ML20212C133

Responds to 870219 Telcon W/J Strosnider & a Varela Re Potential Violation in 1980 Field Survey of Masonry Walls. Forwards Addl Info Supporting Survey Performed in Accordance w/10CFR50,App B,Criterion V

ML20212C133
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	02/26/1987
From:	Papanic G YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
FYR-87-018, FYR-87-18, NUDOCS 8703030719
Download: ML20212C133 (3)

Text

• o Telephone (617) 8178100 TWX 710-380 7619 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

. Wk

, YANKEE 1671 Worcester Road. Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 2.C2.1 February 26, 1987 FYR 87-018 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Office Washington, DC 20555

References:

(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket 50-29)

(b) Letter, USNRC to YAEC, dated March 7, 1978 (c) Letter, USJdC to YAEC, dated May 8, 1980 (d) Letter, YAEC to U5dRC, dated July 8, 1980 (e) Letter, USNRC to YAEC, dated December 31, 1981

Enclosure:

Memorandum, L. D. French to File, dated December 9, 1980

Subject:

NRC Region I Audit 87-01: Response to Identification of Potential Violation

Dear Sir:

This letter is written in response to an apparent violation in Yankee Atomic Electric Company's (YAEC) handling of IE Bulletin 80-11 [ Reference (d)].

While no violations were identified at the Audit 87-01 exit meeting, a potential violation was identified during a telephone conversation on February 19, 1987 between YAEC and Messrs. J. Strosnidr e and A. Varela of your staff.

The potential. violation concerns the manner in which YAEC performed a 1980 field survey of masonry walls.

Messrs. Strosnider and Varela indicated that, in their opinion, YAEC had (

not performed the 1980 masonry wall survey in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion V. During the telephone conversation, both gentlemen indicated that if additional pertinent information was available, the information should be submitted to Region I. We are therefore providing the following additional information. This information supports our position that the 1980 field survey uas not required to be performed, and that the survey was done in accordance with established instructions and procedures.

The evaluation of Yankee structures including masonry walls has been included within the scope of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) from its inception in 1977 The detailed definition of Topics III-o, Seismic Design, and III-7.B, Design Codes, Design Criteria and Load Combinations, covering masonry walls were identified by the NRC to us in a March 7, 1978 letter

[ Reference (b)]. Yankee uas in the process of evaluating ulasonry aalls with the NRC from this time through the issuance of IEB 80-11 until the present time. When the bulletin was issued in 1980, ne had not completed our evaluation criteria for masonry walls. Yankee had discussions with the NRC on uhat to do 5;ith IEB 80-11, which was obviously premature for Yankee action. This was acknowledged by Mr. T. Foley of the NRC in a 8703030719 870226 PDH ADOCK 05000029  % Qf G PDR

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 26, 1987 Page 2 FYR 87-018 telephone conversation with L. French and W. Henries of YAEC on December 8, 1980. The memorandum of that conversation is enclosed with this letter.

It was our belief at that time that Mr. Foley would contact NRC on incorpora-tion of the Bulletin into SEP and would inform us if this was not the case.

Subsequently, our understanding was confirmed in writing by the NRC in Reference (e).

The 1980 survey was performed in accordance with Ya'nkee's Engineering Manual.

The Engineering Manual incorporates quality controls in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix B, including Criterion V. The scope of the survey was established as required using Yankee Engineering Instructions and based on the design basis in affect at that time. The field survey was accomplished by senior engineers trained in the use of the Engineering Manual procedures and familiar with the plant and IEB 80-11 requirements. The results of the survey were documented in accordance with the Engineering Instructions and sent to . NRC in Reference (d).

Based on the timing of the Bulletin and the development of the evaluation criteria for masonry walls by SEP, it is clear to us that the 1980 survey was acceptable and could be only of limited use since the NRC and YAEC had not agreed to any evaluation criteria. No masonry ualls could have been left out of Bulletin work since we knew that the scope was changing and that new criteria would necessitate a resurvey of the walls. This was also recognized by the Region I auditors in their Audit 87-01 findings as presented by them at the audit exit meeting. The auditors required and YAEC agreed that a ualkdown finalizing the masonry wall scope will be performed within 60 days after the receipt of SERs for SEP Topics III-2, III-4A, and III-6.

It is therefore our position that the original survey was preliminary in  ;

nature,- was acceptable for its purpose and that the Bulletin work was recognized by the NRC and Yankee to be held open until the scope of the walls involved could be established in SEP. This is being finalized at this time and we will commit to completing a survey within 60 days of receipt of the NRC SERs.

If there are any questions regarding this information, we uould be happy to discuss them with you at your convenience.

Very truly yours, Yankee Atomic Electric Company pm, ,

G. Pa anic, Jr. / t GP/gbc Senior Project Engineer

• "* "E cc: USNRC Region I USNRC Resident Inspector USNRC Region I, Attention Mr. Stuart D. Ebneter, Director Division of Reactor Safety.

1

1. esi+i 5-78 MEMORANDUM l Yankee - ROWE , December 9, 1980 To File DATL GOMPANv oH loc AT ION From L. D. French M Yankee - ROWE File B.4.1.4 co- A~, on mocatio~

gj.)

Telcon with T. Foley, USNRC, and W.E. Henries, YAEC, December 8,1980 Suu' Ject

Reference:

IE Bulletin 80-11, Masonry Wall Design and response hTR 80-79.

Mr. Foley called to-determine why we were deferring analysis of masonry walls to SEP and attempt to have us speed up the schedule or comit .to perfoming analysis to the codes in effect at the time of construction.

Mr. Henries infomed Mr. Foley that we would not perfom analysis to the old codes since they were only for dead weight and wind loading and the walls have proven satisfactory. Bill went on to say that the design spectra has not been finalized yet, since we have not come to an agree-

. ment with the NRC and that the tentative schedule is: ARS around April 1, 1981, and completion of evaluation around the end of July /first part of-August, 1981.

Mr. Foley appeared to be satisfied and said he would relay the infor-mation.

O cc: HAA NNS -

JLS DBf i BLD

• JAK l

,,hHI

<. i I

l O .

l .

.- . _ _ - - . . _ _ . _ . - _ - , ,-