IR 05000424/1986005

Insp Rept 50-424/86-05 on 860127-31,0213-17 & Reviews Conducted on 860106-0328.Module Presents Adequate Assessment of Util Process for Design & Const of Foundations.Compliance Verifiable W/Existing Documentation

ML20215C742
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/23/1986
From:	Conlon T, Imbro E, Novak T, Sinkule M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20215C731	List: IR 05000424/1986005 ML20215C729
References
50-424-86-05, 50-424-86-5, NUDOCS 8610100427
Download: ML20215C742 (25)

Text

r

, p Et7 UNITED STATES f 0q'o ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS'ON

' # ,^

O -

REGION 11 h ,

101 MARIETTA STREET, * * . ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

......ho Report No.: 50-424/86-05 Licensee: Georgia Power Company

<P.O. Box 4545 l Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket No'.: 50-424 Construction Permit No.: CPPR-108 Facility Name:- ~Vogtle Unit 1 Reviews conducted: January 6 - March 28, 1986

,

Onsite inspections: conducted January 27-31, 1986; and February 13-17, 1986 NRC Offices participating in inspections / reviews:

Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Bethesda, MD -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Bethesda, MD Region II, Atlanta, GA Reviewers: R. W. Parkhill, Inspection Specialist, IE L. W. Heller, Senior Task Manager, NRR

.

-Inspectors: J. R. Harris, Reactor Inspector, Region II J ., Lenahan, Reactor Inspector, Region II Approved y: d ? 3 [

T._E. Conlon, Chief Date Signed Plant Systems Section Division of Reactor Safety, Region II Einhm./ Bi M&cc&

E. V. Imbro, Chief '

Wz/Wu Date> Signed Licensing Section, Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs, IE MNe t&1 b

LL T. Novak, Deputy Direcfor Date j

Signed

- Division of PWR Licensing A

. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a L 7--

M. 7. Sinkule, Chief Date Sigried Projects Section 20 Division of Reactor Projects 8610100427 861001 PDR ADOCK 05000424 G PDR i

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

e-

~

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOPIC PAGE Summary 3 Scope of Review 4

' Methodology 4 Evaluations 6 Conclusion 23

-

.

.

V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNIT 1 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MODULE 13A FOUNDATION MATERIALS AND BACKFILL SUMMARY The Readiness Review Program is being conducted at the initiative of Georgia Power Company (GPC) management to assure that all design, construction and operational commitments have been properly identified and implemented at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1. Module 13A, which is the tenth Module submitted by Georgia Power Company, presents an assessment of the program for the design and construction of the foundations for Category I structures. This evaluation was conducted to determine if the results of the program review for foundations presented in this module are an effective and accurate assessment of design and construction requirements, that these requirements are being properly implemented, and that the resolution of findings identified in the module were correct and that the corrections were mad This evaluation was performed by NRC reviewers from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) and inspectors from Region II. The evaluation was accomplished through a detailed review of all sections of the module by: Verifying that design and construction commitments listed in the module are correct and comply with FSAR commitments and regulatory requirement . Reviewing the module findings and evaluating the correctness of their resolutio . Reviewing a comprehensive and representative sample of the records reviewed by the Readiness Review Staff and an independent sample of documents selected by the inspector . Walkdown observations of construction activitie During the review, it was apparent to the NRC reviewers and inspectors that GPC management supported the program by active participation in the development and implementation of the program. This evaluation also indicates that the

'

licensee's program review for foundations was comprehensive and provides adequate assurance that the foundations have been designed and constructed in accordance with NRC requirements and FSAR commitments. No additional NRC findings were identified during the review of this modul I i

i I

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

r

.

.

.

4 Scope of Review This review, which consisted of an examination of each section of the

, module, was performed by reviewers from NRR and IE and inspectors from the NRC Region II Office in Atlanta. Module Sections 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 and 8.0, which contain information concerning the module introduction, company organization, division of responsibilities, work processes, and conclusions regarding the assessment of the module, did not require as detailed a review or evaluation as the remaining sections. The more significant aspects of the module appear in Sections 3.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0. These sections discuss licensee commitments, methods of implementing commitments, results of audits and special investigations, methods of design and construction program verification and results of an independent design review. Review of these sections included a detailed review of the content, examination of items

