L-80-234, Forwards Response to Items 1,2 & 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Ninety-nine Concrete Masonry Walls Are in Proximity to or Have Attachments from safety-related Piping or Equipment

Forwards Response to Items 1,2 & 3 of IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. Ninety-nine Concrete Masonry Walls Are in Proximity to or Have Attachments from safety-related Piping or Equipment

ML17340A080
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	07/24/1980
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
IEB-80-11, L-80-234, NUDOCS 8008110101
Download: ML17340A080 (9)

Text

30 J0l.)0 n](

~ qg P.O. Boj( 529100, MIAMI,FL 33152 I

~

s FLORIDA POWER II LIGHTCOMPANY July 24, 1980 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director, Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Re:

RII:JPO 50-250, 50-251 IE Bulletin 80-11 o

In response to the subject bulletin, the attached information is submitted.

The detailed listing of systems requested by paragraph 1 has been completed and is available on site for your review.

This information will also be in-cluded in the report containing the results of the wall re-evaluation program.

Very truly yours, o ert

. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems 8 Technology REU/PLP/pa cc:

Harold F. Reis, Esquire 8008 Z Z GX>I:

( IAI COP>

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

~ '

ATTACHMENT Re:

RII:JPO 50-250 5 50-251 IE Bulletin 80-11 MASONRY HALL DESIGN Florida Power and Light Company has instituted a field inspection program and design re-evaluation program to confirm the adequacy of the existing masonry wall design at Turkey Point Units 3 5 4 as requested by NRC Bulletin 80-11, May 8, 1980, "Masonry Hall Design".

The following initial response addresses items 1, 2a and 3 respectively as requested by the subject bulletin.

Imple-mentation of the re-evaluation program will follow the milestone dates as established by priority in response to 2a.

Identification of the masonry walls at Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 was accomplished by carrying out a walkdown survey in accordance with an approved walkdown procedure.

The survey was performed by teams of engineering personnel.

Prior to com-mencement of the survey, all survey personnel were given a training program which described the requirements of NRC IE Bulletin 80-11, detailed the information to be gathered and procedures to be followed, described the forms,

sketches, and checklists to be generated, and explained quality assurance requirements.

The survey teams carried out a walkdown of masonry walls and/or safety-related items and'ystems to identify masonry walls that are in proxi-mity to'r have attachments from safety-related items.

Drawings and lists of safety-related systems and conponents were provided on a controlled basis for the use of the survey personnel.

All concrete masonry walls in safety-related areas (except as noted below) were walked down by the survey team.

All concrete masonry walls were walked down, regardless of whether the function of the wall was to resist impact or pressurization loads (such as missiles, pipe whip, pipe break, jet impinge-ment, or tornado) or to act as a fire or water barrier or a shield wall.

For each wall, a determination was made as to whether the wall supported or.was in proximity to safety-related items, the following information was recor-dedo

~

~

a.

Dimensional location and identification of all safety-related and significant non-safety-related items attached to the wall; significant non-safety-related items include all pipes and con-

duits greater than one inch in diameter, groups of items adding equivalent loads (e.g., multiple conduit runs),

and any attach-ments estimated by the survey team to weigh at, least 25 pounds.

b.

Approximate location and identification of safety-related items in proximity*to the wall.

The Unit No.

3 Containment Building was not surveyed because of inaccessibi-lity during normal plant operations.

However, design drawings do not indi-cate any concrete masonry walls in this area;

also, no concrete masonry walls were found in the Unit No.

4 Containment Building.

For these

reasons, we plan not to do a walkdown within the, Unit No.

3 Containment.

Three dimineralizer rooms in the Auxiliary Building cannot be surveyed be-cause of high radiation levels.

Design drawings do not indicate any concrete masonry walls or safety-related items in these areas.

Three rooms in the Auxiliary Building could not be surveyed because of inac-cessibility; these rooms were the Gas Decay Tank rooms and the Spent Resin Storage Tank Pit.

Design drawings do not indicate any concrete masonry walls or safety-related items in these

areas, There are a total of 99 concrete masonry walls in Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 which are in proximity to or have attachments from safety-related piping or equipment.

The field inspection reports describing the safety-related components attached to or in the proximity of the walls are available at the site for review by your inspectors.

Res onse Item 2A:

The priorities for the analysis oj the individual walls are based on the loadings on the wall.

These categories are 'as follows:

Priority A:

Walls supporting large safety-related piping and large safety-related conduit or cable tray.

Priority B:

Walls supporting large safety-related piping.

Priority C:, Walls suppor ting large safety-related conduit or cable:.tr.ay.'riority D:

Priority E:

Walls supporting other safety-related items.

Walls supporting large non-safety-related piping and large non-safety-related conduit or cable tray.

Priority F:

Walls supporting large non-safety-related piping.

Priority G:

Priority H:

Walls supporting large non-safety-related conduit or cable tray.

Walls supporting other significant non-safety-related items.

Priority I:

Walls supporting no significant loads, but in proximity to safety-related items.

Large piping is defined as piping 2> inches (or more) in diameter.

Large conduit is defined as conduit 2 inches (or more) in diameter; furthermore, a group of smaller conduits on a single support creating a loading equiva-lent to one 2-inch conduit is also considered to be a large conduit.

The prioritized schedule for completion of the re-evalution of concrete masonry walls is as follows:

~Pri orit A

8 C

0 E

F G

H I

Scheduled Com letion Oate August 29, 1980 September 5,

1980 September 12, 1980 September 19, 1980 September 19, 1980 September 19, 1980 September 26, 1980 October 10, 1980 October 17, 1980 Justification for the re-evaluation criteria will be submitted with the re-evaluation report within 180 days of the date of the 8ulletin received.

Justification will be based on reference to effective codes and established standard of practive related to concrete and masonry design typically used throughout the industry.

It is anticipated that such justification will be considered appropriate and that a test program will not be necessary.

I,

STATE OF FLORIDA

)

)

COUNTY OF DADE

)

ss A. D. Schmidt being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he's Vice President Light. Company, the herein-of Florida Power 6

That he has executed the foregoing document; that the state-ments made in this said document.

are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, and that he is authorized to execute the document on behalf of said A. D. Schmidt Subscribed and sworn to before me,this day or 19 ifO NOTARY PUBLTC, State of Florida and for the County of Dade, Ny commission expires:

Notary Public, State of Rorida at f.arga My Comm'dion Expirce October 30, 1983 Bonded thru Maynard Bonding Agency

I r