IR 05000373/1981049
| ML20040H097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1982 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Norton J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040H096 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-81-49, 50-374-81-21, IEB-79-02, IEB-79-2, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8202170155 | |
| Download: ML20040H097 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-373/81-49; 50-374/81-21 Docket No. 50-373; 50-374 License No. CPPR-99; CPPR-100 Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: LaSalle Site and Sargent & Lundy Inspection Conducted: December 2, 10, 11, 14 and 15, 1981 g %he$m Inspector:
J. F. Norton 1/ E5 /81 6 fW4/4-4-:
Approved By:
F. C. Ifawkins, Acting-Chief f[1f/Tl Plant Systems Section f
Inspection Summary Inspection on December 2, 10, 11, 14 and 15, 1981 (Report No.50-373/81-49; 50-374/81-2I)
Areas Inspected:
Licensee action relative to Bulletin 79-02, " Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts", and Bulletin 80-11,
" Masonry Wall Design".
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
a 82R2170155 920201 PDR ADOCK 05000373 O
-. _.
.-..
_-
.-
.
-
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)
'
- L.
J. Burke, Site Project Superintendent-T. E. Quaka, QA Supervisor-R. A. Braun, QA Supervisor
- R. D. Vine, QA Engineer
- R. T. Rose, Lead Structural Engineer
- D. J. Skoza, RCD Engineer E. Netzel, QA Engineer Sargent & Lundy (S&L)
T. G. Longlais, Chief Structural Design Engineer V..Reklaitis, Structural Project Engineer
'
i S. Kazmi, Supervising Design Engineer S. Jung, Senior Structural Engineer Walsh Construction Company
.
,
Morrison Construction Company (MCCO)
M. Wherry, QC Supervisor D. Kanakares, QC Inspector
- Denotes those present at exit interview on December 15, 1981.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
,
l The inspection was performed at LaSalle -County Station to evaluate I
licensee actions relative to IE Bulletins 79-02 and 80-11, titled,
!
" Pipe Support Baseplate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts" and " Masonry Wall Design" respectively.. The primary purpose of this inspection was to verify thoroughness and completeness of licensee actions and to determine if licensee requirements have been addressed commensurate with the spirit and intent cf the Bulletins.
1.
Bulletin 79-02 was issued March 8, 1379.
Subsequently, Revision 1
,
was issued June 21, 1979,- and Revision 2 on November 8, 1979.
The Bulletin requires response to eight facets related to safety concerning base plate concrete anchor bolts. These facets, as elucidated in the Bulletin, are briefed in paragraphs a. through h. following:
'
.
.
-2-
,
,
.
.
.-
, -.
-
.-.
.-.
.-- -
-.
.-
--. _
. - _.
.-.
i-
-
.
,
,
a.
(Item 1) " Verify that p.pe support base plate flexibility was
,
accounted for in the calculation of anchor bolt loads".
Safety.
factors (SF) of 4.0 for wedge and' sleeve type anchor bolts and 5.0 for shell type are specified.
Wedge type expansion anchors were used exclusively in safety related areas of LaSalle County Units 1 and 2.
The licensee
submitted response July 5, 1979 to Bulletin item 1.
In this response, commitment was made to subsequently accomplish.
comprehensive testing under the direction of an Independent Testing Laboratory. The planned testing was to verify dynamic behavior of wedge type anchors with rigid plate assemblies and determine behavior under pipe transient cyclic loads and
operating basis earthquake (OBE) loading conditions.
b.
(Item 2) " Verify that the expansion anchors have a minimum FS of 4.0 for wedge type anchorr,".
The supplemental information, i
alluded to in paragraph a., was submitted to NRC on August 26, l
1981.
In accomplishing the supplemental testing, a SF of 2.0 was used against manufacturer's recommended ultimate loads for
" emergency" and " faulted" piping load conditions.
.
The Region III inspector discussed using a SF of 2.0 in lieu
'
of 4.0, and also the use of OBE loads in conjunction with trannient cyclic loads instead of safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)
seismic loading.
Sargent and Lundy structural engineers stated
,
that testing modifications were accomplished after the supplemental information was submitted which did use SSE seismic loading and SF of 4.0.
This change is not reflected in licensee responses.
c.
(Item 3) " Describe the design requirements if applicable for anchor bolts to withstand high cycle operating loads and
,
seismic loads".
This requirement is addressed in responses to items 1 and 2 and is currently awaiting final evaluation by NRR.
(
d.
(Item 4) " Verify from existing QC' documentation that design requirements have been met for each anchor bolt _ relative to-cyclic loads and that specified design size,~ type and embedment
depth are appropriately documented".
The licensee was cited for certain noncompliances regarding installation of pipe support concrete anchor bolts in an inspection conducted January 10-12,: 1979 (See IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/79-04 and 50-374/79-01). The Notice of Violation stated in part "... The inspection program for con-crete expansion anchor bolts was not considered adequate in that
!
l i
+
-3-
-
,.
