ML20204F508

Insp Rept 50-245/86-10 on 860623-27.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Responses & Subsequent Analysis & Mods to Masonry Walls in Response to IE Bulletin 80-11 & Design Analyses

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: ML20204F500 ML20204F508
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

Inspectors: -

' 7duy '4 /,19 6$

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[

T. Wi g'gi/1 ;

@ Processes % Chief, Materials and

'dat6

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

'

PDR ADOCK 05000245

G PDR

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-

'

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

!

l

i

l

!

l

l

c