ML18093A253
| ML18093A253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1987 |
| From: | Gregg H, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18093A250 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-87-08, 50-272-87-8, 50-311-87-09, 50-311-87-9, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8707250206 | |
| Download: ML18093A253 (17) | |
See also: IR 05000272/1987008
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-272/87-08
Report No.
50-311/87-09
50-272
Docket No~ 50-311
~~---------* --- ***-
...... .
License No. DPR-75
Category.C
Licensee:
Public Service Electric and Gas Co.
P.O. Box 236
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
Facility Name:
Salem Unit #1 and Salem Unit #2
Inspection At:
Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey
Inspection Conducted:
April 7-10, 1987
Inspectors:~~~
f&r A. A. Vareia)Ledeador Engineer
NRC Contractor Personnel:
M. E. Nitzel, EG&G Idaho
M. J. Russell, EG&G Idaho
Approved by:~~~
H. I. Gre~Chief
Materials & Processes Section, EB, DRS
~e
Inspection Summary:* Inspection on April 7-10, 1987 (Inspection Report
Nos. 50-272/87-08 and 50-311/87-09) _
-
.
, *.-
.
.
Areas Inspected: A special announced inspction by a regional-:based inspector
and two contractor personnel was cohduted at the licensee's-engineering office
and the Salem 1 and 2 plant sites.
The inspection encompassed review of
1 i censee responses and subsequent *analysis and modifications of masonry wa 11 s
related to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design.
The inspection included a
walkdown of existing walls affecting safety related e,ql!iP~~ri~, a revi_ew of
design_ analyses and a review of work packages on wall modfffcations.
Results:
Two violations were identified.
8707250206 870717
ADOCK 05000272
G
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Public Service Electric and Gas Company
- R. A. Burricelli, General Manager Engineering and Plant Betterment
- R. Crapo, Principal Engineer
- R. L. Gura, Manager Engineering
- D. J. *Jagt, M~nager Project Engineering
- J. Kowalewski, QA Engineer
- F. Parkell, Civil Engineer
- D. A. Preston, Manager Licensing
M. Rosenzweig, Manager QA Engineering and Procurement
E. Rozovsky, QA Engineer
W. R. Schultz, Manager QA Programs and Audits
T. Taylor, Manager E&PB Controls
D. Tauber, QC Supervisor
- D. Vito, Senior Engineer Licensing
NRC Contractor EG&G Idaho, Inc.
- M. E. Nitzel, Engineer Specialist
- M. J. Russell, Engineer Specialist
- Attendees at Exit Meeting April 10, 1987.
2.
Inspection Purpose And Scope
The purpose of this inspection was to review with cognizant and
responsible licensee representatives, at the corporate office and the
plant, the completeness of their response~ to NRC/IE Bulletin 80-11,
Masonry Wall Design .. The scope of the inspection included a review of
engineering design and quality assurance documentation relating to
inspection, testing, analysis and modifications satisfying requirements
and licensee commitmerits with respect to the bulletin. A walkdown
inspection of the plant verified repairs and/or modifications relating to
the bulletin.
3.
Review Criteria
The latest revision of the bulletin was used to define required actions
by the utility. *In addition, Temporary*Instruction (TI) 2515/37 was used
to further define in~pection requirements.
Applicable sections of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50) were used. *
3
4.
Review Of Licensee Responses
The inspection team reviewed bulletin responses available from NRC files
prior to the inspection .. These responses included reports addressing the
re-evaluation methodology, acceptance criteria, wall configurations and
functions, structural adequacy, proposed modification plans, and modifi-
cation schedules.
Table 1 lists those documents reviewed prior to the
inspection.
Any items of noncompliance or those requiring fu~ther dis-
cussion. were noted as i terns to be addressed while at the corporate office
or plant site. Questions relating to licensee responses were fowarded to
the licensee in advance of the inspection as a preliminary agenda for
discussion. These questions are presented in Table 4.
The inspection team reviewed additional material provided by the licensee
during the inspection.
This material consisted of calculations concerning
poss.ible masonry wall modifications, engineering procedures in effect at
the time of the bulletin work, quality control (QC) and quality assurance
(QA) procedures in effect at the time of the bulletin work, licensee
internal correspondence pertinent to bulletin ~ctivities, Design Change
Request (OCR) forms for the wall modifications, and field inquiries re-
lating to the wall modifications.