'

identified as findings, an examination of a sample of records reviewed by the GPC Readiness Review Staff, and an examination of an independently selected sample of records. Methodology used for this review and an evaluation of each section are presented in the following paragraph . Methodology The review and evaluation by NRR which focussed on Section 3.0, Commitments, was conducted in the Bethesda office. Review of Section 3.0 was performed by comparing the applicant's licensing and project commitments and the corresponding source documents within Section 3.0 with the Standard Review Plan (SRP), Regulatory Guides, Industry Standards, NRC questions and answer records, the staff's SER and the FSA The review and evaluation by IE focussed on Section 7.0, Independent Design Review (IDR), Section 7.0 was reviewed in detail to determine the methodology and depth of review performed by the IDR inspection team. The review did not include a site visit or an independent review of calculations. It was determined, based on the design aspect addressed by this module and IE's direct inspection of civil / structural modules 1 and 8, and a planned inspection for Module 13C, that an in-office review of Section 7.0 was sufficient to determine the depth of review performed by the IDR

,

team.

.

The review and evaluation by Region II inspectors was accomplished by reviewing the module in its entirety in the Atlanta Regional Office beginning on January 6,1986, and by inspections at the Vogtle site on

' January 27-31, 1986 and February 10-11, 198 Section 1.0, Introduction, which presents an introduction to the intent and content of the module and Section 2.0, Organization and Division of Responsibility, which presents a description of the organization and responsibility for design and construction at foundations, were only reviewed for general content and needed background data.

! '

,

" - --- -, , - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - . . , - , , . , , , - , - - , , - ~

-

.

.

Review of Section 3.0, Commitments, was accomplished by examining the commitment and implementation matrices and by verifying that the applicable licensing and project commitments were being referenced and that these commitments were implemented. Verification that the applicable commitments were referenced and implemented was accomplished by reviewing the FSAR, SLR, design criteria, specifications, procedures, regulatory guides, applicable industry standards, and responses to NRC questions and generic letter Review of Section 4.0, Program Description, was accomplished by examining the four subsections, and comparing the described program with FSAR, specification and procedure requirements. The inspectors also compared the described program with the inspectors' understanding of program requirements that had been inspected against and reported in NRC inspection reports from 1974 to 198 Review of Section 5.0, Audits and Special Investigations, was accomplished by examining the three subsections, referenced audit and NRC findings, and construction problems identified in Subsection 5.3. Region II inspection reports were also reviewed to verify that the identified NRC findings and construction problems had previously been reviewed and addressed by the NR Review of Section 6.0, Program Verification, was accomplished by reviewing Subsections 6.1, Design Program Verification and 6.2, Construction Program Verificatio Review of Subsection 6.1, Design Program Verification, included a review of the referenced design criteria, design commitments, implementation of these commitments, design calculations, drawings, specifications, deviation reports and the finding involving violation of design control procedure Review of Subsection 6.2, Construction Program Verification, included a review of referenced licensing requirements and commitments, the six findings and associated corrective actions, and pertinent records for testing and placement of backfil Review of Section 7.0, Independent Design Revie. . -ss accomplished by reviewing the referenced FSAR requirements, desigr ct iteria, calculations and the 11 IDR Statf findings and their associated corrective action Design requirements and associated calculations were also discussed with the responsible Bechtel design engineer. The results of the IDR were examined by a reviewer from the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement and by a Region II inspector. The IE review consisted of a detailed in-office review of Section 7.0 of the module to determine the methodology and depth of the IDR, and review of the IDR findings and their resolution. The review by the Region II inspector consisted of a detailed review of Section 7.0 of the module, an independent review of the geotechnical design calculations, discussed in paragraph 3.f.(2)(a), and review of the resolution of the IDR finding Review of Section 8.0, Program Assessment / Conclusion, was reviewed primarily for content and background information. Evaluation of this section was effectively accomplished during review of the module sections identified earlier.

i

. - -

- - - - . - - . . .

r

.

3. Evaluations The evaluation of each section reviewed is provided belo For each section, a description of the section that was reviewed, and the basis of acceptance is provided, Section 1.0 - Introduction This section of the module presents an introduction to the intent and content of the module organization, areas of evaluation and status of the projec This section was reviewed primarily for content and background information. No additional followup or evaluation of the section was require Section 2.0 - Organization and Division of Responsibility this section presents a description of the organization and division of responsibility of Georgia Power Company, Bechtel and Southern Company Services for design, and construction activities related to foundations. This section of the module was reviewed for content onl No additional followup or evaluation of this section was require Section 3.0 - Commitments (1) This section of the module contains a listing of commitments and implementing documents which are presented in two matrices. The first matrix is the commitment matrix which contains a listing of the sources and subject of licensee commitment Commitments listed in this matrix were identified by the Readiness Review Staff through a review of the FSAR, responses to NRC questions and responses to generic letter The second matrix is the implementation matrix which contains a listing of documents and features discussed in the FSAR and implementing document The Readiness Review Staff reviewed these documents to verify compliance with the commitment requirement (2) The NRR reviewers' and Region II inspectors' review and evaluation of this section was performed by comparing licensing commitments and corresponding source document with the Standard Review Plan

