ML18085A521
| ML18085A521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101190586 | |
| Download: ML18085A521 (6) | |
Text
'
- .111 Docket No.:
50-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment Engineering and Construction Department Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, T17A Ne~vark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Mitt1:
8 198,
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -
MASONRY ~Jl\\LLS SALEM UNIT 2 By letter dated November 10, 1980, you stated that during a site investi-
. gation of masonry tFrn11s, it was discovered that some ~~alls were not erected per design.
The staff met with the PSE&G representatives on November 20, 1980 to discuss the design deviations and your proposed remedial actions; This letter is to confirm the actions that you should con~lete prior to issuance of our SEH for Salem Unit 2. This information ~1as discussed in a management meeting on November 21, 1900 and was clarified in a telecon with Mr. Ed Liden on November 24, 1980.
The following actions should be completed:
- 1.
Submit the information requested in the enclosure;
- 2. Complete all proposed remedial actions as discussed in the November 20, 1980 meeting; and
- 3. Confirm that your proposed remedial actions do not preclude the option of implementing additional modifications which would, if dictated by future staff revieH, render the masonry \\\\la 11 design to meet the zero tensile stress requirements under OBE and SSE conditions.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Information cc.
11i/encl osure SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
Docket No.:
50-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment Engineering and Construct ion Department Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, Tl7A Ne~*1ark~ New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Mittl:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -
MANSONRY HALLS SALEM U T 2 /
By letter dated November 10, 1980, ym:i:r'. stated that du ing a site investi-gation of masonry ivalls, it was discovered that some 1alls were not erected per design.
The staff met with the PSE&G represen tives on November 20, 1980 to discuss the design deviations and your p oposed remedial actions.
This letter is to confirm the actions that you hould complete prior to issuance of our SER for Salem Unit 2.
This
- formation was discussed in a management meeting en November 21 9.1980
- d was clarified in a telecon with Mr. Ed Liden on Nbvember 24, 1980.
The following action~ should be compl
- 1.
Submit the information re ested in the-enc16sure;
- 2. Complete all proposed emedial actions as discussed in the November 20, 1980 me ing; and
- 3. Confirm that your roposed remedial actions do not preclude the option of i lementing additional modifications which would, if dictated by future staff review, render the masonry wall design to me9t the zero tensile stress requirements under OBE and SSE con itions.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director -
for Licensing Division of Licensing Enc sure:
Re uest for Information j
../'.'
I.
OFFICE~.*.. P.L.~~~-n- __. __.P~L~~
JKerrigan:jb lia SURNAME DATE~ __ 1 ?I_ __ /_~9....... _,(5!_~9.....
NRC. F.ORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 tru.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1'979-289-369
\\
'"\\
' I. J. Lee Distribution Docket File 50-311 NRC PDR Local PDR TERA I &E (3)
Attorney, OELD J. Roe Docket No. 50-311 Mr.
R~ L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment NSIC LB#3 Reading R. Tedesco F. Miraglie J. Kerrigan Engineering and Construction Department Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, 117/1.
Newark, Nev1 Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Mittl:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - MASONRY WJ-\\LLS
- J. Heltemes By letter dated November 10, 1980, you state that during a site
- investigation of masonry walls, it was dis vered that some wa11s were not erected per design.
The staff met w** h you on November 20, 1980 to discuss the design deviations and yo r proposed remedial actions.
This letter is to confirm the action<: that you should complete prior to changing operational modes on S em Unit 2
- This information was discussed in a management meetin
- on November 21, 1980 and was clarified in a telecon with Mr. Ed Liden n November 24, 1980.
The following actions shoul completed:
- 1.
requested in the enclosure;
- 2.
Complete all proposed remedial actions as discussed in the November 20, 1980 meeting; and
- 3.
remedial actions do not preclude the OR ion of implementing additional modifications which would, if d
- ctated by future staff review, render the masonry-wa 11 de~ gn to meet the zero tensile stress requirements under OGE d SSE conditions.
Enclosure:
Request for Information Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division nf Licensing c : w enc osu "
oFF1cE **..*. Se.e. neJ.<t..pa.ge............... -~~-:-~~#ijii_2.
DL :LB#2 DL :An:~
JK~
- ~~-;jt;. FMi~*~9;*i ~*..... Rl. r~ci~-~~~-......................
SURNAME
- .*...*..*....*....*...*.....*....... "1ivaJ8o.... *;*,"j*:"i86""*****;*;i'"i8n******~******************-.
DATE~ *..*.. :.*..............
1
- *.**.***............................................... *.. *~ ~................
NRG.FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM*0240 1:ru.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-3.69 i
I 4
I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket No.:
50-311 Mr. R. L. Mittl, General Manager Licensing and Environment 8 1981 Engineering and Construction Department Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza, Tl7A Newark, New Jersey 07101
Dear Mr. Mittl:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - t-'1.ASONRY ~!ALLS SALEM UNIT 2 By letter dated November 10, 1980, you stated that during a site investi-gation of masonry walls, it was discovered that some walls were not erected per design.
The staff met with the PSHiG representatives o.n November 20, 1980 to discuss the design deviations and your proposed remedial actions.
This letter is to confirm the actions that you should complete prior to issuance of our SER for Salem Unit 2.
This information was discussed in a management meeting on November 21, 1980 and was ciarifi~d in a telecon with Mr. Ed Liden on November 24, 1980.
The following actions should be completed:
- l. Submit the information requested in the enclosure;
- 2. Complete all proposed remedial actions as discussed in the November 20, 1980 meeting; and
- 3. Confirm that your proposed remedial actions do not preclude the option of implementing additional modifications which would, if dictated by future staff review, render the masonry wall design to meet the zero tensile stress requirements under QBE and SSE conditions.
Enclosure:
Request for Information cc: w/enclosure See next page.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Mr. R. L. Mittl, General ~anager cc: Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Public Service Electric & Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, New Jersey 07101 Mark Wetterhahn, Esq.
Conner, Moore & Caber Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
L0006 Mr. Leif J. Norrholm c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission Drawer I Hancocks oridge, New Jersey 08038
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION MASONRY WALLS You are requested to supply the following infonnation:
- 1. A complete response to !EB 80-11.
While completing the analyses required, both units should comply with the action statements in
!EB 80-11.
- 2.
Proposed design criteria and justification for those criteria which deviate from the interim staff criteria. Applicable test data is the preferred basis for your justification.
- 3. Analyses of all walls investigated including the battery room walls.
- 4. A justification for the material properties assumed in the analyses.
- 5.
An assessment of the impact of voids in the walls on the proposed remedial actions.
If the impact is adverse, you should sample additional spots to establish reasonable confidence that significant voids are not present.
- 6.
An analysis of the partition walls between the maintenance rooms in the control room area to verify that the failure of those walls (one in each unit) has no adverse impact on the associated safety-related control room walls.
- 7.
An assessment of the implications of your findings to date upon the adequacy of all other safety-related control room walls.
- 8. A complete description of the proposed remedial actions.