ML20009D769
| ML20009D769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1981 |
| From: | Sylvia B VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 372, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8107240332 | |
| Download: ML20009D769 (3) | |
Text
r-r OFFICIAL COPY bY Vepco Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Serial No. 372 Office of Inspection & Enforcement PSE&C/RHW:dac U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos.
50-280 Region II 50-281 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 50-338 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 50-jp9 License Nos. DPR-32 h
[
\\
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
E JUL 2 3198F I. E. BULLETIN NO. 80-11 MASONRY WALL DESIGN p"ixa,*g**"
g C
SURRY POWER STAlION - UNITS 1&2 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION - UNITS 1&2 4
s.
This lecter provides the interim progress report as of Jun II98U which was requested by your letter of March 13, 1981. The purpose of the letter is to update the responses provided in our letters of November 3, 1980, Serial Number 878, and April 15, 1981, Serial Number 245, and inform you of the current status of our efforts to comp 1 Nith I.E.Bulletin 80-11.
The identification and re-evaluation of all rasonry walls, which are in proximity to or have attachments from safety-related piping or equipment such that wall failure could affect a safety-related 'ystem, is required by the Bulletin. Based en this criteria, the present scope of the masonry wall re-evaluation program consists of 119 walTs at Surry and 70 walls at North Anna.
This scope is determined as follows:
Eighty-nine walls at Surry and 65 walls at North Anna were identified in our November 3,1980 letter as having safety-related equipment in the proximity of the walls. An addit-ional 41 walls at Surry and nine walls at North Anna were identified in our letter of April 15, 1981 as also having safety-related equipment in the proximity of the wall. Sub-sequent investigations to determine the safety significance of equipment in the proximity of the walls indicated that nine walls at Surry and one wall at North Anna did not have safety-relaced equipment in the proximity of the wall and should be removed from the re-evaluation scope, and that one wall at Surry should be added to the scope. Three walls in the vicinity of the control room at each station are being 7&[
,l upgraded to meet the NRC ballistics reg'h ements and are not included in the re-evaluation scope. however, the modifica-S tions for this upgrading include the addition of structural members to ensure that the as-modified walls meet the require-
/ /
ments of the bulletin.
8107240332 8.0615 PDR ADOCK 05')O0280 G
m O
~*
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 Analysis has been completed for 82 of the 119 walls at Surry and for 37 of the 70 walls at North Anna. Preliminary modifications to reinforce the walls or relocate or protect equipment have been developed for most of the remaining 37 walls at Surry and 33 walls at North Anna which have not completed analysis. Modifications to five of these walls at Surry and five of these walls at North Anna have been installed. Analysis of the remaining walls is being refined to incorporate more exact analytical techniques with computer aided analysis and to evaluate the walls using inelastic inalytical techniques in order to determine if the p eliminary modificatior are requir-ed.
As described in the attachment to our April 15, 1981 letter, inspection of the non-seismic areas of Surry and North Anna were conducted to vei ify that safety-related equipment is not located in the proximity of walls in these areas of the Stations. The results of these inspections show that all 339 walls a Surry and 323 of the 328 walls at North Anna have no safety-re-lated equipment attached to or in the proximity of the walls. Of the remain-ing five walls at North Anna, conduits on two walls were relocated out of the proximity of the walls, and the conduit on the three remaining walls is being investigated to determine its safety significance.
The current results of the re-evaluation program indicate the safety of the plants will not be jeopardized by continued analysis of the remaining walls during plant operations.
If, however, during the remainder of the re-evaluation prooram the operability of any safety-related system is shown to be in jeopardj by the results of the analysis, the applicable Technical Specifications at. tion statement will be met.
Analysis of the remaining walls will be completed by June 31, 1981 and the final results of the re-evaluation program will be submitted after con.
pletion of the program.
Sho'lld you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
. k.
s s
N B. R. Sylvia Manager - Nuclear Operations and Maintenance cc: Mr. Victor Stello, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
y e.W.
r, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
)
CITY OF RICHMOND
)
The foregoing document was acknowledged before me, in and for the City and Commonwealth aforesaid, today by W. L. Stewart, who is Director-Operation and Maintenance Services, of the Virginia Electric and Power Company.
He is duly attthorized to execute and file the foregoing document in behalf of that
~ Company, and the statements in the document are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
~~/w
~
day of
!c.,_.
19 a '
Acknowledged before me this />
My Commission expires:
J-2
, 19 J-L~,
C'.
] h * %~
Notary Public (SEAL) 1 1
+-
e.-.---.-._~---.-.-c...
,y y,--,--y----,7
_---,e,,,.wvg,,
--,w,-,,--,
-.,,n.
.- -----s
-