ML20151N182
| ML20151N182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1988 |
| From: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Johnston W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8808080133 | |
| Download: ML20151N182 (4) | |
Text
1 PHILAD ELPHI A ELECTRIC COM PANY 2301 M ARKET STREET
"' ^ ~ * * *
- P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHI A. PA,19101 eW lbhC
,,,nn (215) 841 4oo0 NUCLE AR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 Mr. William V. Johnston, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission ATTN: Docurrent Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Special Safety Inspection Regarding IE Bulletin 80-11, Mascnry Walt Design
References:
(1) Combined Inspection Report Nos.
50-277/87-16; 50-278/87-16 dated August 6, 1987.
(2) Response to Ccmbined Inspection Report' No. 50-277/87-16, 50-278/87-16, S. J. Kowalski (PECO) to W. V. Johnston (NRC) dated Septenber 3,1987.
(3) Letter from S. L. Daltroff (PECO) to B. H. Grier (NRC) dated July 2,1980.
(4) Letter from S. L. Daltroff (PECO) to B. H. Grier (NRC) dated May 4, 1981.
Dear Mr. Johnston:
Your letter of August 6, 1987 (Referenco 1) provided the results of the special safety inspection conducted Utne 16-19, 1987.
The inspection reviewed Philadelphia Electric Cctrpany (PECO) responses and subsequent analysis and rrodifications of masonry walls related to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Der.lgn. One violation and one unresolved Item were identified.
In our response to the Cctrbined Inspectlon Reports (Reference 2),
f the corrective actions that would be taken in order to assure compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterlon V as it applies to IE Bulletin 80-11 were described, and a conmitment was made to submit the results of the actions taken upon their completion.
This letter provides information regarding the corrective actions taken, the results of these actions, and the status of actions not yet ccrrpl eted. This letter also provides supplemental Information regarding unresolved item 50-277/87-16-02 and 50-278/87-16-02.
\\
t t
gp0 33 e80727 i
0 CK 05000277 pdc
6-
-2 In order to confirm that all masonry walls whose failure could affect safety related equipment wero !dentifled, an Engineering Division procedure was prepared, reviewed, approved and Issued. The procedure provides the scope and criteria for the identification, survey, and classification of nasonry walls at Peech Bottom, Units 2 & 3.
A copy of the procedure (ME 3.5) is included as Attachment 1.
A carplete plant survey In Units 2 & 3 and conmon areas has been perfonned in accordance with the requirements of the procedure. As a result of the plant survey, a total of 478 nasonry walls have been Identified and 95 of the 478 nasonry walls have been classified as safety related. Also, as a result of the plant survey, a total of 158 nasonry-filled blockouts have been identified In concrete walls.
Twenty-nine (29) of the 158 have been classified as safety related.
During the course of the plant survey, procedure Exhibit ME 3.5-I was completed as each roan / area of the plant was inspected. As the Identifled nasonry walls and blockouts were surveyed and classified, Exhibits ME 3.5-11 and ME 3.5-111 vere completed to list safety related and non-safety related walls and blockouts. Coples of completed Exhibits ME 3.5-II & III aro included as Attachments 2 and 3.
The Infonnation contained in Attachments 2 and 3 supersedes the lists of safety related and non-safety related walls that were provided in PECO's original response to item (1) of IE Bulletin 80 (References 3 and 4).
All of the safety related walls have been analyzed in accordance with the nethodology and re-evaluation criterla originally established in response to IE Bulletin 80-11, I tan 2.
All loads resulting from the resurvey of systens and equipnent attached to the walls have been considered in the analysis.
Of the 95 safety related walls IIsted in Exhibit ME 3.5-II, nine (9) had not been classified as safety related in the original response (References 3 S 4).
Based on the results of the analysis of these nine (9) walls, four (4) walls require nodification in order to nmet the re-evaluation criteria for nasonry walls (Walls 19.1, 19.2, 56.3, and 413.1),
bbdif! cations fcr walls 19.1, 19.2, and 413.1 have been designed and issued for inplanentation. Wall 56.3 will be removed. Wall modification work is in progress.
