ML19330A815
| ML19330A815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1980 |
| From: | Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 1-150, IEB-80-11, NUDOCS 8007290500 | |
| Download: ML19330A815 (5) | |
Text
,
i TOLEDO hm EDISON R.csana P Cnuou Docket No. 50-346 vo nesort user License No. NPF-3
'd
- W3 M'e '
Serial No. 1-150 July 14, 1980 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Director, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
IE Bulletin No. 80-11, dated Fby 8,1980, requires all power reactor facilities with an operating license (except Trojan, Sequoyah Unit 1, North Anna Unit 2, and Salem Unit 2) to evaluate for structural adequacy all walls which are in proximity to or have attachments from safety-related piping or equipme'nt such that wall failure could af fect a safety-related system. Attached is Toledo Edison's response to Items 1, 2a, and 3 to IE Bulletin No. 80-11 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, j
Unit No.
1.
i Due to the effort required to respond to Items 2b and 3 of the Bulletin, it is Toledo Edison's intention to submit a partial response to these 1
items on November 4, 1980 and a final report on June 1, 1981.
Very truly yours, pdk #!h, _;;;'_
/
RPC:LAH Attachment db c/15 1RMS 21 Web THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO. OHIO 43652 8ADie9nS W
Dockst No. 50-356 Licanse Ns. NFP-3 S2 rial No. 1-150
)
July 14, 1980 Masonry Wall Design Response to NRC IE Bulletin No. 80-11 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Item 1
" Identify all masonry walls in your facility which are in proximity to, or have attachments from, safety-related piping or equipment such that wall failure tould affect a safety-related system. Describe the systemt and equipment, both safety and non-safety-related, associated with these masonry walls.
Include in your review, masonry walls that are intended to resist impact or pressurization loads, such as missiles, pipe whip, pipe break, jet impingement, or tornado, and fire or water barriers, or shield walls. Equipment to be considered as attachments or in psbximity to the walls shall include, but is not limited to pumps, valves, motors, heat exchangers, cable trays, cable / conduit, HVAC ductwork, and electrical cabinets, instrumentation and controls.
Plant surveys, if necessaly, for areas inaccessibic during normal plant operation shall be performed at the earliers opportunity."
l i
Response to Item 1 A.
Summary and Conclusions A walkdown of the safety related structures was performed to identify all masonry walls in the station and to identify the attachments of systems and equipment both safety and non-safety related.
A total of 256 masonry walls were identified, of which 203 walls were walked down. The remaining 53 walls were excluded from the walkdown because a review determined that there were no safety-related components attached to the walls or in the~ rooms bounded by these valio.
The scope of the walkdown for this report did not include identification of safety-related components within proximity to the walls.
(Proximity is defined as within a distance equal to the height of the wall).
In the event i
that the analysis determines a wall to be inadequate, an extension of the walkdown will be performed in proximity to those specific walls.
This walkdown will consist of determining whether the wall is in the proximity to a safety related system not attached to the wall.
Systems falling in
~
this category will be identified and approximate location with respect to the wall will be described. This approach is also consistent with As Low As Reasonably Achievable practices in that it will minimize exposure of
' personnel performing the walkdown.
The initial walkdown began on May 27, 1980 and was completed on June 27, 1980.
B.
Walkdown Packages The walkdown data collection involves identification of all masonry walls and the associated attachments for those walls in proximity to or that have attachments from safety-related piping or equipment.
s r
Pcg2 2 cf 4
- j Design drawings detailing the location and construction of the masonry walls were utilized, and a field inspection verified that all walls were properly identified. The walls being walked down for this bulletin are located in the auxiliary building and intake structure. There are no masonry walls in the containment.
The walls are shown on the attached Figures 1 through 7.
Those walls that are excluded from the
, walkdown are noted on these figures.
Walkdown personnel recorded for each wall all significant attachments, both safety-related and non-safety-related.
This included identification of large pipe, small pipe, cable tray, conduit, wireway, instrument tubing, equipment, etc.
Items that may hase been attached to the wall but were not recorded (due to an insignificant weight) included grounding conduit, lighting conduit, communication equipment, exit signs, wall outlets, welding receptacles and security card readers.
In addition, color photographs were taken of all accessible walls, except for those walls having no attachments.