'

(SRP), Regulatory Guides, the provisions of industry standards, the NRC question and answer records, the staff's SER, and the FSA The review also included an examination of commitment sources and implementing specifications and procedures to verify that the FSAR commitments were being correctly implemented in project document (3) Review of this section showed that the Vogtle licensing commit-ments and implementing documents comply with the FSAR, SRP, Regulatory Guides and industry standards. Some minor -additions and clarifications will be made to Section 3.4 by Georgia Power

,

Compay as a result of this review. No NRC findings were identi-fied during the review of this sectio ~ . - . . .. -. . --- . . - - .

^

.

.

4 Section 4.0 - Program Description (1) This section of the module, which is divided . into four subsections, describes work processes utilized by design and construction for the foundations supporting Category I structures.

,

Subsection 4.1 discusses site investigations, geotechnical

activities related to construction.and design documents such as design criteria, calculations, specifications. and drawing Subsection 4.2, Materials, states that site borrow materials were

. suitable and that they were used for backfill, and that procurement of offsite materials was not required. Subsection 4.3, Training and Qualification, . contains a description of the

project program for training and qualification of design engineers, construction engineers, contractor staff and craft, and

GPC inspector Subsection 4.4, Construction, contains a i description of the program for classification and placement of backfill, _ groundwater control, stabilization and preparation of

^

overburden cut slopes, excavation and preparation of the marl foundation, site settlement monitoring program, backfill placement

- and a flow chart activity descriptio (2) Review of this section included a detailed examination of the four

,

subsections and a comparison of the program description with FSAR

'

requirements, and specification and procedure requirements. The

'.

described program was also compared.with the inspector's under-standing of program requirements that had been inspected against and reported in inspection report from 1974 to 1985.

,

(5) Review of this section and previous NRC inspection reports indicated that the program described in the subsections is correct and that the work processes and controls developed for the design

and construction of. foundations comply with FSAR comitments and

'

regulatory requirements. No NRC findings were identified during

the review of this sectio Section 5.0 - Audits and Special Investigations

, (1) This section, which is divided into three subsections, contains a

.

discussion of the QA audit process, NRC inspections, special l evaluations by INP0 and a self initiated inspection team, and past l design . and construction problem Subsection 5.1, Design,-

discusses GPC and Bechtel audits and NRC inspections pertaining to Subsection 5.2. Construction, discusses GPC audits

.

i desig related to construction, an INP0 evaluation, a self initiated evaluation, NRC inspections, and a supplementary investigation of the backfil Subsection 5.3, Past Construction and Design Problems, discusses problems that were reported to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) Criteria and their associated corrective action ,

.

s- - ,- , en-,-.--- - --.-- ,.n,-n.-~-.,--,-,.,,.,--,-n-w,-,-mm,-,v.,, a vn-,--nm,.wn.,. --

,w , wn -, _ e ,--n, --wr ,--,-a..,,-mm~

m

,

.

.

(2) Review of.this section included a review of the three subsections, the referenced audits and associated Readiness Review findings and corrective actions, the referenced NRC reports and findings, the referenced supplementary investigation and the reported 50.55(e)

items. Pertinent Region II inspection reports were also reviewed to verif 50.55(e)yitems that had the been referenced NRC reviewed and addressed. findings by and thethe NRC. reported Review of the referenced audits showed that 4 audits were made by Bechtel QA management and that 22 audits were made by GPC QA management. Review of these audits showed that thirteen findings were identified in the design area and that fifteen findings were identified in the construction are In the design area, the findings were related to deficiencies in procedures and calculations. In the construction area, the findings were related to deficiencies in training, inspection, testing, measurement and testing equipment and QA record Review of the 26 referenced audits and responses to audit findings showed that the audit process was being controlled in accordance with FSAR requirements and that proper measures were being taken to correct the deficiencies identified by the QA auditor Review of referenced NRC findings and NRC reports showed that six violations have been identified by Region II inspectors during inspection of activities related to construction of foundation These violations involved four examples of failure to follow

, procedures for inspection, testing and documentation of test data

of backfill; one example of failure to calibrate laboratory scales ,

i in accordance with procedure requirements; and one example of

, failure to report a deficiency in the backfill in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) criteria. Review of NRC inspection reports and

.

