ML19310A022
| ML19310A022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak, South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1980 |
| From: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005210045 | |
| Download: ML19310A022 (2) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
N THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DCCKBED g
-2 Marshalt E. Mitter, Esquire, Chairman MAY 71980 > rJ
~~
Michael L. Glas er, Esquire, Member jp Sheldon J. Wolf e, Esquire, Member Office of the Secreh7 '/
y Docketing & Service b
Branch N'
E'
?
In the Matter of
)
O
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, et al.
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-498A (South Texas
- Project,
)
50-499A Units 1 and 2)
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. )
}
Docket Nos. 50-445A (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
50-446A Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE (May 6, 1980)
The Department o f Justice (Justice) filed a motion on May 5, 1980, requesting the Licensing Board to schedule a prehearing conf er-ence on or before May 9, "so that the Board may be apprised of the status of settlement discussions among the parties."
This motion is denied.
The Board, by its Order dated April 10, 1980, directed aLL parties to file a written status report on negotiations by May 9, 1980.
The Appeat Board has ordered that copies of the next settle,nent status report to the Licensing Board shall also be filed with it (Appeal Board Order dated April 15, 1980).
In view of the requirement of a written status report by May 9, it would be premature to schedute a prehearing conference on that date.
Depending upon the 80052100Ly?i t
. nature of the status reports to be filed by aLL parties, the Board can tl:en determine whether a prehearing conf erence would be necessary or helpful.
It is so ordered.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d}/
Y J
Marshalt E. MLLler, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of May 1980.
l
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT SSINS No.:
6820 Accession No.:
Entire document previo TED STATES 7912190695 entered into system under.
LAT M COMMMSION ECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ANO _ M / U $ $ f g N, D.C.
20555 k[
N f Pages:
ay 8, 1980 IE Bulletin No. 80-11 MASONRY WALL DESIGN Description of Circumstances:
In the course of conducting inspections pursuant to IE Bulletin Nos. 79-02 and 79-14 at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, Portland General Electric Co. (PGE) identi-fied a problem with the structural integrity of concrete masonry walls with Seismic Category I piping attached to them.
This problem was briefly addressed in IE Information Notice No. 79-28, which was sent to all Construction Permit and Operating License holders on November 16, 1979 (Attachment 1).
The problem was that some walls were found which did not have adequate structural strength to sustain the required piping system support reactions.
These structural deficiencies were at that time reported to be attributable to two deficiencies:
1)
Apparent lack of a final check of certain pipe support locations and reactions to ensure that the supporting elements possessed adequate structural integrity to sustain the required loads.
2)
Non-conservative design criteria for the reactions from supports anchored into the face of concrete masonry walls; e.g., relying on the combined strength of double block walls without substantial positive connection between the two walls by means other than the bond provided by a layer of mortar, grout or concrete between them.
Continued investigations into the deficiencies identified at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, engineered by Bechtel, confirmed the deficiencies to be attributable to error in engineering judgment, lack of procedures and procedural detail, and inadequate design criteria (details are in Trojan Nuclear Plant's LER No. 79-15, and supplements).
Because of this and the generic implications of similar deficiencies with other operating facilities, we have concerns with regard to the adequacy of design criteria used for the design of masonry walls and an apparent lack of design coordination between the structural and piping / equipment i
l design groups.
IE Bulletin 79-02, Revision 2 issued on November 8, 1979 required a review of pipe supports attached to masonry walls using expansion anchor bolts.
For most pipe supports in this category, the expansion anchor bolts were replaced by I
bolting through the wall or the support was relocated to another structure.
I Supports that are bolted through masonry walls are also to be considered in the review for this Bulletin.
l
SSINS No.:
6870 UNITED STATES Accession No.:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7910250475 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555 jt,
)00 November 16, 1979
\\
IE Information Notice No. 79-28 OVERLOADING 0F STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS DUE TO PIPE SUPPORT LOADS Description of Circumstances:
Recently, the NRC was informed that, in the course of the inspections pursuant to IE Bulletin No. 79-02 and 79-14 by the Portland General Electric Co.
(PGE) at the Trojan Nuclear Plant, some walls were found which did not have adequate structural strength to sustain the required support reactions.
Bechtel Corporation was the Architect Engineer for the plant.
These structural inadequacies were reported to be attributable to two deficiencies:
1)
Apparent lack of a final check of certain pipe support locations and reactions to ensure that the supporting structural elements possessed adequate structural integrity to sustain the required icads.
2)
Inadequate design criteria for the reactions from supports anchored into the face of concrete block walls; e.g., relying on the combined strength of double concrete block walls without positive connection between the two walls by means other than the bond provided by layer of grout between them.
The NRC is currently pursuing these issues in detail for the Trojan Nuclear Plant to determine the extnet of these deficiencies and the generic implications for other Bechtel facilities.
This Information Notice is provided as an early notification of a possible signif-icant matter.
It is expected that recipients will review the information for possible applicability to their facilities and the actins being performed under IE Bulletin No. 79-02.
Specific action is being requested relating to the adequacy of attachments to concrete block walls under IE Bulletin No. 79-02, Revision 2, item 5.c.
No specific actions are requested in response to this Information Notice.
If NRC evaluations so indicate, further licensee actions may be requested or required.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Director of the appropriate NRC Regional Office.
No written response to this IE Information Notice is required.
t I