The photographs are provided to illustrate the location and quantity of components associated with the various masonry walls (See Appendix A).
The data recorded from the walkdown were compiled onto a " Wall Attachment Identification Table" (See Appendix B, which describes the wall attachments, associated piping systems and the associated safety-related systems for other components where applicable).
C.
Walkdown Procedure All masonry walls were walked down in accordance with a walkdown procedure PDL-1 entitled "Walkdown Procedure for Concrete Masonry Walls, IE Bulletin No. 80-11."
The procedure contains guidelines, measurement tolerances and steps to be followed for the field walkdown and completion of the detailed data packages to be used for the wall re-evaluation.
The field inspection activities were audited by Bechtel Project Quality Assurance to ensure compliance with the procedure.
D.
Walkdown Teams and Training A team of one or more qualified personnel was responsible for the identification and inspection of each block wall. The field effort was directed by two alternating supervisors having ten and eleven years of nuclear industry experience respectively.
Extensive classroom and field training was given to all the walkdown team members by the field supervisors.
The items covered in the training included elements to be daecked, methods of checking and documentation of existing conditions.
The qualifications, experience level and training for each member of the walkdown team is doc tmented and available for review.
E.
Masonry Wall Identification Appendix C contains in tabular form, an identification of masonry walls that are intended to resist applicable impact or pressurization loads including pipe whip, pipe break, jet impingement, tornado induced pressures, and walls
r-Pcg2 3 cf 4
'y that serve as fire, flood barriers, shield walls, and negative pressure boundaries.
Item 2a
" Establish a prioritized program for the re-evaluation of the masonry walls.
Provide a description of the program and a detailed schedule for completion of the re-evaluation for the categories in the program. The completion date of all re-evaluations should not be more than 180 days f rom the date of this Bulletin. A higher priority should be placed on the wall re-evaluations considering safety-related piping 21/2 inches or greater in diameter, piping with support loads due to thermal expansion greater thaa 100 pounds, safety-related equf pment weighing 300 pounds or greater, the safety significance of the potentially affected systems, the overall loads on the wall, and the opportunity for performing plant surveys and, if necessary, modifications in areas otherwise inaccessible. The factors described above are meant to provide guidance in determining what loads may significantly af fect the masonry wall analyses."
V.
Response to Item 2a A.
Prioritization for Analysis The safety-related and non-safety related components on each face of each wall were identified.
This identification provides an indication of many items associated with each wall, and it is assumed that the greater the number of large attachments, the greater the loadings to the walls.
The priority for analysis of the walls, based on attachments to the walls, in descending order, is as follows:
1.
Large safety-related pipe and large conduit 2.
Large safety-related pipe only 3.
Large safety-related conduit only 4.
Other safety-related components by number of those components 5.
Non-safety-related large pipe and large conduit 6.
Large non-safety-related pipe 7.
Large non-safety-related conduit 8.
Other non-safety-related components by number of those components 9.
No attadiments related to station operation The scheduled completion dates for the analysis, by priority, is presented in Appendix D.
Item 3
" Existing test data or conservative assumptions may be used to justify the re-evaluation acceptance criteria if the criteria are shown to be conser-
Pcg2 4 cf 4 vative and applicable for the actual plant conditions.
In the absence of appropriate acceptance criteria a confirmatory masonry wall test program is g
required by the NRC in order to quantify the safety margins inherent in the re-evaluation criteria. Describe in detail the actions planned and their schedule to justify the re-evaluation criteria used in Item 2.
If a, test program is necessary, provide your commitment for such a program and a sch,edule for submittal of a description of the test program and a schedule for completion of the program. This test program should address all appropriate loads (seismic, tornado, missile, etc.).
It is expected that the test progr:Im will extend beyond the 180 day period allowed 'or the other Bulletin actions.
Submit the results of the test program upon its completion."
Response to Item 3 Justification for the re-evaluation criteria will be submitted with a partial evaulation report on November 4, 1980. Justifications will be based on reference to effective codes and established standards of practice related to concrete and masonry design typically used throughout the industry.
It is anticipated that such justification will be considered appropriate, and that a test progra_ will not be necessary, except as required to determine project unique structural properties such as collar joint strength, and any l
other properties for which construction test data is not available or can not otherwise be determined.
1 o
k 9
.