ML20204F508
| ML20204F508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1986 |
| From: | Varela A, Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204F505 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-86-10, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8608040206 | |
| Download: ML20204F508 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000245/1986010
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
.
Report No.
50-245/86-10
Docket No.
50-245
License No.
DpR-21
Priority
Category
C
-
Licensee: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
P. O. Box 270
Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
Facility Name: Millstone Nuclear Station, Unit 1
Inspection At: Berlin and Waterford, Connecticut
Inspection Conducted: June 23-27, 1986
7duy '4 /,19 6$
Inspectors:
-
'
A. A. Varela, H ad Reactor Engineer
date
NRC Contract Personnel:
M. E. Nitzel, EG&G, Idaho
V. B. Call,
EG&G, Idaho
Approved by:
b u A+
7!Lf!P[
'
@ Processes % Chief, Materials and
'dat6
T. Wi g'gi/1
fon, EB, DRS
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on June 23-27, 1986 (Inspection Report Number
50-245/86-10).
Areas Inspected:
Special announced inspection by a region-based inspector and
two NRC contractor personnel at the licensee's engineering office and the
Millstone plant site. The inspection encompassed review of licensee responses
and subsequent analysis and modifications of masonry walls in response to IE
Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design.
This inspection included a walkdown of
i
existing walls affected by safety related equipment, a review of design
'
analyses and a review of work packages on wall modifications.
Results: No violations were identified.
!
I
l
!
B600040206 860729
ADOCK 05000245
'
G
l
. . - . - . . .-
.
.
.
. . _ . .
. _ _ . ,
- - - .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
1.0 Persons Contacted
Northeast Utilities Service Company
(NUSCO)
- W. J. Briggs, Supervisor Generation, Civil Engineering
- E. P. Ferkins, Licensing Engineer
J. Quinn, Senior Engineer
- D. Robinson, Senior Engineer
- R. N. Smart, Manager Generation, Civil Engineering
- R. Werner, Vice President
Cygna Energy Services
(CYGNA)
- G. Dyckman, Project Manager
- Denotes those present at exit meeting conducted on June 27, 1986.
2.0 Inspection Purpose And Scope
The purpose of this inspection was to review, with cognizant and re-
sponsible licensee representatives at the corporate office and the plant,
t
the completeness of the licensee's responses to NRC/IE Bulletin 80-11,
Masonry Wall Design.
The scope of the inspection included a review of
engineering design and quality assurance documentation relating to in-
,
spection, 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 Bul-
letin 80-11 efforts.
3.0 Review Criteria
The latest revision of the Bulletin was used to define expected actions
by the utility.
In addition, Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/37 was
i
used to further define inspection requirements. Applicable sections of
l
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50) were used.
4.0 Review Of Licensee Responses
The inspection team reviewed Bulletin responses available from NRC files
!
prior to the inspection. These responses included reports addressing the
j
reevaluation methodology, acceptance criteria, wall configurations and
(
functions, structural adequacy, proposed modification plans, and modifi-
l
cation schedules. Table I lists those documents reviewed prior to the
inspection. Any items of noncompliance or those requiring further dis-
'
cussion were noted as items to be addressed while at the corporate office
or plant site. Questions relating to licensee responses were forwarded to
.
.
3
the licensee in advance of this inspection as a preliminary agenda for
discussion.
The inspection team reviewed additional material provided by the licensee
during the inspection.
This material consisted of work instructions govern-
.ing analysis efforts, reevaluation calculations, structural adequacy calcu-
lations for wall modifications, field modification requests (FMR's) and
construction work packages for wall modifications, as-built drawings result-
ing from initial wall surveys, modification detail drawings, and written
procedures regarding QA/QC control.
The pertinent documents described
above for IEB 80-11 are listed in Tables 2 and 3.
4.1 Findings:
It was determined from the review of the documentation
described above that, in general, all aspects of the work done in
response to the subject Bulletin were acceptable. However, two items
resulted from the reviews described above which warranted further
discussion with the licensee.
a.
IEB 80-11 required the inspection and reevaluation of safety
related masonry walls to assure structural adequacy.
In order
to assure the continued acceptability of the walls in question,
physical conditions such as absence of mortar cracking and as-
sumed boundary conditions are important considerations. The
licensee was asked if a surveillance plan had been developed for
routine inspection of masonry walls subject to Bulletin action
to demonstrate that satisfactory conditions were being main-
tained. No formal plan for routine surveillance had been de-
veloped to date.
The licensee was requested to review this
concern and to consider the need for providing additional proce-
dure (or procedures) which would be used to control and document
continued acceptability of the physical conditions of the subject
walls,
b.
The insnectors questioned the procedural controls which governed
mortar joint repair work.
During this inspection procedural
controls over mortar joint repairs, other than those accom-
plished in conjunction with other wall modifications, were not
found. The licensee was requested to provide clarification re-
garaing the existence or need for:
procedures which governed repair of mortar joints when not
-
accomplished as part of other wall modifications.
procedures which govern repair of mortar joints performed
-
by NUSCO maintenance.
4.2 Licensee's Response To Above I_tems:
The licensee representatives acknowledged the items and agreed to
perform the appropriate reviews.
1
.
.
4
'
5.0 Verification Walkdown Inspection
A physical inspection of certain masonry walls subject to Bulletin action
was conducted. The walls included in this sample were chosen by the
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 4 were examined.
5.1 Findings: A detailed examination of the walls listed in Table 4
revealed that these samples were consistent with the licensee's
walkdown drawings and modification packages.
No violations or unresolved items resulted from the plant walkdown.
6.0 Review of Licensee Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance
To determine the licensee's implementation of its quality assurance respon-
sibilities relating to engineering services and to contractor activities
for the subject Bulletin, the inspector selected for review the following
documentation on procedural requirements and QA reporting:
NUSCO Procedure NQA-2.10 revision 2, Performance, Reporting and
-
Follow-Up of Surveillance Activities.
Cygna Work Instruction, WI-1 revision 3 for Detailed Walkdown of
-
Masonry Walls.
Cygna Work Instruction, WI-2 revision 1, for QC Inspection of the
-
Detailed Walkdown of Masonry Walls.
Cygna Work Instruction WI-3 revision 1, for Re-Evaluation of Masonry
-
Walls and Design Modifications.
Cygna Work Instruction WI-4 revision 0, for General Arrangement
-
As-Built Drawings for Masonry Wall Modifications.
Cygna Inspection / Surveillance Reports number 1 through 33, July 1980
-
- October 1981.
Nusco QA Surveillance Reports of Mercury Company's work performance
-
and quality controls on masonry wall modifications - 20 reports and 5
corrective action follow-up reports covering period from December
1980 through March 1981.
Based on the above review, the inspector determined that the administra-
tive controls were adequate and effective to assure quality.
Sufficient
inspections and verifications were performed to assure conformance
of the work to established requirements, specifications and drawings.
No violations were identified.
-
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
l
.
.
5
7.0 Summary
Based on the observations described in this repart, the inspectors
considered Bulletin 80-11 closed.
8.0 Exit Meeting
The NRC inspector conducted an exit meeting, participated in by EG&G con-
)
tract personnel, with licensee representatives and its contractor or A/E
i
personnel (denoted in paragraph 1). The NRC inspector summarized the in-
spection findings and the licensee acknowledged these comments. At no
time during the inspection was written material, other than that described
in paragraph 4, provided to licensee personnel.
l
l
l
1
l
i
l
!
l
l
c