ML19276C325
| ML19276C325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1984 |
| From: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Callihan D, Cole R, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| TASK-AS, TASK-BN84-140 BN-84-140, OL, NUDOCS 8408230247 | |
| Download: ML19276C325 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000454/1984023
Text
o uc
- j
oq'D
gj
g
UNITED STATES
y Ds tf ;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
a Og ,9 /
ynl
WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
S*k
AUG 2 21934
- +
+
,
.
Docket Nos.: STN 50-454
and STN 50-455
.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Byron:
Ivan W. Smith
Dr. Dixon Callihan
Dr. Richard F. Cole
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for Byron:
Alan S. Rosenthal
Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy
Howard A. Wilber
FROM:
Thomec M. Novak, Assistant Director
for Licensing
Division of Licensinn
SUBJECT:
BYRON QUALITY ASSURANCE RELATED DOCUMENTS (B0ARE
NOTIFICATION 84- 140 )
'
In accordance with present NRC procedures for Board Notifications,
we are providing six documents related to Byron quality assurance.
Following is a list of the documents and a brief descripi. ion cf each
or.e :
1.
Letter dated July 23, 1984 from R. L. Spessard to Cordell Reed,
enclosing Inspection Report No. 50 454/84-29 (DRS); 50-455/84-21
(DRS).
This Inspection RennFc relates to a potential 10 C.F.R. 6
50.55(e) notification r::garding electrical conductor butt splices,
which was the subject of a Board Notification dated June 14, 1984.
2.
Letter dated July 30, 1984 from R. L. Spessard to Cordell
a , enclosing
Inspection Report 50-454/84-44 (DRS). This Inspection Report relates
to aspects of Quality Assurance at Byron.
-
3.
Letter dated July 30, 1984 from J. F. Streeter to Cordell Reed, enclosing
Inspecti... Report No. 40 454/84-32 (DRP); 50-455/84-25 (DRP). This
Inspection Report relates to Systems Control Corporation.
Copies of this
report were providec' to the Licensing Board and parties at the Byron
hearings.
.
7
{8408230247
zA
,
AUG 22
CENTRAL FILES ONLY
-2-
4.
Letter dated July 25, 1984 from R. L. Spessard to Cordell Reed,
enclosing Commonwealth Edison's July 10, 1984 response to the
Notice of Violation in Inspection Report No. 50-454/84-27;
50-455/84-19, See Board Notification dated June 14, 1984.
5.
Letter dated August 1,1984 from R. L. Spessard to Cordell Reed,
enclosing Commonwealth Edison response to the Notice of Violation
in Inspection Report No. 50-454/84-23; 50-455/84-16. See Board
Notification dated July 16, 1984.
6.
Letter dated July 18, 1984 from R. L. Spessard to Cordell Reed,
enclosing Inspection Report No. 50-454/84-25; 50-455/84-18.
This
Inspection Report relates to matters which were the subject of in
camera Board Notification 84-059, dated April 11., 1984.
-
,
Thomas M.
ovak, Assistant Director
for Licensing
Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
A stated
cc: ACRS (10)
Parties to the Proceeding
See next page /1
'QDL:LB#1
DU[
D'
_' :
'L01shan:es
BJYo
g lood
RStark
@ TM ovak
8/9/64
8/
4
8/P/84
8/
.
.
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD HOTIFICATION
Byron Units 1&2
Docket No. 50-454,455
ACRS Members
Dr. A. Dixon Callihan
Dr. Robert C. Axtmann
Doug rsssel, Esq.
Mr. Myer Bender
Ms. Diane Chavez
Dr. Max W. Carbon
Dr. Richard F. Cole
Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole
Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Mr. Harold Etherington
Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy
Dr. William Kerr
Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson
Dr. Harold W. Lewis
Michael Miller, Esq.
Dr. J. Carson Mark
Ms. Pat Morrison
Mr. William M. Mathis
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Dr. Dade W. Moeller
Ivan W. Smith, Esq.
Dr. David Okrent
John Streeter, Reg. III
Dr. Milton S. Plesset
Dr. 3ruce von Zellen
Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray
Steven P. Zimmerman, Esq.
Dr. Paul C. Shewmon
Howard A. Wilber, Esq.
Dr. Chester P. Siess
Mr Dennis L, Farrar
Mr. David A. Ward
s
Mr, William Kortier
Mr. Edward R. Crass
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Fanel
Atomic Safety and Licensing
Appeal Panel
Docketing and Service Section
Document Management Branch
Mr. Julian Hinds
Mr. James G. Keppler
David C. Thomas, Esq.
Ms. Lorraine Creek
.
