ML18085A437

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 801120 Meeting W/Util Re safety-related Masonry Walls.No Design Criteria or Qa/Qc Programs Were Established for Initial Const of Masonry Walls.List of Meeting Attendees & Agenda Encl
ML18085A437
Person / Time
Site: Salem 
Issue date: 12/11/1980
From: Kerrigan J
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8101060797
Download: ML18085A437 (9)
v • d • e


Text

'

.:5

' *) £g

~

t*lf

  • g 0
  • -0-:..-

. rr.J

. m"'"'

DEG 1 t 1980 0

  • -:~
    • ~

'J

.. ;J~

!,'""*!.'/.

c~~

,;J

~*

.,_.)

-.~

Docket No. 50-311 LICENSEE:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)

FACILITY:

Salem Nuclear Generating Station*, Units 1 & 2

- ~rz;

--;~

'°

  • ~ ~

~*.,;,;*'I

~,,,,~-

J }.)

SUBJECT:

MASONRY WALL MEETING SlWJ1ARY A meeting \\tas held on November 20, 1980 between NRG and representatives of PSE&G to discuss safety-related masonry \\*J(llls (Ref *. IEB 80-11). Attendees are listed in Enclosure 1.

The agenda for the meeting is found-Enclosure 2~

A site tour was held prfor to the meeting to.examine the \\*Jalls under investi-gation. During the me*eting~ the Licensee stated that there were no design criteria or QA/QC programs established for the initial const~uction of the masonry walls. The Licensee stated that. the as-built condition of the walls investigated is as follows:

1) Wall surrounding battery rooms - some horizontal reinforcement bars missing;
2)

Walls in control.room area:.. horizontal reinforcement*.bars in approximately every*other joint missing; vertical expansion joint present; walls in close proximity to safety.. related cable trays and ESF cabinets;

3) Corridor wa11 between Units 1 and 2 - horizontal reinforcement bars randomly*

missing; one void found; safety-related control air piping supported'by wall (7 hangers); wall in close proximity to safety-related cable trays; p

4)

Doorway walls (2) - horizontal reinforcement bars randomly missing; walls in close proximity to safety-related cable trays.

The Licensee's consultant, Compu~Tech, presented the design crit~ria and analysis methods used to analyze the remedial actions taken by thE; Licensee.

Compu-Tech

  • is usin9 ACI 531-79 as the basis for. the design review.

The interim NRC criteria were discussed.with the Licensee.

The Licensee's criteria and the interim NRC criteria differ in the allowable stresses assumed for an ORE and SSE.

For an OBE, the Licensee's criteria allow 40 psi in tension, whereas the NRC ~riteria allow only 25 psi. For an SSE, the NRC criteria state that the allowable stress in tension should be assumed to be zero.

The Licensee stated that their analysis resu1ts may comply with NRC criteria for an OBE, but would probably not comply with NRG criteria for an SSE.

The Licensee also stated that their analysis assumes an initially uncracked wall.

The Licensee then discussed their proposed remedial actions. Construction of the proposed fixes is expected to be completed in early December.

The following is a summary of the staff conclusions:

1)

The interim NRC crite~ia contain an error in the section on allowable

~*"i-

~~

SURNAME

............... ~..*.* :;...... :..**...*.. *******************:**************************-**************************

. DATE~ *.****.** ~)P.{.6.9.7.9.l. *********************.****'*************.. ************************:........

N~C FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240

  • u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1919-289-369
2)
3)
4)

DEC \\ \\ ~980 T) t:..

The NRC interim criteria ate the most appropriate criteria for use at this.time.

However, other criteria may be proposed and justified by the Licensee.

Preferably, applicable test data would form the basis for the*

Licensee's justification.

Proposed criteria must be submitted and reviev:ed b.Y the NRC.

The Licensee understands the NRC criteria. The Licensee does not agree with the NRC criteria and may propose alternative*criteria.

The proposed remedial actions appear to be reasonable pending further NRC review..

5)

The staff requires that the partition walls between the maintenance rooms in the control room area be analyzed to verify that the failure of those walls (one in each unit.) has no adverse impact on the associated safety-related control room walls~.

6)

Since a void was fo~nd, the* staff requires that th~ Licensee assess the impact of voiding on the proposed remedial actions.* If the impact is adverse, the Lkensee should sample additional spots to establish reasonable confidence that significant voiding js not present.

7-)

Ana1yses of all t1al1s investigated should be submitted, including an analysis of the battery room wa 11 s. *Design change requests shou 1 d be under QA contro 1.