The pertinent documerits described above
for IEB 80-11 are listed in Table 2, except for licensee performed
calculations.
It should be noted that several calculations were reviewed.
Calculations
performed by the licensee
1 s consultant are included in the reports listed
in Table 1.
Calculations performed by the licensee for the design of
wall modifications were requested; however, only a few were available for
review.
Because the calculations performed by the licensee were found to
be inadequately contro1led no useful reference to them could be included
in this report.
(See Violation Number 2, below)
Findings:
It was determined from the review of the documentation de-
scribed above that, in general, most aspects of the work done in response
to the subject bulletin were acceptable.
Ho~ever, two violations were
identified during the reviews described above.
Further details regarding
these items are given below.
Viol*tion Number 1:
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 states in part that
11Activities
affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions,
procedures ....
11
Further, it states,
11Instructions, procedures, or
drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance
criteria for determining that important activities have been satis-
factorily accomplished.
11
The licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) program
incorporated 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, prior to the issuance of the bulletin.
Also, Action Item 1 of IEB 80-11 requires that the licensee
11 Identify all
masonry walls in your facility which are in proximity to or have attach-
ments from safety-related piping or equipment such that wall failure could
.*
- 4
affect a safety-related system." Action Item 4 of IEB 80-11 required that
the identity of the subject walls be reported within 60 days of the
issuance.of the bulletin.
Description of Circumstances:
A review of the docketed submittals showed that the licensee performed a
masonry wall survey during 1980 which was used as the basis of the*
required 60 day response transmitted in a letter dated July 2, 1980.
During the inspection, the licensee was asked what specific procedure was
used to determine which walls were safety-related and, thus subject to
IEB 80-11 action.
The licensee was also asked what specific procedure
was ~sed to perform the field survey~ required as part of the bulletin
response.
The licensee's verbal response to these questions indicated
that the subject walls were identified by a drawing review; however, no
procedure was used to govern this activity and no clear documentation
.trail existed to describe the process or results. With regard to the
field surveys, the licensee stated that mirked-up drawings were used to
indicate which masonry walls were to be field surveyed and that all wall*
attachments were to be noted.
However, no documented procedure governed
the survey activity. A review of the document'ation available during the
inspection did not disclose any documented procedures gov~rning the
determination of safety-related walls or field survey activities. It was
found that the field survey was initiated via an internal memo and did
not reference any documented procedures.
The licensee stated that most
field survey information was passed between organizations by telephone
conversations.
Canel usiOn:
Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, the determination
of which masonry walls were safety-related and the 1980 wall survey
performed by the 1 i censee were not' performed utilizing documented and
controlled procedures.
This lack of procedural ~ontrol over activities
which could affect safety-related components and/or systems is a viola-
tion of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
(50-272/87-08-01 and
50-311/87-09-01).
Violation Number 2:
- Criterion III of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 states in part that, "The design
control measures s~all provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of
design .....
11
Also, the licensee's own Engineering Directive EDD #4
(Revision 1), Section 4.2, states that,
11 *** calculations shall be
recorded on documents identified in the EDODP, Section 4, and shall be
added to the Design History as appropriate.
11
Further, Action Item 2 of
IEB 80-11 requires the demonstration of the structural adequacy of all
subject masonry walls.
- ~*
5
Description of Circumstances:
Prior to the inspection, the licensee was notified to have available for
audit all calculations performed for the evaluation of masonry wall
-structural adequacy.
The licensee was also notified to have all
calculations regarding masonry wall modifications available for audit.
During the inspection it was found that reevaluation calculations for all
walls could not be produced. The results of ana Tyses performed by the
licensee's consultant (Computech) were available; however, the a~alyses
themselves were not.
Thus, the finite element models and other parameters
actually used in the computerized analyses could not be verified.
OnJy
certain walls as identified in the licensee's submittals were computer*
analyzed, the remaining walls were analyzed by hand calculations or, in
some cases, the licensee's submittals *state that "Wall was not analyzed
since corrective action will prevent its failure during a seismic
event ....
11
During the review of documentation provided by the licensee
during the inspection, some hand calculations regarding wall structural
adequacy and modification~ were found (for example, control room block
wall calculations and. plating and beam stiffener modification on a wall at
elevation 122').