'

licensee responses to the above items showed that the NRC findings presented in this section are accurate and that adequate

corrective actions were taken to resolve these items.

. Review of the supplementary investigations discussed in Module Subsection 5.2.3 showed that 10 standard penetration tests were l- performed in the backfill in response to NRC questions regarding i adequacy of the backfill. The inspectors observed this testing *

during a routine inspection and reviewed results of this testing presented in an August 5,1985 report to the NRC Director of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Review of this report and observation of the tests by the inspectors showed that the description and conclusions of the test results presented in this section are an i accurate assessment of this supplementary investigation.

l Review of the three problems discussed in Subsection 5.3 which were reported to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e)

criteria showed that these items dealt with dewatering and erosion of backfill, erosion under an electrical tunnel foundation slab, _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - _ . - . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ , - - _ _ ___ _ .~ , _

.

.

l and potential liquefaction of two NSCW transfer pump discharge

.

pipes that were located in backfill near adjacent in-situ soil Review of NRC inspection reports and a licensee report to the NRC Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, dated April 23, 1984, and observations by the inspectors of corrective measures taken to resolve these problems showed that the discussion in this section ,

is an accurate description of the problems and corrective measures taken to resolve these problem (3) Review of this section indicated that it is an accurate presentation of the audit process and previously identified construction and design problems and NRC inspection result No NRC findings were identified during the review of this sectio Section 6.0 - Program Verification (1) This section discusses methods used to verify conformance to design and construction requirements. The section is divided into Subsections 6.1 and 6.2. Subsection 6.1 covers activities related to the design program verificatio The design program was covered in two phases. Phase 1 consisted of verifyint; proper implementation of commitments in design. Phase II consisted of a programmatic review of design documents for compliance to applicable design control procedure One general finding pertaining to design verification activities was identified by the Readiness Review Staff. Subsection 6.2 covered activities related to the construction progra This assessment included verification of implementation of commitments in construction documents (drawings, specifications and procedures) and technical review of construction records to verify that work was performed

, in accordance with project specification and drawing requirement A total of six findings were identified by the Readiness Review Staff. Two pertained to commitment implementation, while the other four were identified during review of construction record (2) Review of Section 6.0 included a review of the program verifi-cation activities 14.ted in Subsections 6.1 and 6.2 and resolution of the findings identified by the Readiness Review Staff. Details of the review of these subsections by Region II inspectors are discussed in the following paragraph (a) Review of Subsection 6.1 showed that this subsection focused on verification of implementation of commitments in design and verification that design documents complied with design procedure Review of this subsection included review of FSAR commitments, design criteria, design calculations, drawings, and specifications, and findings identified by the Readiness Review Staf .

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

.

.

Review and verification that Subsection 6.1 was an accurate assessment of the implementation of commitments in design was accomplished by reviewing the commitments listed. in Section 2.5.4 of the FSAR and verifying that the commitments _ were implemented in Design' Criteria, DC-100-C, General _ Design Criteria (Civil Structures). The following canmitments were reviewed by the inspecto Connitment Description FSAR Reference Engineering properties of Insitu Section 2.4.4.2 and Soils for Design Table 2.5.4-2 Static Design Properties Table 2.5.4-8 of Compacted Backfill Backfill Compaction Require- Section 2.5.4. ments Dynamic Compaction Requirements Table 2.5.4-9 Ultimate Bearing Pressure and Factors Section 2.5.4.1 of Safety Settlement Analysis of Power Block Section 2.5.4.1 Foundations Lateral Earth Pressure (For Design of Section 2.5.4.1 Walls)

Hydrostatic Ground Water Pressure . Sections 2.4.1 and 2.5.4.1 Requirements of Category I Backfill Section 2.5.4.5. Materials The inspector also reviewed the documents listed below which form the basis for geotechnical design parameters contained in the FSAR canmitments and Design Criteria DC-1000- Bechtel Report on Backfill Materials Investigations, January 1978

- Bechtel Report on Foundation Investigations, July 1974

- Bechtel Report on Backfill Materials Investigatico, Addendum No. 1, October 1978

-

Bechtel Report, Test Fill Program Phase II, October 1978 e

o

.

.

