ML20127J929

Discusses Util Review Plan Re Shut Down Due to Anchoring Deficiencies

ML20127J929
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	07/24/1992
From:	Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Jerrica Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20127J922	List: IA-92-447, Discusses Util Review Plan Re Shut Down Due to Anchoring Deficiencies ML20127J919 ML20127J929
References
FOIA-92-447 NUDOCS 9301250298
Download: ML20127J929 (6)

Text

r UNITED STATES i :2 f1 .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-i i 'j wasmNotes o e r.em

%,,,,# July 24 1992 Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 MEMORANDUM FOR: Jon R. Johnson, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects, Region !!

FROM: Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Region 11 Reactors Division of Reactor Projects - 1/!!

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

REVIEW PLAN - BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TIA 92-14)

On April 21,-1992, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) shut down the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick), because of anchoring deficiencies. A significant number of additional issues have been identified by the licensee on followup investigations and_by the NRC.

Enclosure 1 is a listing of these issues. Enclosure 2 is a chronology of the documentation that identified these issues. The purpose of this memorandum is to initiate an NRC review plan to evaluate CP&L's resolution of these issues and to provide support of decisions regarding plant restart. This plan will be revised and updated as necessary.

In general, the issues at Brunswick can be divided into two groups: _ technical deficiencies and the root causes of those deficiencies, i.e., management issues. The corrective actions for the physical deficiencies are more of a short-term nature and should be resolved to the satisfaction of NRC prior to plant restart. The results of management improvement can be demonstrated by plant performance in the long-term.

With regard to physical problems, the NRC action would include the following:

(1) Review CP&L's plan for resolution including the scope of corrective action,_the method _and any justification for deviation from the licensed basis. This review will be documented in safety evaluations and inspection rerports to be issued to the licensee.

CONTACT: R. Lo, NRR 504-1457 9301250298 920916 PDR FOIA WILLIAM 92-447 PDR

- . ~ .. - .

2-(2) On-site-Inspection o'r verification of the implementation of the corrective action. The results will be documented in inspection reports or trip reports. These reports and the safety evaluation reports will form the basis of the NRC restart review.

Tae NRC review and follow-up of the root cause issues (management issues)

.oula include the following:

(!) Review CP&L's improvement initiatives from the Performance Improvement Program that is to be provided in response to the June 23, 1992, letter from the Region !! Administrator. The initial review of the program will be an overall determination of its adequacy to effectively deal with the management issues. A response to the licensee will be provided.

(2) Observe the results of the improvement plan. This effort would include regularly scheduled meetings with the CP&L management and-performance inspections in key areas where the management weaknesses have caused the deficiencies. The results will be documented in meeting summaries, inspection reports and SALPs.

Ine follow-up and resolution of each of the issues listed in Enclosure 1 require the coordinated effort of NRR and Region 11. The " lead Office" designated in Enclosure 1 represents the office responsible for managing resolution of the issues and assuring the issuance of the documented work -

products (e.g., inspection recorts and safety evaluations). Enclosure 3-is a-scnedule of action by NRR and Region !!.

',()se Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Region 11 Reactors Division of Reactor Projects - 1/11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: J. Partlow

5. Varga T. Murley

5. Ebneter W. Russell i

l l

• % %6 pax- -.

wx >ps - - -- -- - - - - . - .

ENCLOSURE '

ISSUES AT BRUNSWICK

, SOURCE LEAD >

(1) Management expectations, standards E6, 01 R II (2) Management involvement, oversight, E7 R !!

communication (3) Management control, communication E8 R 11 (4) Work process deficiencies E9 R II (5) Self assessment, inadequate Elo, 03,.89 R Il corrective action (6) Lack of management leadership, 02 R !!

support for improvements (7) Method / criteria for prioritizing Ell, E12 R- 11 corrections (8) Root cause for lack.of timely correction of B1, B7 R !!

walls -

(9) Root cause for IAP failure E13 R II' (10) Equipment corrosion El R II' (11)- Seismic qualification of walls, E3, H NRR including:

(a) wall bolt insp/ sampling program 82, 83 (b) insp/ analysis program for 84 reinforced concrete walls (c) basis for design values B14 (d) QC for bolt torque values BIS (e) non-uniform steel-angles, braces B16 (f) control room stairwell walls F4 (g) validate IE8 80-11 B10 (h) unreinforced concrete wall calculations C1 (12) Backlog of work-arounds _

E4 R II (13) Structural Steel issues related to E3, G NRR design, analysis,' verification criteria

s., . .. , + . ; s; p a . 5 ,

i.