-1-
UNITEo sT ATEs
- p* S F C
_
%
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
[
j
RECloN lli
' ,g
, M
g [' ' g
.
ctEu convu, stunois sont
s,
...-
,
JUL 1 S.1934
Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455;
50-456, 50-457
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTH:
Mr. Cordell Reed
-
Vice President
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Gentlemen:
This refers to the special safety inspection conducted by Messrs. J. W. Muffett,
P. D. Kaufman and J. F. Norton of this office on April 25 and May 22-23, 1984,
at Sargent & Lundy Engineers in Chicago of activities at Byron Station Units 1
and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-130 and No. CPPR-131
and at Braidwood Station,- Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permits
No. CPPR-132 and No. CPPR-133, and to the discussion of our findings with
Mr. D. Farrar at the conclusion of the inspection.
Additional review of
calculations was performed in the Region III office on June 19, 1984.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during
the inspection.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective
examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and
interviews with personnel.
"
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the
course of this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s)
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office,
by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written
application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of
the date of this letter.
Such application must be consistent with the re-
quirements of 2.790(b)(1).
If we do not hear from you in this regard within
the specified periods noted above, a copy of this letter and the enclosed
inspection report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
.
.
.
%2'escar
.PbfL 1.p,
.
.
JUL 181984
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
.
We will gladly discuss any questions you,have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
jy-ME .
~
'
e
R. L. Spessard, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure: . Inspection Reports
-
No. 50-454/84-25,
No. 50-455/84-18,
No. 50-456/84-11, and
No. 50-457/84-11
.
cc w/ enc 1:
D. L. Farrar, Director
of Nuclear Licensing
-
M. Wallace, Project Manager
D. Shamblin, Construction
Superintendent
J. F. Gudac, Station
Superintendent
DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII
-
Braidwood
Resident Inspector, RIII Byron
PhyTlis Dunton, Attorney
General s Office, Environmental
-
'
Control Division
Jane Whicher, Esq.
V. I. Schlosser, Project Manager
Gunner Sorensen, Site Project
Superintendent
R. E. Querio, Station
Superintendent
Diane Chavez, DAARE/ SAFE
R. Rawson, ELD
,
,
.
.
a
.
.
U.S.iiUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION III
.
Reports No. 50-454/84-25(DR5), 50-455/84-18(DRS);
50-456/84-11(DRS), 50-457/84-11(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455;
.icenses No. CPPR-130, CPPR-131;
50-456, 50-457
CPPR-132, CPPR-133
.
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Facility Name:
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2
Inspection At:
Sargent & Lundy Engineers, Chicago, IL
Inspection Conducted:
April 25, May 22-23 and June 19, 1984
7l,5
,h7$hN
sg
~
,
J. W. Muffett
Inspectors
.
Date
/>
. .
p$/f /,ui W
/
Y
IfuP.D.Kaufman
.
Date
N
'/f
,$vLA
7//l [b
-
~
N J. F. Norton
Date
i
1
/
r%uJD
N
7//8/ f,,'/
.
Approved By:
D. H.'Danielson, Chief
Materials and Processes Section
Date
Inspection Summary
Inspection on April 25, May 22-23 and June 19, 1984 (Reports
No. 50-454/84-25(DRS), 50-455/84-18(DRS); 50-456/84-11(DRS),.50-457/84-11(DRS)]
,
Areas Inspected:
Announced special safety inspection to review design
calculations and analyses concerning the primary shield wall, reactor pressure
vessel shield wall, and " concrete expansion ar.chors in response to an
allegation. The inspection involved a total of 72 inspector-hours onsite by
three NRC inspectors and eight inspector-hours in the Region III office by
one NRC inspector.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Results:
.
"
Ppx
y - ,,
.
r
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Persons Contacted
.
Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)
K. A. Ainger, Project Engineering
- D. Farrar, Nuclear Licensing
,
D. Swartz, Nuclear Licensing
- T. Tramm, Nuclear Licensing
- J. T. Westermeier, Project Engineering
.
Sargent and Lundy
- A. Morcos, Assistant Head, S&L QA Division
- K. Kostal, Assistant Manager, Structural Department
- R. McCluer, Structural Project- Engineer
"D. C. Patel, Supervising Design Engineer
,
- R. W. Hooks, Assistant Division Head - Structural Engineering Division
- B.
A. Erler, structural Design Director
R. Rabin, Senior QA_ Coordinator
A. Al-Dabbagh, Senior Engineering Analyst
J. Pop, Jr. , Senior Engineering Analyst
J. N. Diebold, Senior Structural Engineer
V. Voigt, Senior Structural Engineer
J. P. Matz, Senior Structural Engineer
T. G. Best, Senior Structural Engineer
T. J. Ryan, Structural Project Engineer
H. S. Taylor, Head, QA Division
-
T. G. Longlais, Head, Structural Engineering Division
A. K. Singh, Assistant Division Head, Structural Analytical Division
- Denotes t, hose attending the exit interview.
2.
A11ecation (Concerning Primary Shield Wall and Reactor Pressure Vessel
Shield Wall)
On May 27, 1983 and February 14, 1984 anonymous allegations concerning
Sargent & Lundy design practices were received by the NPC.