However, these calculations.appea~ed to be uncontrolled
since they were not identified by an individual calculation number, signed
by a checker, etc ..
By the end of the inspection, the licensee had not*
produced evidence that reevaluation calculations existed for each safety-
related masonry wall or that structural adequacy calculations existed for
all wal.l modifications.
Procedures were in place at the time of the
bulletin responses that would have required the control of design inputs
such as calculations.
Conclusion:
The inspectors found that the licensee did not have recorded, controlled
calculations demonstrating the structural adequacy of all the subject
walls and the modifications which had been made to them.
This is a.
violation of the licensee's own Engineering Directive EDD #4 and a
violation of Criterion XVII of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8.
(50-272/87-08-02
and 50-311/87-09-02).
5.
Inspection Follow-Up Item
During the inspection, the licensee was ask~d what measures were being
taken to assure that the physical condition (absence of cracks, boundary
conditions, .etc.) of the walls would be maintained.
The licensee stated
that periodic surveillance of the subject masonry walls would be performed
to ensure that the physical conditions assumed during the reanalysis ef-.
fort remain valid. It was noted that no such plan was currently in
existence.
The licensee did produce a draft of a procedure for surveil-
lance of plant conditions that included masonry walls; however, this.
procedure was general in nature.
The licensee stated that the general
procedure would be modified or a new procedure developed to include
- ! .
6
specific guidance defining the period of inspection and the attributes
of each masonry wall that must be examined and the standards for accept-
ability.
The licensee committed to forward the completed surveillance
procedure to .the NRC Region I office.
6..
Verification Walkdown Inspection
A physical inspection of certain masonry walls subject to bulletin action
was conducted.
The walls .included in this sample were chosen by the
inspection team.
The purpose of this walkdown was to verify samples of
inspections and/or modifications required by the bulletin. The walls
shown in Table 3 were ~xamined. Walkdown activities concentrated on
determining if the physical characteristics of the walls as observed in
- the plant reasonably matched those data used in the walt reevaluation
calculations and/or modification packages.
Examples of those items spot
checked during the.walkdown include overall dimensions, bond type, number
of wythes, boundary conditions, attached equipment, and equipment in
proximity,
Findings:
The results of _the plant walkdown indicated that, in gen~ral,
the configurations of the walls and the applicable modifications agreed.
- with information found in the modification package~. . Upon examination of*
th~ wall designated as 2-4A (elevation 100 1 , separating units 1 and 2) jt
was noted that a through-wall crack exists near the west boundary.
This
crack starts in the mortar between the fifth and sixth courses of block
and proceeds vertically through both block ~nd mortar joints to the mortar
joint between the twelfth and thirteenth courses of block.
The crack then.
proceeds horizontally to the west boundary.
This crack was not addressed
in the information available to the inspecti-0n team; thus, it was
concluded that it wa~ not taken into account in the wall reanalysis
effort. Also, it Was noted that eight pipe supports were mounted on the
Unit 2 (north) side of this wall.
The licensee was asked to provide
information describing in detail the magnitude of the loads on this wall
and how they were incorporated into the structural analysis. The licensee
subsequently supplied information concerning the magnitude of these loads.
A review of this information disclosed that certain of these loads were i~
excess of the licensee's definition of a significant wall load (100
pounds).
Additional review of the report of the analysis of this wall
performed by the licensee's consultant could not confirm that these loads
had been included or, if so, the resulting effects.
Thus, the structural
adequacy of this wall was considered inconclusive.
This is an unresolved
item pending:
a.
Detailed information that demonstrate the magnitudes and methods
used by their consultant to incorporate _the pipe support loads in
their reported analysis .
b.
___ ___
7
Either the results of a reanalysis of the subject wall including the
effects of the degraded boundary due to the area of through-cracking
or documentation regarding the repair of this wall.
The licensee
stated that if the wall is repaired, the applicable repair pro-
cedure(s) and complete documentation showing successful restoration
of structura 1 adequacy wi 11 be provided.
The 1 i censee a 1 so stated
that an analysis of the probable initiating cause of this crack
and an assessment of the probabilities of its recurrence would be
provided (50-272/87-08-03 and 50-311/87-09-03).
7.
Licensee Administrative Controls and Assurance of Quality
8.