These documents report results of subsurface explorations, laboratory testing performed on insitu soils and backfill materials, sources and quantities of backfill materials and test fill studie These reports are discussed and/or summarized in the FSAR sections listed above and in FSAR Sections 2.5.4.3, 2.5.4.5.1.7, 2.5.4.5.2.2, 2.5.4.5.2.3 and 2.5.4.5. The geotechnical design calculations listed below were reviewed to verify compliance with design criteria, FSAR commitments, NRC requirements and industry standards (ANSI N45.2.11). Calculations reviewed were as follows:

Calculation Number Title X2CF-S-SF02 Insitu densities and water contents X2CF-S-SF04 Maximum compaction, dry density, and optimum moisture content X2CF-S-SF09 Void ratio and compression index X2CF-S-SF12 Heave due to excavations X2CF-S-SF14 Soil densities with depth

• X2CF-S-SF17 Liquefaction analysis compacted soil X2CF-S-SF24 Cyclic triaxial test results X2CF-S-003 Lateral pressure on-control building wall by turbine mat X2CF-S-006 Elastic moduli for compacted backfill X2CF-S-007 Lateral pressure on auxiliary building north wall X2CF-S-024 Static Young's modulus for compression of sandy, silty-sand X2CF-S-025 Strength parameters of compression of sandy, silty-sand X2CF-S-031 Index and compression strength properties of backfill borrow X2CF-S-032 Dynamic Soil Properties X2CF-S-087 Settlement of CST, AFWPH , RWST, RMWST and Tunnels X2CF-S-101 Differential settlement (containment and fuel building)

X2CF-S-102 NSCW Tower -

valve house differential settlement X2CF-S-103 Backup calculation for revised Table 2.5.4-12 of FSAR

X2CF-S-104 Heave analysis

X2CF-S-106 Settlement analysis X2CF-S-108 Static and dynamic Young's modulus for lower sand stratum X2CF-S-109 Static and dynamic Shear and Young's modulus for backfill with 97%

compaction

'

.

.

X2CF-S-111 Re-evaluation of field compaction tests based on confirmatory test results X2CF-S-112 Roadmap calculation X2CF-S-117 Computer runs-calculation number X2CF-S-111 X2CF-S-118 Miscellaneous soils parameters-calculations The inspector noted during review of the above calculations that several had been recently revised and updated as a results of findings identified by the Readiness Review Staf The licensee's resolution of these findings are addressed in subsequent paragraphs. The revisions were only minor in nature and had no effect on the completed geotechnical design for the Vogtle projec Calculation X2CF-S-112, Roadmap Calculation, is a summary of the soil properties used in the various geotechnical design calculations. This calculation was completed to avoid any possible discrepancies regarding the basis of the engineering properties of the soils and their compliance with FSAR commitments. Calculation numbers X2CF-S-111 and X2CF-S-117 were completed to comply with commitments made to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in letter dated March 11, 1985 responding to SER confirmatory item 6. The calculations involved recomputation of the results of 10,262 quality control (sand cone field density) tests performed on Category 1 backfill to provide comparison between laboratory compaction test methods specified in ASTM D1557 (FSAR commitment) and ASTM D425 This evaluation involved adding 4.5 pcf to the laboratory maximum densities determined by Georgia Power Company for backfill materials with less than six percent passing the No. 200 sieve and 3.5 pcf to the laboratory maximum densities for backfill materials with more than six percent passing the No. 200 sieve. These figures were based on the maximum differences determined between the compaction test results performed by methods specified in ASTM D1557 and D4253 for backfill materials with less than six percent fines, and between differences in compaction test results performed by methods specified in ASTM D1557 for tests performed in the onsite Georgia Power laboratory- and an offsite independent laboratory. An average compaction of 100 percent war indicated by the re-evaluation program. The design criteria requires that the backfill be compacted to 97% of the method specified by ASTM D1557. The high density of the Category I backfill was further demonstrated by the results of standard penetration tests performed on the backfill in May - June 198 These results were submitted to NRC in a letter dated August 12, 1985.

L

.

.

