ML20153D428
| 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: |
| 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
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
..