The licensee QA Manual, Document No. QAP-3 dated July 6, 1976 establishes
design responsibilities for documenting the design control and review
procedures and implementation thereof for safety related structures for:
Design responsibility within PSEG
Design responsibility of Contractors
This design interface is committed to be in accordance with 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B.
QAP-3 also requires PSEG QA Department (QAD) to review/audit
the conformance of the appropriate departments within PSEGS Engineering
and Construction for design control to Appendix B .
The inspector ascertained from his review of documentation presented by
the licensee during this inspection identified in Table 5 that no formal
audit had been performed of the masonry wall survey activities required
by bulletin 80-11 item number 1.
Neither was there QA/QC oversight of
design activities to establish wall structural adequacy and design of
wall modification.
PSEG internal memorandum, dated May 14, 1980 from QA
Manager to the General Manager Electrical Production required appropriate
action in response to bulletin.
The memorandum required that wall
evaluation be accomplished in conjunction with PSEG Engineering Department.
The licensee was requested prior to the inspection.
(Table 4, Questions 2
and 9) and during the inspection to provide assurance of quality in these
activities, however, no documentary evidence of design control audits were
produced.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this inspection and, pending the licensee's
response to the violations and open items in this report, IEB 80-11
remains open.
9.
Exit Meeting
An exit meeting was conducted on April 10, 1987, by the NRC inspector.
Attendees at the meeting are listed in paragraph 1.
The NRC inspector
summarized the inspection findings and the licensee acknowledged these
findings.
No written material, other than that described in paragraph 4
(preliminary agenda for discussion) was furnished to licensee personnel.
Document
8
Table 1 - DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION
Description
F. Schneider (PSEG) letter to B. Grier (USNRC; RI) d~ted
7-2-80 transmitting licensee's 60 day response to !EB
80-11, for Salem #1.
R. Mittl (PSEG) letter to B. Grier dated 9-5-80 trans-
mitting additional information regarding factors of safety
used in licensee masonry wall evaluations, for Salem #2.
Draft of criteria for the reevaluation of concrete masonry
walls at Salem Nuclear Generating Station prepared by
Computech Engineering Services, Inc. (Computech).
Draft is
dated October, 1980.
F. Schneider letter to B. Grier dated li-4-80 amending
licensee 60 day response to !EB 80-11 and requesting an
extension for submission of the required 180 day report, for
Salem #1 .and #2.
E. Brunner (USNRC, RI) letter to F. Schneider dated
11-19-80 approving delay in schedule for bulletin response.
F. Librizzi (PSEG) letter to B. Grier dated 11-24-80
transmitting Licensee Event Report (LER) 80-56/0lT.
LER
notifies of discrepancy between construction specification
and detail drawings for certain masonry walls, for Salem #1.
H. Midura (PSEG) letter to B. Grier dated 12-1-80
transmitting description of reportable occurrence
80-56/0lX-l which states that eight additional masonry
wall areas were constructed not in accordance with
specifications, for Salem #1.
B. Grier letter to R. Eckert (PSEG) dated 12-9-80
transmitting requirements for wall repairs prior to
resumptiom of operation.
F. Schneider letter to B. Grier dated 12~4-80
transmitting report of the bulletin responses (180 day
report) for Salem Unit 1.
Internal NRC memo by J. Kerrigan (NRC Project Manager)
dated 12-11-80 summarizing the results of a site meeting
on 11-20-80 between NRC and licensee representatives, for
Salem #1 and #2.
Document
9
Table 1 - DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED PRIOR TO INSPECTION (Cont'd)
Description
Internal NRC Memo for NRC Commissioners dated 12-30-80,
from H. R. Denton, Consideration of Full Power Operating
License for Sa:l em Unit 2", proposed wa 11 capacity
- strengthening program for non-conforming As-Built
condition.
Internal NRC memo by W. Ross dated 12-30-80 which
summarizes results of a meeting between NRC and licensee
representatives held on 12-5-80 to discuss seismic design
deficiencies in Controlled Facilities Building, for Salem
- 1.
R. Tedesco (NRC) letter to R. Mittle dated 1-8-81
requesting additional information regarding bulletin
response activities.
R. Mittle letter to F. Miraglia (NRC) dated 1-29-81
responding to the 1-8-81 request for additional
information.