Selected drawings and specifications were also reviewed by the inspector to verify that FSAR commitments, design criteria and calculations were correctly translated into drawing and specification requirement Drawings and specifications examined are as follows:

-

Drawing No. AX2046T001, Excavation Plan

-

Drawing No. AX2D46T011, Mud Slab-Plan

- Drawing No. AX2D46T012, Mud Slab-Sections and Details

-

Drawing No. AX2008A004, Auxiliary Building Backfill Notes

- Drawing No. AX2D55V001, Settlement Observation Markers, Locations and Details

- Specification No. X2APOL, Section No. C2.2, Earthwork and Related Site Activities

-

Specification No. X2AP01, Section No. C2.12, Soil Testing Services

-

Specification No. X2AP01, Section No. C2.15, Obtaining and Testing Marl Samples in the Power Block Area

- Specification No. X2AP01, Section No. C2.18, Observation Wells and Dewatering Wellpoints

- Specification No. X2AP01, Section No. C2.19, Standard Penetration Testing of Category I Backfill Review of findings showed that one general finding was identified by the Readiness Review Staff. This finding which was identified as Finding 13A-18 pertained to design verification activitie The inspector examined the corrective actions associated with the resolution of this finding. The finding concerned discrepancies in geotechnical calculations which were not performed in accordance with requirements of ANSI N45.2.11, Quality Assurance requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plant ANSI N45.2.11 states, " Analysis shall be sufficiently detailed as to proposed method, assumptions, design input, references, and units such that a person technically qualified in the subject can review and understand the analyses and verify the results without recourse to the originator...". Specific problems identified were as follows:

t --

_ - _ ..

.

.

- In Calculation X2CF-S-SF06, the reference to test data was not specific enough to verify input source. Also, the calculation cover sheet was not properly complete The source of test data used in Calculation X2CF-S-S032 were not referenced and the results of the calculation were not summarize Calculation X2CF-S-S036 did not contain references, the computer program used did not adequately cross reference the appropriate calculations, and output was not summarize In Calculation X2CF-S-SF17, documentation of the geotechnical design parameters were not readily ascertained in the source document Documentation of source of geotechnic.al design parameters were not readily traceable in several calculation The project responded to these findings by addressing them as two issue Issue 1: Completeness of calculations with regard to documenting the purpose, methods, assumption, design inputs, and reference There were approximately 70 safety-related geotechnical calculations performed for design of the Vogtle projec These calculations were reviewed and revised as necessary to correct the deficiencies and establish the required i documentatio The revisions to the calculations did not affect the completed design, and did not and will not affect past, present, and future construction activitie The licensee concluded that had the problem not been discovered, i

there would have been no safety implications due to the j nontechnical nature of the findin The inspectors concurs l with the licensee's conclusion This finding / issue is i resolve Issue 2: Completeness of calculations supporting FSAR commi tments.

l i Design parameters used in the geotechnical calculations varied slightly for some soil properties. Therefore, it was not clear which calculations were used to form the basis of l commitments in the FSAR and design values selected in design criteria DC-1000- The main reason for these minor discrepancies was that preliminary design values were used in j, some of the geotechnical calculations completed early in the

!

l l

- __ _ __

.

'

.

.

~

projec Some of these calculations were done for feasibility studies related to support . of Category I

'

structures on various types of backfill material Once a particular scheme was eliminated from further consideration, it was not necessary to update or revise the calculations

-

since for all practical purposes -the calculations were

superseded. Also some calculations had been completed before

' all laboratory testing- had been completed to finalize the soil design parameters. The differences in the various values used were only slight and had no affect on the completed desig In order to remove any ambiguity-concerning the basis for the soil design parameters references in the FSAR, calculation X2CF-S-112, Roadmap Calculation, was completed to summarize the source of all geotechnical design data reported in the FSAR or included in the Project design criteria. This finding / issue is resolve (b) Review of subsection 6.2, Construction Program Verification,

'

, showed that this subsection focused on implementation of construction con.mitments and assessment' of construction-activities.

Review -of the program for implementation of construction commitments included a review of the 24 construction

! commitments referenced in the commitment matrix in

section 3.4 of the module, and a review-of the two findings t

identified by the Readiness Review Staff and corrective actions taken to resolve the finding The inspectors also

, reviewed the FSAR, SER, NRC questions, generic letters,

'

specifications, procedures and drawings to verify that the

-

construction commitments were referenced and implemented in project document Review of the two readiness review

,

findings 13A-1 and 13A-2 showed that these findings resulted from variations between FSAR commitments and specification

and procedure requirements.

I Finding 13A-1 identified that the procedure and specification requirement that backfill be placed at a moisture content of plus 2 percent end minus 3 percent of optimum was in conflict with the FSAR requirement of a backfill placement moisture

,

content of 2 percent of optimum. The project response to this finding indicated that the modification to the FSAR was

'

,

based on a review of test fill data and additional field tests performed during the backfilling operatio This

,

conflict between the FSAR and specification requirements was l corrected by issuing an FSAR change notice to reflect the

,

actual range of moisture content used in the placement of

!

backfill.

i

!

