ML20153D428

Insp Repts 50-317/86-01 & 50-318/86-01 on 860113-17.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Actions in Response to IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design

ML20153D428
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	02/14/1986
From:	Varela A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153D413	List: ML20153D408 ML20153D428
References
50-317-86-01, 50-317-86-1, 50-318-86-01, 50-318-86-1, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8602240145
Download: ML20153D428 (9)

See also: IR 05000317/1986001

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report Nos. 50-317/86-01

50-318/86-01

Docket Nos. 50-317

50-318

License Nos. OPR-53 Priority --

Category C

DPR-69

Licensee: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

P. O. Box 1475

Baltimore, Maryland 21203

Facility Name: Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

Inspection At: Gaithersburg and Lusby, Maryland

Inspection Conducted: January 13-17, 1986

Inspector: [. 2- / 2 - %

A. A. Varela, Lead Reactor Engineer date

NRC Contract Personnel: M. E. Nitzel, EG&G, Idaho, Inc.

T. L. Bridges, EG&G, Idaho, Inc.

Approved by:

C

b 9 1-/ 80

J.Moc.Wiggins,CKi,e'f[Materialsand date

P esses SectiM, 8, DRS

Inspection Summary: Inspection on January 13-17, 1986 (Report

Nos. 50-317/86-01 and 50-318/86-01).

Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection by a region-based inspector

and two NRC contractor personnel at the Gaithersburg office of the A-E and at

the licensee plant site. The inspection concerned licensee actions in response

to the NRC/IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design. This included verification

of actions undertaken and work performed in surveys of the as-built walls,

,

engineering analyses and calculations to qualify the walls and, in modifica-

tions precipitated by the bulletin. The inspectors also verified the licen-

see's. quality control and quality assurance activities related to the above.

The inspection involved 49 inspector hours at the A-E's office, 42 at the

plant site and 12 inspector hours of in office review.

Results: No violation was identified.

4

860EG240145 EkbO218

PDR ADOCK 05000317

G PDR

l .

.

DETAILS-

1. Persons Contacted

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) _

• A. Anuje, Supervisor Quality Assurance

• M. Bowman, General Supervisor Tech Services

• S. :owne, Licensing Engineer

• M. Gahan, Senior Engineer

• J. Lippold, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Services Department

B. S. Montgomery, Licensing

• G. O'Connell, Associate Engineer

L. Salyards, Principal Engineer-Licensing

A. Thornton, General Supervisor, Plant and Project Engineering

• G. Wasson, Supervisor, Quality Assurance-

f

'

• M. Gahan, Senior Engineer

O. Ward, Principal Engineer

Bechtel Power Corporation (BC)

J. Brothers, Chief, Quality Engineer

• S. Close, Civil Group Supervisor

M. J. Kaplow, Project Quality Engineer

D. Stewart, Project Engineer

• M. H. Williams, Resident Engineer

( * denotes attendees at Exit Interview

2. Inspection Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this inspection was to review with cognizant and respon-

sible licensee and A-E representatives at Bechtel Engineering office and

the plant the completeness of their responses to NRC/IE Bulletin 80-11,

l Masonry Wall Design. The scope of the inspection included a review of

! engineering design and quality assurance documentation relating to inspec-

l tion, testing, analysis and modifications satisfying requirements and

licensee commitments with respect to the bulletin. A walkdown inspection

of the plant verified repairs and/or modifications relating to the

t. bulletin.

3. Review Criteria

i

The latest revision of the bulletin was used to define required actions

i by the utility. In addition, Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/37 was used

to further define-inspection requirements. Applicable sections 'of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50) were also used.

l

L

., . . . . - . . . - . - . - . . - . -

b

1

-. ,. . - . .

, ',' 2- ,

'

,

,

p

4 .- Review of Licensee Responses i

The inspection team reviewed bulletin responses,available from NRC. files

prior to the inspection., Any items _ of noncomplianceLor.those. requiring

further discussion-were noted as items to be addressed while at the- ~ *

' corporate office.or plant-site. Questions-relating to licensee. bulletin

-

responses were. forwarded.to BG&E in advance _of the inspection as

-

preliminary agenda'for discussion.

'

The' inspection team reviewed additional material provided by thE licensee

2 during the. inspection. This material consisted of additional procedures-

governing-the.. inspection and modification of masonry walls,.' personnel

i.

training records for those persons involved in plant' survey activities,

calculations for the required reanalysis,. field survey packages, modift- '

j_ cation work packages and QC records of same. The pertinent documents >

], described above for IEB 80-11 are listed in Tables 1 and'2.

