
,
5.
Licensee Identified Items (LER)
l (0 pen)' LER (80-058/036-0) Containment Tendon Surveillance j
a.
~In a coiporate. management. meeting on October 7, 1980, - the, licenser
-
stated..that an LER would. be...su.bmitted ~concerning.. tendon surveillance.,
'
The' ' inspector' reviese'd "ths LER' (number 80~-058/036-0) submitted'to NRC
'
Region'II on Noveaber 4,1980 andl Revision 1 which was submitted to Region II on January 23, 1981.
This LER is a commitment from the licensee to do the following:
(1) Perform the five-year tendon surveillance inspection in the Spring i
of 1981;
.
.
~
,
..
.
U T
L..
.
.
..
.
(2) Recheck the lift-off forces for all tendons inspected during the
!
three year surveillance (performed in Spring 1980);
(3) Compare the results of the five year surveillance with the ori-ginal construction QC records;
(4) Promptly resolve problems disclosed during the surveillance; (5) Keep Region.II informed of the results of the surveillance inspec-tion as the inspection is in progress.
The inspector discussed the schedule and proposed tendon surveillance inspection program with licensee and Bechtel engineers.
Th'is discus-
sion di.sclosed that the licensee plans to purchase the necessary
,, equipment.to.per. form the. surveillance in. lieu of. hiring a contractor to
.
..
-
'~ ' '
~
,
.
.
~ ~.,
' perfern 1!he' wsC ' Ths ' licensee 'is'"in' tfie proce'ss' of' purchasing e' quip-ment and plans to start the Unit 1 tendon surveillance inspection in
June 1981. The licensee will submit an information copy of the tendon
!
surveillance procedure to NRC Region II when it.,is available, b.
(0 pen) LER (80-076/01-T (Unit 1) and 80-003/01-T (Unit 2)):
Masonry Walls Not Constructed in Accordance with Design Drawings During preparation of its response to IE Bulletin 80-11 for Unit 1 and in response to an NRR information request concerning Unit 2 masonry walls, the licensee performed inspections to determine if reinforcing steel had been installed in masonry walls as required by the design
.
. drawings., These inspections, which consisted of drilling-holes.in. the masonry walls to. verify that the reinforcing steel aild grout were in place.as required, disclosed that a substantial pcotton of the vertical
~
reinforcing steel was omitted during construction.
The licensee
- reported this. to. NRC Region 11 as an LER for Unit 2 on December 9, 1980,.and as an LER for Unit:1 on December 18, 1980.
The' licensee's
.
actions 't'o 'co'rrect 'this problein are ' discussed '.in paragraph 6 of this -
~
.
report.
No devia'tions or-violations were identified.
-
-
~.
,
.
.
-
..::.y ;.
m
.
,..
n.-..,.,
,...s..
..
6.
(0 pen) IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design, Unit-1 and Design Re-Evalu-ation of Concrete Masonry Walls on Unit 2 Structures-a.
Summary of Licensee's Responses.to IE Bulletin 80-11
.
.
.
. '
-
..
-
<
.
-
...The ~1,1censee, submitted...its.-60-day. response to IE Bulletin 80-11ifor -
..
.
.
.
." Farl'ey 'Urif t l' Eo NRC' Regiori II'on Jul'y '7, '1980~.
On' October"22,'1980,
'
the licensee submitted a letter to NRC Region II which con +-ained a revised _ schedule for completion of the design re-analysis of the Unit I wall.s and stated that the IEB 80-11 work for Unit;l would be completed and' submitted to NRC or 3r'about January 30, 1981. IE Bulletin 80-11
'
did.not apply -to Unit 2 which was :still under construction when the
~
bulletin was-issued. However, in response ~ to an NRR letter-dated
~
JApril 21, 1980; requesting information on' Category I masonry waHs in
-,
,
as M
b a-
..
.
,
,
e
Unit 2, the licensee stated that all masonry walls in Unit 2 would be re-evaluated as per IE Bulletin 80-11 requirements.
As stated in paragraph 5, during preparation of the response to Bulletin 80-11 anc and the NRC information request, the licensee discovered that vertical reinforcing steel was omitted during construction of several masonry
'
walls in both Units 1 and 2, and that the walls did not meet design requirements.
On January 15, 1980, the licensee submitted a supple-mental report to NRC for IE Bulletin 80-11 which discussed the defi-ciencies concerning the omitted reinforcing steel. In this letter, the licensee comitted to complete all repairs and design re-evaluation for Unit 1 walls prior to return to criticality, and for Unit 2 walls prior
.to, initiali. qritica.lity; gThe.1.icensee: enclosed a copy,of Bechtel
..... -
,,
.
.
,
'Speciff' cation' 7597-C, "Criterta for' the'"Re-Evaluation of ~ Concrete Masonry Walls" as an attachment to the January 15, 1981 letter.
b.