-
-.
.-
-
-
-
,-.-. --,
. -..-.
.-..
.-.
~
.-..
-
-.
(1) the extent to which anchor bolts can be installed out of plumb
was not specified or inspected, (2) the minimum bolt embedment-length was not defined or inspected, and (3) random NRC inspection
.
'showed 40% torque test failure on 5/8" bolts". Also, "...
the i
rework and replacement program for rejected concrete expansion anchor bolts was not adequate in that (1) there was no procedural provision to ensuta timely corrective action, and (2) there was no
,
procedure for removing rejected bolts and installing new or replace-ment' bolts."
In responding, the licensee initiated modifications _in the installation program for concrete expansion anchors, which
,'
included implementing installation and inspection procedures,.
i-retrofitting previously installed anchors in accordance with
'these procedures, and following these procedures on all anchors installed thereafter. May 31, 1979 was the full compliance date the licensee;was committed to in having the modification fully implemented.
>
i The two items of noncompliance were closed in IE Inspection l
Report Nos. 80-04; 80-03 and 81-12; 81-07.
e.
-(Item 5) " Determine the extent expansion anchor bolts were used in masonry walls to attach piping supports is Seismic-Category 1 systems."
.
Safety related pip.ng systems have not been attached to con-
~
crete masonry walls at LaSalle County Station.
'r f.
(Item 6) " Determine the extent that pipe supports with expansion
! ~
. anchor bolts used structural steel shapes instead of base
plates". The following requirements are also set forth in IEB 79-02 item 6:
(1) Provide pertinent details of the systems involved.
i (2) Provide a detailed evaluation of the adequacy of the anchor-bolt design and installation (where structural steel l
shapes are used instead of base plates.)
(3) Describe future plans and schedules for further actions
,
necessary to assure affected systems meet Technical j
Specifications operability requirements in the event of an SSE.
Although concrete expansion anchors have been used to attach structural steel shapes to concrete for support of safety l
related piping systems, the licensee has not responded to
!
sub-items (a), (b), and (c) of IEB 79-02 item 6.
i'
i
f
.
4-
-
-
yw-
-
w.
.*
N
,-rd--
-m--
.
g--s-m.
g
,w upw g
m.f-w
- -.w-yc o-gp
,.
9-.n.,
mm-4.m-
.u-qqp+.ps--
.
.
.
.
g.
~(Item 7) Item 7' applies only to operating plants, and is therefore not applicable to LaSalle County Station.
h.
(Item 8) " Maintain documentation of any sampling inspection of anchor bolts required by item 4".
The licensee did not accomplish an on-site testing program as outlined in IEB 79-02 item 4 because of the~ circumstances described in paragraph 1-d of this report-Expansion anchor-
.
bolt and base plate changes which were required because of.not meeting criteria as outlined in the procedures which were implemented are appropriately documented.
2.
The Region III inspector discussed the need of a report addressing IEB 79-02 with licensee representatives. The report is required-
~
to draw all current data together, to document current standing of updated accomplishments (as alluded to in paragraph 1-a and 1-b) and to furnish information required which has not been addressed in previous responses (see paragraph 1-f).
.The preparation of the report is required before open item 373/79-38-20 can be closed.
3.
Bulletin 80-11 The licensee committed to evaluate all masonry walls at LaSalle County Station in terms of requirements set forth in IEB 80-11 prior to fuel load date. The Region III inspector examined selected masonry walls. This survey was accomplished in the company of two S&L Struc-tural Engineers and the CECO Lead Structural Engineer. Drawings were checked for specific information such as penetrations, loading points, piping and electrical cable proximity and other considerations impacting structural quality and safety.
.
A review of licensee accomplishments and response documents addressing
!
Bulletin 80-11 was accomplished. Details are contained in the following_
sections of this report.
4.
Identification and Description i
Sixteen walls were randomly selected and individually examined by the Region III inspector.
Six of these walls are located in the Reactor building, eight in the Auxiliary building and two are in the Diesel Generator building. Detailed review of each' wall was accomplished to assure that penetrations, loading points, attachments and other considerations potentially impacting structural integrity and safety were appropriately identified on the survey drawings.
No conflicting discrepancies were identified between actual wall conditions and the drawings.
-5-
!
l'
i L
I
..
..
.,
.'
5.
Response Document Review A review of actions taken by the license..in addressing Bulletin 80-11 and corresponding response documents was accomplished during the inspection. The review revealed that alth:>ug'n considerable effort has been expended by the licensee in addressing-Bulletin 80-11 criteria, no report has been written which adequately draws all
information together for review and record. The preparation of a report is required before open item 373/80-16-03 can be closed.
Exit Meeting
-
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) and conducted an exit meeting at the conclusion of the inspection on December 15, 1981. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
i i
{
i i
!
!
-6-
..
_
.-
.
-
_ -
..