,

_

. . - .- _ - -

-

,

16 Review of. specifications and procedure showed that the original procedure and specification did specify a moisture

content of 2 percent of optimum and that they were later i

modified to plus 2 percent and minus 3 percent of optimu Review of backfill test data, and observations of placement activities of backfill by the inspectors during inspections

'

showed that the range _ of moisture content used for the placement of backfill was plus 2 percent and minus 3 percent of optimum. Review of test data verified that the backfill meets design requirements. The staff agrees with the response and corrective action for this findin Finding 13A-2 disclosed a conflict between the FSAR and the specification regarding the frequency for settlement monitorin Section 2.5.4.13 of the FSAR states that .

settlement monitoring shall be done at 30 day intervals after i startu Specification X2AP01 states settlement monitoring

+

shall be done at 30 day intervals for six months and after six months if settlement is less than .002 feet, the settlement monitoring shall be done on a . yearly basi Review of the project response indicated that the frequency of settlement monitoring was under discussion with the NRC

and will be resolved prior to licensin Since the

-

identification of this finding the specification and FSAR have been revised to state that settlement monitoring for both units will be continued through the first year following i issuance of an operating license for Unit 2 at approximately 60 day intervals. Review of the SER shows that this exceeds the staff requirement that settlement monitoring be completed

,

for important markers through the first year following issuance of the Unit 2 operating license at a frequency interval not to exceed 90 day i

,

Review of the construction assessment conducted by the  !

'

Readiness Review Staff showed that this was accomplished by reviewing documentation for borrow activities, backfill placement activities, laboratory activities, and programmatic activitie Assessment of construction activities by the Readiness Review Staff resulted in four findings being

identified in the area of documentation errors and retrievabilit Review of this subsection by the inspectors included a detailed review of the described assessment program, records for backfill activities, and the responses and corrective actions on the four findings identified by the Readiness Review Staf Review of records included

-

examination of proctor test, field density test, moisture tests, and gradation tests performed on the backfill from

January 1984 to December 1985 and 31 deviation report written f

against the backfil In addition to the above records, the l

l l

k - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ . - . , _ _ _ - - __ - . . . _ - -

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

.

.

inspectors also examined Law Engineering test reports dated July 2, 1977, August 8, 1984 and July 26, 1985. These reports dealt with coring and laboratory testing of the marl foundation, confirmatory laboratory testing of Category 1 backfill and standard penetration testing of Category 1 backfil Findings identified in the construction assessment were numbered 13A-3, 13A-5, 13A-6, and 13A-2 Finding 13A-3 identified that two different curves are identified in the files as curve No. 8. Review of the project response showed that the two curves identified as curve No. 8 differed from each other by 0.5 percent. Resolution of this item included a review of all curves to date and a comparison of all reports utilizing curve No. This review showed no other duplications and that all moisture data was within the correct rang Finding 13A-5 identified that two Deviation Reports were dispositioned rework when the repair work was don Review of the resolution of this finding showed that the repair consisted of lean fill concrete placement in lieu of Category 1 backfill which is an acceptable repair metho The Deviation Reports were redispositioned as repai Finding 13A-6 disclosed that of the 123 backfill test reports reviewed, 31 were found not to have representative piezometer readings taken prior to placement of backfil These piezometer tests were used to verify that the water level did not exceed specification requirement at the time of backfilling. Review of the resolution of this finding showed that three of the 31 sand cone tests were made north of the auxiliary building and that piezometer readings from other reports indicated that the water level in this area was at such a level that specification requirements were not violate Review of the other 28 tests showed these were in an area south of a line coincident with the auxiliary building north wall and that piezometers had not been installed yet because the level of the backfill was not sufficient to allow installation of piezometer Records showed that a trench drain system had been installed prior to backfilling to control the water level and that piezometers l

were installed when the backfill reached a level that permitted their installation. Thus it was concluded that the backfill was placed at the required distance above the wate Review of finding 3A-22 showed that this finding disclosed

'

that borrow area gradation tests were not available for a

! period of August 1980 to January 1983. Review of records I showed that gradation tests performed in conjunction with field density tests were available and that these are the t primary documentation for quality or Category 1 backfill.

l k

_ -

.

.