. Field Walkdown, in Sa.fety Related Areas.to Verify Accuracy of Masonry Wall As-Built Drawings-The inspector, accompanied by Daniel engineers, examined the following walls to verify the accuracy of the as-built drawings which had been prepared for each of them:
(1) Unit 1 Auxiliary Building Walls-(ID Numbers)
.
.1;CBW 8
.
1 CBW 9 1 CBW 12-1 CBW 19
'
1 CBW 24,
.
1 CBW 25'
1 CBW 30 l
(2) Unit 2 Auxiliary Building Walls (ID Numbers)
'
" s 2 CBW 2-A1(Dest ~slevation)
' -
'
-
-
-
l 2 CBW 2-B-(west elevation)
'2 CBW 2-C (west elevation)
-2 CBW 4 (east elevation)
2 CBW 21 (south and. east elevation)
-
2 CBW 37.(north elevation);
-
,
IIri Yeview of' th'e a's-6uilt' drawings', ~ t'h'e inspectoi noted that ' all'-
'
'
w dimensions, location and size of wall openings and pentrations, and i.
location. and identification of attachments, including the manner. of -
l attachment, had been accurately recorded.
l
- c.
Review of Masonry Wall Repair Program
- The-_ inspector examined procedures, quality' records, and the completed
~
'
.
work associated with the-repair.of the m'asonry walls where the vertical
,
3 reinforcing steel;was.omitt.ed during. construction, and.for other
-
,
,
,
%
.
_
6a *..
.
<
.
.
..
J masonry walls which required modification to meet IE Bulletin 80-11 requirements. A summary of the inspection of the masonry wallt for the presence or absence of vertical reinforcing, teel, details of the program and methods to repair the walls, and the details of the in'spection of the repair program are stated in the following para-graphs:
,
(1) Masonry Wall Inspection Program Three types of masonry walls were specified on the Farley design drawings.
These were as follows:
Type 1 - hollow block walls
, with. vertical. r.e.inforcement. grouted.i.in. place.in the. vertical cell s.
.
.
....
' "o'n ~16 'ihch ' cent'ers, 'TyVe 2 C hollow' block" wall with' no"ve~rtical l
~
'
~~'
-
reinforcing, and Type 3 solid block walls with no vertical reinforcing. In the original design, none of the concrete masonry walls were. designed for seismic conditions. During construction, of Farley Units 1.and 2, masonry _ walls were considered to be non-Category I (i.e., non-safety related) items and consequently received minimal or no QC inspection. In " der to verify that the vertical reinforcing steel had been insa, led in the Type 1 masonry walls as required by the-design drawings, Daniel Construction'_ initiated an inspection. program on selected Type 1 walls in Unit 2. zThis program. involved drilling - holes in the
-
!
masonry walls at _various heights on the wall to confirm the presence.or absence of the vertical reinf,orcing steel.and grout.
-
The results of the inspection effort for these selected unit 2 walls were documented on Field Change Requests which_ proposed a
repair method and were forwarded-for approval to Bechtel. When it
- became. apparent. that this was a widespread problem involving the majority of the Unit 1 Type 1 masonry walls, the licens.ee identi-
,
fled the problem as a ' Unit 2 LER (see paragraph ~'5.b of this freport)'and expanded the. inspection program to include all~ Unit 2
'
Type 1-masonry walls.. The-licensee also initiated an ~ inspection program or lected Unit 1 Type 1 masonry walls to determine if a n
. "sisilab p>'
f existed'incUnit'1. 'The preliminary investigation ~
-
.x
,-
. a. '"
-
of_the Uni Me 1 walls' disclosed that a substantial portion of
_the. ve rtica.
-forcing steel had' been omitted from the Unit 1
walls which h.
_en checked. This was reported to NRC Region II
,as'a Unit.1 LEt..(See paragraph 5.b).
The. licensee then conducted
~
.
Jantextensive : inspection of all Unit:1. Type 1. walls. The inspector w
- -
,
,
examined Eng,ineering-Technical, Procedure ~cFNP-1-ETP-202 " Mas.onry.
.
!
..
-..
' E(ConcreYBlock)* Wa1lMRein'foVcement 'Det'e'rmiriat! ion"which con--
~
'
'A
trolled _ the inspection _ of ' Unit l Type 1 masonry walls.
The
. inspector reviewe'd data sheets entitled Block Wal1 ~ Reinforcing
' Verification'.' for Un t I wall' numbers 1 CBW 8,1 CBW 9,1 CBW 12, 1.-CBW 19,.1 CBW 30,1 CBW~ 44 and 1 CBW 69.
These data sheets document the results of. engineering investigations performed in
_
.
-
,
.
.
-,
...
v-
g
=y p
g-qe-
,-
g
+w
-
%4
%+
y
- .
,
a,
.
accordance with procedure FNP-1-ETP-202. The licensee's investi-gation disclosed that the majority of the Type 1 walls in Units 1 and 2 did not contain the vertical reinforcing required by the design drawings.