R. Uderitz (PSEG) letter to B. Grier dated 4-1-81
transmitting LER 80-56/0lX-2 regarding discrepancies
between construction arid specifications for Controlled
Facilities Building walls.
F. Schneider letter to B. Grier dated 12-10-80
transmitting 180 day report of bulletin response
activities for Salem Unit 2.
D. Eisenhut (NRC) letter to R. Mittle transmitting
operating licensee for Salem Unit 2.
License contains
required licensee actions prior to full power operation
(includes some requird actions on masonry walls).
E. Liden (PSEG) letter to S. Varga (NRC) dated 12-8-82
transmitting additional information regarding IEB 80-11
responses.
Internal NRC memo from J. Knight to G. Lainas dated
7-15-83 forwarding Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for
Salem Units 1 and 2 .
Document
66128
QAI
360
lEC-1048
SFC-4
GM8-EMP-005
A-5-SOOO-SGS-O
10
Table 2 -.DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED DURING INSPECTION
Description
PSEF Research report on masonry wall testing. and
inspection at Salem units 1 and 2.
F. Linn (~SEG) l~tter to L. Jones (Computech Engineering
Services) dated 11-20-80 transmitting information
regarding wall survey data and analysis instructions.
PSEG Design Change Request (OCR) for modifications to
masonry walls at Salem Unit 2.
-*
PSEG Quality.Assurance (QA} manual, revision 52
(select~d sections reviewed).
E. Henrys (The E.P. Henrys Companie~) letter to
F. Parkell (PSEG) certifying masonry block use in
construction meets ASTM C-90 ..
- PSEG Engineering Directiv~ #1 - Operational Design
Change Control.
Nonconformance Report (NRC) 360 regarding material
traceability of material used on OCR lEC-1048.
PSEG OCR to modify masonry walls in Salem Unit 1.
PSEG OCR to modify previously modified masonry wall on
elevation 122'-0 11
PSEG internal letter from G. Kapp to Assistant
Engineering Managers regarding OCR lEC-1594, Post
Installation Engineering, Review, and Document Update.
Letter is dated 1-25-84. *
PSEG Structural Field Directive #4 - directs *that no
reinforcing steel rods may be cut without approval of the
structural engineer. *
PSEG engineering procedure governing the initiating,
performance, and documentation of calculations. *This is
the current revision in use.
This document was used to
compare to similar engineering procedures in use at the
time of the bulletin re~nalyses. *
PSEG draft procedure for inspection of civil/structural
items at Salem Units 1 and 2 Hope Creek.
Document
11
Table 2 - DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED DURING INSPECTION (Cont'd)
Description
PSEG Engineering Directive #4 regarding control of
design input and verification.
Dated 5-19-81.
Lic~nsee
stated that this document was in effect at the time of the
masonry wall modifications.
PSEG Engineering Dep~rtment Organization and Design
Procedures (EDODP) Section 8 regarding design input.
PSEG Engineering Department Organization and Design
Procedures (EDODP) Section 11 regarding design
verification.
PSEG Structural Division organization and procedures
manual (selected sections reviewed).
12
Table 3 - MASONRY WALLS FIELD VERIFIED
Wall
Elevation (ft)
Location
1-1
64
Aux i 1 i a ry B.l dg. 1
1-2
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-3A
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-38
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-3C
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-3D
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-3E
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-6
100
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-10
122
Auxiliary Bldg.
1-13
Cont. *Fae. Bldg. (east wall)
1-14a
Cont. Fae. Bldg. (truck bQ.y}
1-14b
Cont. Fae. Bldg. (truck bay)
2-1
64
Auxiliary Bldg. 1
2-2
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-3A
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-3b
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-3C
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-3D
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-3E
84
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-4A
100
Auxiliary Bldg. 2
2-4B
100
Auxiliary Bldg. 2
2-4C
100
Auxi 1 iary Bldg. 2
2-5
100
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-9A
122
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-9B
122
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-10
122
Auxiliary Bldg.
2-16
122
Auxiliary Bldg:
Note:
1.
This was divided into three walls for analysis.
2 . * Common wa 11 to Units 1 and 2.
- I
13
Table 4 - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
The following is a list of preliminary requests for information pertinent
to actions taken in response to the*subject bulletin.