Findings:

No violations or significant unresolved items.resulted from the reviews

j described above.

t

5. Verification Walkdown Inspection

l. '

j A physical inspection ~of certain masonry: walls subject to bulletin action

i was conducted. The walls included in this sample were chosen by the

i inspection team. The purpose of this walkdown was to verify samples of.

inspections and/or modifications required by the bulletin. The walls

shown in Table 3 were examined.

Findings: -

. No violations were identified. However, one~ unresolved item resulted from

the plant walkdown. -Further detatis regarding-this item are given below.

On January 16, 1986, 11 masonry block walls'were field inspected by the

inspection team. The results of this effort indicated that: field condi-

tions appeared consistent with those indicated in the~11censee's surveys-

'

and analyses except for two walls ~in one area. . Wall T at elevation 45 ft.

in the Unit 1 auxiliary building was found to,have- boundary conditions -

deviating from those used in the' analysis. Relative motion between the

wall and ceiling beam was observed and the mortar' joint b~etween:the wall'

and the' ceiling beam appeared cracked for its-_ entire-length _._-At'some

points this-joint contained voids such tha' obing of the interior of 2

4

the wall could be accomplished. Wall U t t is same elevation is adjacent'

to wall-T. Wall U also showed evidence ~ot : racking 'at the wall to. ceiling -

. beam mortar joint. The licensee's , reanalysis. for wall-T assumed a l simple -

support at the wall to ceiling beam location. The reanalysis for wall U

~

assumed a fixed support at this location. Consequently, it was the con-

! clusion of the inspection team that the actual _ boundary conditions deviated.

):

i

t

3

' -- , , ,. e - ,. ,,n - , - , ._ , , , , , , - , ., ,- , ,-m ~ - -

.

.

3

from.those assumed in the reanalysis for wall T and U. Subsequent effort

by the licensee's personnel disclosed that no steel dowels or other con-

nection could be found in wall T. On January 17,1986, the inspection team

field verified walls EE and CC in Unit 2 which correspond to walls T and U

in Unit 1. Walls EE and CC did not show any evidence of relative motion

at the wall to ceiling beam joint. It was concluded that these walls

probably did contain a positive connection and the reanalysis was, there-

fore, acceptable. Based upon the reviews discussed above, the inspection

team concluded that the deviating conditions found in walls T and U were

an isolated case.

6. Licensee Response To Above Concern

The licensee acknowledged the findings discussed above. Licensee repre-

sentatives stated at the exit interview a proposal to study available

options for remedial actions for the walls T and U and to submit a letter

to the NRC inspector by January 24, 1986 to provide results of preliminary

analyses and subsequent corrective action plans. This letter was received

at the NRC regional office and is herewith described as the licensee's

formal response to the unresolved item:

To formulate a comprehensive plan of action leading to the resolution of

this concern, a detailed review of the boundary' conditions, geometric

properties, and assumptions made to perform the original evaluation of

these walls, was undertaken.

The licensee's review indicated the approach used in the evaluation,

conservatively neglected the stiffening effect afforded by the steel

framed concrete landings connected to the walls at elevations 51'4",

57'-0" and 63'-4".

Thus, the original evaluation considerably underestimated the capacity of

the walls, since the boundary conditions assumed, yielded conservations

above those outlined in its rcsponse to the IEB of June 12, 1985.

In light of the apparent margins available in the design of the walls in

question, the licensee did not believe that a safety implication existed.

However, in order to effect a comprehensive approach to the resolution of

the inspector's question and document the safety margins, the following

options were being considered:

1. Quantify all available margins by reperforming detailed analysis of

the walls. The analysis would consider plate action of the walls,

the support afforded by the stair landings and the as-built

condition of the walls.

2. Restore the conservations inherent in the original evaluation by

providing lateral support at the top of the walls. This option would

involve the addition of steel shapes at the top of the walls to

transfer lateral loads to the concrete floor slab.

-

,

7 .

.

..

-

,

4

-

~

3. Depending on the. accessibility .ofIcertain portions of the walls,L a

combination-of' options 1 and 2 would also be considered.

Upon completion' of this. work, the licen:ee agreed to submit a report

~

~

summarizing the~ options used and-out!!ni g the results. This report

should be completed by April 1, lho.

The licensee believed that the problems with walls T and U were not

generic. Several--reasons support this conclusion:

A '. The mirror-image wall in Unit 2, ."EE", which sees similar operating

conditions, appears to be in excellent shape.

B. Numerous ~ walls viewed during the licensee walkdowns typically show-

high. quality workmanship.

C; The walkdown survey package for Na11 "T" was the onlyLone

. representing a concern.