8) *A justification for.the material properties assumed in the*_analysis shoulc:t:-

be provided *.

9)

A complete response to IEB 80-11 should be submitted for NRC reviei*1.

Nhi le completing the analyses required, both units should comply with the action statements in IEE 80-11.

10) Since the Licensee has identified no_n-conforming cases and has stated that there ~as a lack of QA/QC coverage tor the walls investigated, the staff has concluded that the implications of these findings upon the *adequacy of a11 other safety-related masonry walls should be evaluated and submitted for NRC revi ei-J.

ll) A c0py of all submittals can be sent direct1y to NRR to expedite the NRC review.

12) Upon receipt of the information requested and completion of all proposed remedial actions, Unit l will be allowed to resume power operation based on the NRC's current understanding of the Licensee's proposal.

J. Kerrigan Licensing Branch #3 cc:

See next page 8101060 7 OFFICE~.-~.

rf~-:-~h***~~-i,. ~-***.. P.~.... :~;

SURNAME 11,,_....*.*.. _.....

. *.**.*.* Pr~r-1-~.. -............................ *..... _.................. -............

l

~

DATE~.!.:VJ./~.~....... ~~ Yl. /~~. *.*... I;}..~C? j.r.P:............................. *.:.............................

. *. NRC FbRM.318 (9-76) NRCM 0240

. *u.s: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFl"CE: 1979-289-369

ViEETINC SLli*i>11~l(Y

[,i*~*ilUi'UTIOi*l Docket. File NRC. PDf~

Loc:u 1 PD!(

TIC/NS IC/Tera NRR f~eadi ng Lf.31/ 3 Reading H. Denton E. Case:

D. Eisenhut R. Purple B. J. Young~lood A. Sch1.*1encer F. Miragliu.

J. Mill er G. Lainas

-.. _.. _

  • R. Vollmer

/

J. P. Knight R. Bosnak F. Schauc:r R. E. Jackson Project Munager __ _

Attorn2y, OELD J. Kerrigan J. Lee OIE (3)

ACRS (16)

R. Tedesco NRC ParticiDants:

L. No r:rho l m R. Lipinski D. Jeng J. Kerrigan bee:

Applicant & Scrvic~ List G.

v.

..).

'.I '.

l*J.

!)

  • H.

\\*I.

D.

p.

[.:.

0.

F.

\\*I.

fl ".

T.

L.

T.

\\*I..

,J.

('..).

\\*1.

T.

r.

I.!.

ii.

rz.

r:.

I<.

( ~.

f\\.

li.

J.

D.

P.

D.

Lc;i r rfoonan f1i1i.vl*icki

[)r.nl! roya f~osztoczy Hauss t*~ul lcr 8a 11 u rd Reg Rn Hoss Check Sotte rfi r>>i cl l)a rr Rosa Cutler K rcc1c r Houston t*~urphy Rubens te*i 11 Speis Johnston Stolz Httn<Hir~r Ga111mi 11 Murley Seil nJc*clc1' Skovhu l L E rris l nacr Be1*J*ingcr Kn i c: 1 Kni~hLon Thtidi:111 i T nncli Kramer Vassallo Collins Ziemann

L rocket No. 50-311 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 LICENSEE:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)

FACILITY:

Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2

SUBJECT:

MASONRY

!~ALL MEETING

SUMMARY

A meeting was held on November 20, 1980 between NRC and representatives of PSE&G to discuss safety-related rr:asonry walls (Ref. IEB 80-11).

Ji.ttendees are listed in Enclosure 1.

The agenda for the meeting is found Enclosure 2.

A site tour w~s held prior to the meeting to examine the walls under investi-gation.

During the meeting, the Licensee stated that there were no design criteria or QA/QC programs established for the initial construction of the masonry walls.

The Licensee stated that the as-built condition of the walls investigated is as follows:

1) t*'all surrounding battery rooms - some horizontal reinforcement bars missing;
2)

Walls in control room area - horizontal reinforcement bars in approximately every other joint missing; vertical expansion joint present; walls in close proximity to safety-related cable trays and ESF cabinets;

3)

Corridor wall between Units 1 and 2 - horizontal reinforcement bars randomly missing; one void found; safety-related control air piping supported by

~1all (7 hangers); ~'/all in close proximity to safety-related cable trays;

4)

Doorway walls (2) - horizontal reinforcement bars randomly missing; walls in close proximity to safety-related cable trays.