It is planned that the
responses to these requests will be reviewed and discussed during the
inspection.
1.
How was the overall engineering effort for response to bulletin
requirements o~ganized, coordinated, and directed?
2.
How was QA/QC involved in the overall effort .to satisfy bulletin,
requirements?
3.
What AE/consultant firms (if any) were used to develop bulletin
responses?
What was the extent of their involvement (scope of work)?
4.
What personnel qualifications and/or special training was pr6vided (or
required) for licensee and/or consultant personnel involved in bulletin
response work?
5.
What procedure was used to identify masonry walls subject to bulletin
action?
Provide a copy for review.
6.
What procedure was used to compete the wall date sheets or survey forms;
ie., were these data based on field surveys, con~truction records or
other sources?
7.
If field surveys were used, provide the procedure used and marked up
drawings or other first generation field documentation showing results
obtained.
8.
Have any additional safety related p1p1ng systems be~n found to have
supports attached to the subject ~alls?
9.
Provide documentation of QA oversight/audits of all contract
organizations involved in bulletin actio~s.
10.
Information regarding all ~alls subject ~o bulletin action should be
readily available at the beginning of the inspection.
Provide the
reevaluation calculations and complete modification *packages (wh~re
applicable).
Modification packages should include all stress
calculations, design/construction drawings, QC documentation and any
other pertinent information such as nonconformance reports (NRC 1 s) and
their dispositions that may exi~t.
14
11.
Provide the .surveillance plan for routine inspecti9n to assure the
continued validity of assumed boundary conditions, physical condition
(such a~ absence of cracks) and continued structural adequacy.
12.
Describe the procedure(s) used to control addition to or changes in the
configurations of the masonry walls subject to bulletin action.
Provide
copies for review.
13.
Have any recent resurveys been ~ndertaken to ascertain that plant
- modifications or regulatory requirement made in the intervening time
since 1980 have not changed the status or classification of any masonry
walls?
14.
Were any unreinfbrced walls found to have cracks? . If so,
a.
Which walls were found to contain cracks?
b.
Were they reanalyzed to account for the cracked sections?
c.
Were the cracks repaired or was any other corrective action taken?
d.
If the cracks were repaired provide the governing procedure and
samples of documentation demonstrating successful rep~ir completion.
15.
List all computer codes used in the wall reevaluations.
Also, identify
which groups or organizations used them
16.
Were all computer codes (including the SAPIV pre and post processors)
used
11benchmarked?
11
If so, provide documentation.
17.
What procedure(s) were used to assure that computer codes were used
properly to obtain accurate results?
Provide copies for review.
18.
The 7-2-80 Schneider - Grier letter (60 day response) states that
11all
partition and battery room walls are filled solid with mortar and heavily
reinforced in both directions.
11
However, sketches of the walls presented
in later submittals indicated that rebar does not extend the full height
of the walls.
Clarify whether these walls do in fact have rebar
extending the full height and if tredit was taken for the horizontal
reinforcing (dur-o-wall) in the analyses.
19.
The GO day response states that drawings were consulted and accessible
areas of the plants were walked down. What walls were not completely
accessible? Were walkdowns of inaccessible areas subsequently
performed? If so, when?
20.
The 11-4-80 Schneider - Grier letter states that seven control air piping
system supports were found mounted on a masonry wall.
The letter further
states that the imposed loads are small.
List the loads used for these
15
pipe supports in the wall analyses.
How were the piping loads calculated
(ie., hand calcs, computerized dynamic analyses, etc.)?
How were these
loads incorporated in the wall analyses (ie., absolute sum of DW, TE,
seismic, etc. or some other technique)? Did the piping loads used
reflect accurate as-built information and analyses such as would have
resulted from other bulletins (I~B 79-02, IEB 79-14, etc.) or plant
modifications?
21.
The 12-1-80 Midura - Grier let~er deicribes reportable occurrence
80-56/0lx~l. This letter states that eight masonry walls were found to
be not erected per design.
Clarify what these discrepancies were and how
they differed from those discussed at the 11-20-80 site meeting between
by the NRC and licensee.
This letter also states that a detailed report
would be prepared and submitted;. however, no such report was discovered*
in a search of docket files.
Provide a copy of this report.
22.
What procedure and QC measures were taken to verify that all equipment
was accounted for in the data for each wall shown in section 3 of the
final reports?