(2) Summary of Masonry Wall Repair Methods An ext 3nsive masonry wall repair program was uncertaken by the licensee to repair the walls which required modification to meet IE Bulletin 80-11 requirements. This included not only the Type 1 walls which were constructed without the vertical reinforcement,
,
'
., but. alsr.the. Type 2 and,3 wal.ls 1.n the proximity of, safety related-
~
" equi'pment whfch did not" meet is'e' ism'ic~ desiin ' requirements'. 'As stated'above, the results of the investigation of the Unit 2 Type 1 walls were transmitted to Bechtel on Field Change Requests (FCR)
in which Daniel proposed a method of. repair to the walls. These FCRs generally specified installation of the reinforcing steel and grout as called for on the original design drawings. Since the walls had not been originally designed for seismic conditions, Bechtel performed the deisgn re-analysis required by Bulletin 80-11 to verify the proposed repairs on the FCRs would meet seismic design requirements,or if they did not, specified modi-fications which would.
The methods to repair the wall were submitted to' Daniel as Change Notices which called for either an internal. fix, an. external-.fix,.or a combination of internal-external fix.
The internal fix involved chipping. holes in the walls and installation of reinforcing steel and grout in the cells of the metonry units.
The external fix involved bracing of the
. walls by attachment of various types of. structural steel supports on the walls.
Modifications to Typ'es 2 and 3 walls in U. nit 2 required by the Bulletin 80-11 de' sign re-analysis' were also transmitted' to' Daniel' as Change Notices and involved repairs similar to those specified for the Type 1 walls. The methods for accomplishing the modifications to the Unit 1 walls to meet
-
"Bulletin 80-11?requirementswere similar to those followed for the-Unit 2 walls, with the exception that the licensee furnished the results of the rebar investigation performed in accordance with
-
procedure FNP-1-ETP-202 to Bechtel, and Bechtel issued Production
'
. Change. Notices (PCNs) to the site which contained - the walls
-
modification-details. JThe.PCNs covered all Types 1,.2 and 3-walls
,
a.
w y..x
-
.qhi c hi req u i red f. modi fi ca t i.o n s:. to meet.IE Bulletin 80-11_. require-The 'rea'so' "for th'e 'diffsrence ih ' the administrative ~
~
'
'
'
'ments.
n controls used to transmit the results of the rebar investigation data to Bechtel, and the. difference in the documents by which
. Bechtel. transmitted design information relative to ' the wall modification requirements to Units 1 and 2 is due to the fact that Unit 1, which is an operating plant, operates under different administrative controls than Unit 2, where construction -and
'preoperational. testing is not yet ' completed.
'
.
.
.
' '- ~
-
.
.
.
(3) Review of Procedures for Accomplishment of Masonry Wall Repairs The inspector examined the following documents which control the masonry wall modification activities:
(a) Daniel Field Quality Control Procedure No. 6.20, " Procedure for Reinforcement of Concrete Block Walls" (b) Bechtel Specification No. SS-1102-19 " Structural Steel" (c) Change Notice (CN)' numbers 2BC-4015, 2BC-4016, 2BC-4024, 2BC-4030 and 2BC-4037... These change. notices.specified
.
'
.
.
.
.
' ' '
modificati6ns"for Unfb2 " wall' ' numbers' 2C2W-15, 2CBW-16',
,
'
2CBW-24, 2CBW-30 and 2CBW-37, respectively.
-(d) Production Change Notice (PCN) numbers PCN 881-904-8, 9,.12, 19, 24, 25 and 30. These PCNs specify wall modification details for Unit I wall numbers 1 CBW 8, 9,12,19, 24, 25 and 30, respectively.
(4)
I1spection of Completed Wall Modifications The inspector examined the Unit I walls listed below and compared the modifications which had been made to the walls with the details shown in the PCNs.
Walls _ examined were as follows: _
_.
1 CBW 8, 9, 12,~19, 24, 25 and 30. The i'nspector noted that when changes were required to the wall modification details shown in the original PCNs, the changes were approved by the Bechtel site.
representative and the PCNs were revised to reflect the changes as required by Daniel FQC procedure 6.20.
(5)' Review of Quality Records Relating to Masonry Wall Modifications
- The inspector reviewed the following records relating to the
'masonrf' walt'modificatio6-(repair) program for' Unit'l-wall numbers -
" " "
~~
1 CBW-12, 19,2 4, and 24 and Unit 2 wall numbers 1 CBW-15, 16, 24 and 30.
(a)
In.ternal reinforcement placement as-built details
~
(b) sExternal reinforcement (structural steel) checklist
~
,
,(c) _ Grouting 1.nspectio.n. report,... _.. _,,.
...
.
,
.
,
3.
,
.
(d)' Compres~sive test reports for 7 and 14 day' grout cubes (e) Concrete (grout) batch records.
No deviations or violations were identified.
-
.
.
,
et A
g
+