The Licensee 1 s consultant, Compu-Tech, presented the design criteria and analysis methods used to analyze the remedial actions taken by the Licensee.

Compu-Tech is using ACI 531-79 as the basis for the design review.

The interim NRC criteria were discussed with the Licensee.

The Licensee 1 s criteria and the interim NRC criteria differ in the allowable stresses assumed fer an CP~ and SSE.

For an OPE, the Licensee's criteria allow 40 psi in tensiu~, whereas the NRC criteria c.110\\"1 only 25 psi for unreinforced masonry.

For an SSE, the NRC criteria state that the allowable stress in tension should be assumed to be zerc.

The Licensee stated that their analysis results may comply with NRC criteria for an QBE, but would probably not comply with NRC criteria for an SSE.

The Licensee a~so stated that their analysis assumes an initially uncracked wall.

The Licensee then discussed their proposed remedial actions.

Construction of the proposed fixes is expected to be completed in early Decembe~.

The followins is 2 suir:rnary of U:c.-: *;taff conclusions:

1) The interim NRC criteria contain an error i~ the section on allowable stresses.

The \\IJOrd 11 increased 11 in Criterion 5 should be changed to 11multiplied 11

OEC, 1 1980

'1 2), The NRC interim criteria are the most appropriate criteria for use at

3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9) this time.

However, other criteria may be proposed and justified by the Licensee.

Preferably, applicable test data would form the basis for the Licensee's justification. Proposed criteria must be submitted and reviewed by the NRC.

The Licensee understands the NRC criteria.

The Licensee does not agree with the NRC criteria and may propose alternative criteria.

The proposed remedial actions appear to be reasonable pending further NRC review.

The staff requires that the partition walls between the maintenance rooms in the control room area be analyzed to verify that the failure of those walls (one in each unit) has no adverse impact on the associated safety-related control room walls.

Since a void was found, the staff requires that the Licensee assess the impact of voiding on the proposed remedial actions. If the impact is adverse, the Licensee should sample additional spots to establish reasonable confidence that significant voiding is not present.

Analyses of all walls investigated should be submitted, including an analysis of the battery room walls.* Design change requests should be under QP. control.

A justification for the material properties assun~d in the analysis should be provided.

P.. complete response to IEB 80-11 should be submitted for NRC revie~v.

111hi le completing the analyses required, both units should comply with the action statements in IEB 80-11.

10) Since the Licensee has identified non-conforming cases and has stated that there was a lack of QA/QC coverage for the walls investigated, the staff has concluded that the implications of these findings upon the adequacy of all other safety-related masonry walls should be evaluated and subrr;itted for NRC review.
11) A copy of all submittals can be sent directly to NRR to expedite the NRC review.
12) Upon receipt of the information requested and completion of all proposed remedial actions, Unit l will be allowed to resume power operation based on the NRC's current understanding of the Licensee's proposal *

... /*.;

(..

. "_.-J. Kerrigan.

Licensing Bra~ch #3 cc:

See next page

~r. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing & Environment Engineering & Construction Department Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101 cc:

Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, NeH Jersey 07101 Mark Wetterhahn, Esq.

Conner, ~oore & Caber Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20006 Mr. Leif J. Norrholm c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer I Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038

Name L. Norrholm F. Shen L. R. Jones R. Crapo R. Lipinski

o. Jeng F. A. Marian J. Kerrigan Meeting Attendants Organization U.S. NRC PSE&G Compu-Tech PSE&G U.S. NRC U.S. l'iRC PSE&G U.S. NRC Title Sr. Resident Inspector Principal Staff Engineer President Principal Staff Engineer NRR/SEB NRR/SEB Senior Staff Engineer Project i**1anager

ENCLOSURE 2 AGENDA FOR MEETING -AT THE SUBJECT

1.

Site tour of the masonry walls under review Lunch

2.

General description of design criteria, drawings Q/A and Q/C programs for the walls under review

3.

Discussion of deviations between design criteria, specifications, drawings and as-built conditions

4.

Discussion of design criteria being used by the Compu-Tech

5.

Discussion of Interim KRC design criteria for masonry walls and comparison with design criteria listed in items (2) and (4)

6.

Discussion of the applicant's proposed remedial actions regarding design and construction of the masonry.walls in compliance with NRC criteria

7.

Action items, documentation and schedular commitments November 20, 1980 11:00 a.w.

DEC 1 7 1980

~

I-

  • ' l
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18085A437&oldid=5011853"