Modification work In Unit 2 and connon areas (19.1,19.2 and 56.3) will be completed before the startup of Unit 2.
Modification work in Unit 3 (413.1) will be completed before the startup of Unit 3.
All of the safety related blockouts have been analyzed in accordance with the nethodology and re-evaluation criteria estabilshed for nasonry walls in response to IE Bv11etin 80-11. These blockouts were not identified in previous submittals in response to the IE Bulletin.
Exploratory core boring of sane blockouts was performed in order to confinn the type of nasonry that was used to fill the blockout.
Of the 29 safety related blockouts IIsted in Exhibit ME 3.5-II, 10 reautre rrodification in order to meet the re-evaluation criteria for masonry walls.
A separate modification for each blockout had to be designed due to the size of each blockout and the unique quantity.and location of
- equirrnent that penetrated each blockout. All modifications have been issued and insta11atIon is in progress. Work will be ccrnpleted on blockouts in Unit 2 and ccanon areas prior to the startup of Unit 2.
Work will be ccrmleted on blockouts in Unit 3 prior to the startup of Unit 3.
In order to address the unresolved item (87-16-02) Identified in the Ccribined Inspection Reports (Reference 1), we ccmnitted to chip out the mortar joint at three (3) of the walls inspected by the NRC and confirm that the anchor bolts exist.
The trortar joints at three (3) walls were chipped out; one in the Unit 2 reactor building, one in the Unit 3 reactor building, and one in the emergency cooling tower.
Anchor bolts at the Interface with a reinforced concrete wall were confirmed at the Unit 2 reactor building wall only.
As a result of the inconsistency in anchor bolt placement, every location where a masenry wall adjoins a concrete wall was identifled.
Each wall was reviewed in order to determine if the wall could be quallfled assuning that anchor bolts did not exist.
Every location could be quallfled except at 21 walls where the analysis depends on the exit.,tence of anchor bolts in order to assure Integrity of the wall under all loading conditions.
For each of the 21 walls, the existence of anchor bolts will be confirmed at the concrete / masonry Interface or a modification will be Installed that will assure end support for the walls. Typical details of the modification to be Installed are included as Attachment 4.
Work will be cctmleted at Unit 2 and ccmnon area walls prior to the startup of Unit 2.
Work will be ccrmleted at Unit 3 walls prior to the startup of Unit 3.
The implementation of procedure ME 3.5 assures that all safety related masonry walls at Peach Bottcm, Units 2 & 3 have been Identified, fleid surveyed and classified as required by IE Bulletin 80-11, item 1.
To assure continued ccrm11ance with IE Bulletin 80-11, a specification for control of nodifications and attachments to trasonry walls (M-701) was prepared and issued in Decenter,1987.
The specification provides the criteria to be followed by all personnel involved in the design and installation of plant rrodifications and routine plant maintenance work. Adherence to the criteria contained In the specification will assure continued ccrmliance with IE Bulletin 80-11.
Specification M-701 supersedes the Interim control of attachments and nodifications, which had been in effect.
r
-4
.n In conclusion, we believe that we have taken the necessary corrective actions to assure compilance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as it applies to IE Bulletin 80-11.
We believe that actions have been undertaken which will also ensure continued compliance with Appendix B and IE Bulletin 80-11. Open itsus identifled in the PECo response to the Inspection Report (Reference 2) have been completed.
If you have any questions or require additional infornetton, please do not hesitate to call us.
Very uly yours,
/
. y-Ic President Nuclear Engineering DM0/v1J/06278803 A',t achment s cc: Addressee W. T. Russell, Administrator, Region I, USNRC R. E. Martin, Project Manager, NRR, US NRC T. P. Jchnson, Resident Site Inspector T. E. Magette, State of Maryland l
l l
i I