The inspector considered the above. described response acceptable. . NRC

followup action on the work a'nd review'of the report will be undertaken'

during a subse'quent' inspection. 'However, pending the results~of the

licensee's analysis this area would be considered unresolved,

(UNR 50-317/86-01).

7. Review of Licensee Admints'trative Controls and Quality Assurance

In determining the adequacy of administrative controls for assuring

quality work, the inspector examined records of BG&E surveillances of

wall as-built surveys, audits of BC engineering design, wall modification -

packages and surveillance of the wall modifications.. The inspector also:

verified the qud ifications of personnel-engagedtin the above-and evalu-

ated their effectiveness to assure quality in the' items covered. Addi-

tionally, the inspector verified the availability and'retrievability of,

pertipant documents, and reviewed procedures that established those

requi rements'. Based on this examination and review, the inspector ascer-

tained that BG&E's administrative controls were adequate. Where surveil-

la_nce and audit findings'were observed, their' follow-up corrective action

and close out were formally accepted by QA.

~ 8. Conclusion -

Based on the.above observations, the inspector concluded that.BG&E's

responses to IEBU 80-11-and its commitment to resolve the related

technical item identified in paragraph 5 were considered satisfactory.

NRC/IE BU 80-11 is therefore considered closed.

,

_ _ . . . . . _

.

.

5

(

9. Definition of Unresolved Items

Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in

order to ascertain whether they are acceptable, violations, or deviations

relative to the bulletin. requirements. An unresolved item identified

, during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 5.

10. Exit Meeting.

The NRC inspector conducted an exit meeting with licensee representatives

and A/E personnel (denoted in paragraph 1). The NRC inspector summarized

the inspection findings and the licensee acknowledged these comments. At.

no time during he inspection was written material, other than that des-

,

cribed in paragraph'4, provided to licensee personnel.

.

4

1

e

V

i

i

.

.

.

'

.

<

Table 1 - ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED

Document Description *

---

Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) internal memorandum

regarding required notification of the civil / structures group

for any future masonry wall modifications.

.

---

Training records for personnel involved in field surveys of'

masonry walls.

C-4200.C Bechtel inspection checklists and masonry wall survey forms for

the following individual walls:

A elev. 27'

D elev. 27'

R elev. 27'

UU elev. 27'

D elev. 69'

E elev. 69'

R elev. 69'

X elev. 69'

F elev. 45'

M elev. 45'

T elev. 45'

U elev. 45'

J elev. -10'

A elev. S'

F elev. 5'

D elev. 5'

EE elev. 45'

CC elev. 45'

ZZ elev. 69'

FCR 80-1024 Facility Change Request (FCR) forms and work package 'documen-

tation regarding modifications made to wall ZZ at eleva-

tion 69 ft.

C-4200.1 Bechtel civil staff verification report for the "BLOCKWALLS"

computer program.

---

D. J. Brogdon (Bechtel) letter to J. B. Brothers (Bethtel)

regarding construction practices used in masonry block walls at

Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.

---

K. S. Sibley (Bechtel) letter to J. C. Ventura (Bechtel)

regarding construction practices used in masonry block walls.at

-

Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.

--

...

.

-.

Table 2 - Calculation Packages Reviewed

Calc. No. Wall Elev. (ft.) Field Inspection

C-4205.ZZ ZZ 69 - Yes

C-4204.T -T 45 Yes

'C-4204.F F .45 Yes-

C-4205.0 0 69 ,Yes

C-4204.M M 45- No

C-4204.U U 45 No

C-4205.E E 69 Yes-

C-4205.R R 69 Yes

C-4205.X X 69 Yes-

C-4205.EE EE 45 Yes

NOTE: The calculation packages above included the original reanalysis

calculations based on elastic methods and inelastic methods if they

were used. Any revisions to the calculations were also included in

the packages and were reviewed.

,

4

T\ 6

. . . . _ . .. . _

, __ _ . _

.

_ _ _ .

,

4

.

'

.

i ,

- Table 3 - MASONR'Y WALLS FIELD VERIFIED

-Wall Elevation (ft.)' ' Location -

A- 27- Aux. Bldg.

D 27 Aux. Bldg.

R -27 Aux. Bldg.

F 45 Aux.. Bldg.

T 45 Aux. Bldg.

U- 45 Aux. Bldg.

EE 45 Aux. Bldg.

CC 45 Aux.' Bldg.

D 69 . Aux. Bldg.

E 69 Aux. Bldg.

R 69 Aux. Bldg.

X. 69 . Aux. Bldg.

ZZ 69 Aux. Bldg.

i

'l

l

..