One portion
of the allegation is summarized below.
The remaining allegations will be
included in separate inspection report.s.
The Syron plant was unsafe because of founda' tion prdblems.
The
sacrificial shield foundation was weak by a f actor of 50%.
The
alleger claimed the foundation would move, slide or crack in en
earthquake of 4.5 on the Richter scale causing radiation to leak
from containment.
The alleger knew that a S&L Division head knew of
the problem, but does not know what CECO was told.
The design was
made prior to Three Mile Island, but has since been checked by S&L.
In checking the design S&L " fixed the books." The 611eger stated
that data for the sacrificial shield to foundation connection was
2
s
.
.
.
manipulated to make the books look good.
The alleger contended that
the quantity of rebar in the sacrificial shield and foundation had
been significantly reduced.
According to the alleger a group of ten
S&L engineers had informed S&L management of these problems.
Allegedly, S&L fired one engin~eer and did not promote the others.
The alleger claimed to have in his possession, the original records
of the manipulated data.
In response to this allegation inspections were held at S&L on April 25,
1984 and May 23, 1984.
The purpose of these inspections was to review
existing design calculations for-the Reactor Pressure Vessel Shield Vall
-
(SAD calc. 8.99.2) and Primary Shield Wall (Byron /Braidwood calc. book
6.1.1).
After review of these calculations four significant technicz.1 issues were
discovered.
These are:
In the seismic analysis of the Primary Shield Wall (PSW) and other
a.
walls in this area, the walls are assumed to act together as a unit
(a single cantilever beam).
This assumption is also used to aportion
seismic loads among the various. walls.
No analysis is provided to
justify this assumption.
b.
In the thermal analysis of the PSW the affect of the constraint
provided.by these other walls is neglected (nonsymmetrical affect).
This is nonconservative in regard to thermal stresses.
In the analysis of accident conditions on the PSW; the P5W is
c.
assumed to be on a " pinned base" (free to rotate).
The angular
displacement of the " pinned base" is then applied to the interior
base mat.
This is nonconservative because it neglects the stress
-
produced by deflections which deviate from the " pinned base"
assumption.
(Thick"shell affect)
d.
In the Reactor Pressure Vessel Shield Wall ana'ysis the connection
between the top beams and the embedded plates is identified as "7%
over stress under accident conditions." The analysis contains no
justification or explanation as to why this condition is acceptable.
These issues were discussed with the licensee and its Architect / Engineer
on May 23, 1984.
At the close of this discussion an agreement was
reached to address these issues.
The licensee committed to perform the
following additional work:
,
,
Complete work on the primary shield wall final load check model that
.
includes a portion of the fill slab around the primary shield wall.
Account for the non-axisymmetric restraint of the primary shield
.
wall for thermal loading.
Perform further analysis to verify the methods used to distribute
.
seismic loads to the primary shield wall.
3
s
.
,
.
.
Clarify the reactor shield wall calculations to show there is no
overstressed condition for design basis loadings.
_
This additional work is due to be completed on approximately June 20,
1984.
"
Although this allegation appears to be partially substantiated due to the
nature of the discrepancies discovered, it is not possible prior to the
completion of the additional analyses to make a definitive statement
e
about the validity of these allegations.
Therefore this will remain an
open item pending NRC review of the additional analysis (Open Item
454/84-25-01; 455/84-18-01; 456/84-11-01; 457/84-11-01).
3.
Allegation (Concerning the Use of " Concrete Expansion Anchors)
In the same body of allegations mentioned in part 2 above, the following
allegation was also made:
The alleger stated that %" expansion anchor bolts holding electrical,
HVAC, instrumentation, and mechanical panels to floors and walls were
underdesigned by 30-50%.
The alleger further advised this problem
was identified.three years acc at Zimmer and Marble Hill.
Allegedly,
S&L demoted the engineers after they had identified the problem.
The
alleger stated this problem was also applicable to Byron, Braidwood,
LaSalle and Clinton.
Calculations concerning the use of k" concrete expansion anchors were
reviewed during_ this inspection.
This item requires more information to
determine the acceptability of these h" concrete expansion anchors and
therefore is an unresolved item.
(Unresolved Item 454/84-25-02;
455/84-18-02; 456/84-11-02; 457/84-11-02).
.
4.
Open Items
'
Open items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action
on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
An open item disclosed during
the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 2.
-
5.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about whi.ch more~ information is required in
order to ascertaih whether they are acceptable it, ems, items of noncompli-
ante, or deviations.
An unresolved item disclosed during the inspection
-
is discussed in Paragraph 3.
6.
Exit Meeting
The inspectors met with the personnel denoted in Paragraph 1 of this
report on May 28, 1984 to discuss the scope and findings of this inspec-
tion.
At this meeting commitments were made to perform tasks covered in
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this report.
4
6