23.
A discontin~ity was observed in the numbering of the unit 2 walls in
section 3 of the unit 2 report.
In particular, there were no walls 2-6,
7, .8, 11, 12, or 14 listed.
We~e these walls designated but determined
not to be safety-related? Clarify the numbering scheme used.
24.
Section 4 of the unit 1 and unit 2 reports doesn't really fully describe
construciton practices used in the walls.
Provide the construciton
specifications(s) used for original construction.
25.
Section 1.0 of the Computech re~ort references drawings and also says
that recent modifications, not shown on the drawings, were incorporated
in the analyses.
Was this information the result of a walkdown by
Computech personnel?
If not, who provided the information?
In any case,
what QC was provided to verify the accuracy of the informatioh? Were
"recent modifications" made prior to the issuance of the bulletin or did
they result from preliminary bulletin activities?
26.
Section 1.0 of the Computech report (both plants) states that "no
additional stregthening of any wall is required." However, as shown in
Sect ion 3 of the main report, wa 11 s. were modified.
Clarify whether the
modifications mentioned in Section 3 are the "recent modifications"
referred to in question 25 or are a separate set of modifications.
27.
Section 3 of the unit 1 ~nd unit 2 reports indicate that a number of
walls were deemed as needing corrective action by inspection and, thus,*
were not analyzed.
What basis.was used to determine adequacy of the as-
modified condition?
Provide the calculations for the modifications
showing structural adequacy of the walls in their final configuration
including all attached steel, bolts, etc. used in the modifications.
16
28.
What QC coverage was applied to the masonry wall testing and in5pection
program described in the procedure contained in Appendix B-1?
Provide
evidence of QC activities.
29.
Clarify the QC role in the block core fill verification program described
in Appendix B-2.
Was QC applied to all activities on a continuous
basis?
Provided evidence of QC activities.
30.
Correlate the individual wall numbers used in Section 3 of the report to
the sketches shown in Appendix D (ie., show the PSE&G wall numbers -0n the
sketches).
31 ..
How was the grouting procedure contained in Appendix D issued and
controlled?
Provide evidence of QC coverage of this activity.
17
Table 5 - DOCUMENTATION OF LICENSEE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS
Document
QAI 18-1
QAI 2-5
QAI 3-1
QAI 2-12
QAD Audit M-80-01
QAD Audit M-80-01
QAD Audit M-80-:,01
QAD Audit S~80-14
QA Audit S;..80-14
Project QA Plan
PSEG Mechanical
Design Manual
CI Procedure
Manual
,Description
PSEG internal memo dated 5-14-80 from E. N. Schwalje,
Manager of QA to Sale~ Unit #1.
General Manager -
Electrical Production F. P. Librizzi ori r~-evaluation ~f
design adequacy of masonry walls as required by IEBU 80-11.
QAM Instruction; revision 7, Audits by the Auality ..
Assurance Department 1-23-79, and revision 8, 9-4-81.
QAM Instruction, revision 5, 4-10-79, and revision 6,
11-12~81, Surveillance Program.
QAM Instruction, revision 3, 6-21-79, Design Control
Program.
QAM Instruction, rev1s1on 1, Processing of NRC Bulletins,
Circulars and Information Notices.
QA Department Audit of PSE&G Engineering Department
and Purchasing March 24 - April 3, 1980.
Corre~tive Action Request SE-34 dated 12-10-80.
Response to CAR SE-34 Accepted 2-19-81.
Audit of Catalitic, Inc. (CI) (Masonry Wall Modification*
Contrac~or) July 30 - August 1, 1980, covering QA.review
of Cl's Management Audit Reports for 1979 in reference to
10 CFR 50, Appendix B Criterion II, III, IX, XVI, XXVI,,
and XVIII.
Corrective Action Re~uest dated 8~5-80.
Manenan~e and Modifications at Sale~ dated 6-1-78.
Operational Design Change Control, revision 3
CMP-4 job rev1s1on 2 completion and walkdown/PSEG
approval of masonry wall modifications - design
design changes.
(SAMPLE) PSEG Salem Resident QA Department Surveillance Log, No. 791,
Walkdown/CMP-4 Surveillance of Masonry wall modification by CI of struct.ural
st~el and bolting, OCR #lEC-1048.