- (b) MCC mounting 'F2, F3

, (C) HVAC supports F1 (d) expansion anchors, IES 79-02 F4, H (e) conduit, raceway supports FS, F6, H (f) structural steel installation F12, F13, defect < FIS (g) tornado proof issues:

1) DG exhaust F7

11) control bldg HVAC F8 iii) Fire protection stations F9, F10 iv) resin storage rm, RB Fil v) Scram discharge volume pipe F16 (15) Short term structural integrity NRR issues: Bil (a) scope of backlog; B12 (b) schedule of correction: 813 (c) basis for existing analysis (16) ISI RPV and major components F14 R II (17) Design Guide II.20, adequacy for B6 NRR operability criteria (18) Backlog of maintenance, e.g., EDG E2 R II (19) IG referrals 1G (20) Allegations R II-(21) 01 referrals 01 (22) Spent Fuel Pool Leakage _(TIA 92-16) ____NRR

• Some items already resolved, but included for completeness L

l l

l

'4

. . e :, c SOUR G OF IS30E5 (A); -April 9, 1992 Letter to CP&L from Steve _Varga Masonry Block-Walls Questions tn this letter were included .

and superceded by letterLdated April 27, 1992-  !

.(B) April 27, 1992 Letter to CP&L from Steve.Varga.

Masonry Block Walls This letter has'a list of questions / issues des _ignated~as Bl to 816 as marked. -

(C) May-12, 1992 Technical Meeting with CP&L at White Flint <

NRR requested calculations for unreinforced '

concrete walls. -This item'is designated as item Cl.

(D) May 27, 1992 Special Inspection Report-.(SIR) 92-12 The SIR identifies-three root causes of the-continuing performance _ problems that have to be addressed.- These are designated as 01 to 03. -

(E) June 23, 1992 istter to CP&L from S. Ebneter This letter contains a list of _ issues to be addressed by CP&L. This list designated as-

-items El through E13, as marked. '

(F) June-19, 1992 Inspection Report 192-15,l Routine Inspection by the SRI This IR includes a list of " additional problems".-_

These are designated as issues F1 to F16' (G) July 8, 1992 Inspection Report-92-14, Inspection on -

Seismic-Deficiencies by ORS  :

This IR. includes a number of issues on '

physical deficiencies

-(H) April 29, 1992 Inspection Report 92-10, Special Engineering', _

Technical. Support This inspection initiated the identification'of wall anchorage issues-

_u

- - m - .m.___ -

g

. ENCLOSURE 3 SCHEDULE OF ACTION July 7-S, 1992 Site visit and meeting w/ CP&L re " Structural Steel

• revied (NRR/Rll)

July 16, 1992 Meeting w/ CP&L, restart issues (NRR/Ril)

July 16, 1992 CP&L letter response to SVarga April 27, 1992, letter July 20, 1992 Telecon response to CP&L on overall acceptability of CP&L's structural steel review plan, re: walkdown procedure and interim criteria (NRR)

July 23, 1992 CP&L response to S. Ebneter June 23, 1992, letter with Performance Improverent Program (P!P)

August 7, 1992 Telecon with CP&L on overall concerns (if any) with regard to Cp1L's response to S. Varga's April 27, 1992, letter (NRR)

August 10, 1992 First monthly meeting w/ CP&L management for CP&L to report progress & implemo?tation of PIP (Rll/NRR)

August 14, 1992 Response to CP&L's PIP (Ril)

September 9, 1992 Complete SE on seismic qualification of walls and structural steel (NRR)

September 15, 1992 Issue letter to CP&L transmitting the SE on seismic '

qualification of walls and structural steel (NRR)

September 18, 1992 Complete inspection / trip report on verification of implementation (RII/NRR) -

Septemoer 30, 1992 issue letter regarding restart (Ril/NRR)

_ _ - _ _ _ _ -____- - - _ _