(3) Verification that section 6.0 was an accurate assessment of the design and construction program for foundations also included a field walkdown by the inspectors. At .ivities examined included results of the settlement monitoring program, the groundwater monitoring program, standard penetration testing of Category 1 backfill, cores taken from the Marl stratum and confirmatory testing performed by Law Engineering Test Company in their Atlanta testing laboratory. This walkdown also took credit for previous NRC inspections of backfill activities performed by the inspectors during inspections conducted at the site since 1979. These inspections included reviews of construction drawings, specifi-cations, and procecures, observation of backfill operations, witnessing of field and laboratory soils testing, and review of

-

quality control records. Review of settlement data disclosed that

'

building settlements are within the revised predicted FSAR value The original settlement values were based on compression of the marl layer only and did not take into account elastic compression of the lower sand stratum. The licensee revised the previous estimated values by considering elastic compression of the lower sand stratum and adding this compression to the compression of the marl. This analysis was presented in calculation X2CF-S-106. The inspector reviewed the calculation and concurred with the method of analysi The differential settlements between structures measured to date are negligible. The settlement data indicates the settlements have been relatively uniform across a given structur Examination of the cores taken from the six borings drilled into the marl in June and July of 1985 indicated that the marl had few joints or fractures and that it did not contain any voids or open cavities. This examination of the marl cores indicates that the marl is a dense impermeable material and that it is a competent foundation material. Observation of the groundwater monitoring program disclosed that the program was being conducted in accordance with licensing requirements and good engineering practice. Review of the groundwater data disclosed no significant variations in the groundwater levels. Examination of groundwater levels recorded from groundwater observations recorded showed that the value selected for maximum groundwater elevation (elevation 165) for use in design was conservativ Based on their observations of w3rk activities the inspectors concluded that Category I backfill was controlled in accordance with design and NRC requirement (4) Review of this section indicated that the review conducted by the Readiness Review Staff for the design and construction verification program was comprehensive and adequat Examination of the findings indicated that they were of minor significance and that the resolution of findings was adequat Examination of quality records and observation of work activities for foundations L

.

.

showed that the records were representative evidence of quality controls and that work activities were being controlled in accordance with applicable requirement No findings were identified during the review of this sectio Section 7.0 - Independent Design Review (1) This section describes the independent design review (IDR)

conducted by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation of geotechnical engineering and geologic studies performed for the design of foundations of structures at the Vogtle plant. The project activities focused on during the independent design review ~

included:

(a) Geotechnical design calculations on bearing capacity, settlement, liquefaction, and permeability, (b) Engineering specifications and drawings relating to earthwork and settlement monitoring, (c) Deviation report dispositions, and (d) Geologic connitments and studie This review was performed to assess the technical adequacy of the geotechnical engineering and geologic studies performed for the Vogtle project. The review by the licensee's Independent Design Review Team yielded 11 finding (2) The results of the IDR were examined by a reviewer from the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement and by a Region II inspecto The IE review consisted of a detailed in-office review of Section 7.0 of the module to determine the methodology and depth of the IDR, and review of the IDR findings and their resolution. The review by the Region II inspector consisted of a detailed review of Section 7.0 of the module, an independent review of the geotechnical design calculations, discussed in paragraph 3.f.(2)(a), above and review of the resolution of the IDR finding (3) A summary of the IDR findings and the resolution of the findings is as follows:

(a) Finding 1 - Determination of the shear modulus and damping ratio for compacted backfill by laboratory testing The G/Gmax values used for design appeared to be large when compared to values referenced in standard industry literature. Also, the definition of the damping ratio given in the Bechtel report, Report on Dynamic Properties for Compacted Backfill, differs from that referenced in the A- . __ . _ . -

. . . .

I

.

.

Shannon-Wilson report . Review of the cyclic triaxial test data disclosed that the values of G/Gmax for_the compacted backfill are correct f?r the maximum shear strain levels for anticipated loading condition The definition of the

'

damping . ratio used in . the testing was clarified by demonstrating that the geometry used for an anisotropic test (Bechtel Report) was similar to that used for an isotopic

- test (Shannon-Wilson Report). This finding is resolve (b). Finding 2 - Geotechnical Calculation Inconsistencies

'The finding concerned' inconsistent use of soil design values between the FSAR, the design criteria, and calculation Also, there was insufficient justification and documentation of inputs and assumptions. This finding is the same as that

. of the Readiness Review group discussed in paragraph 3.f.(2)(a) above (finding 13A-18). This finding is ,

resolved.

(c) Finding 3 - Use and/or documentation of soil property v'alues .

This finding concerned inconsistencies in various soil

, parameters used in the design ' calculation These

!

differences were generally; only minor in nature. -This finding is similar .to finding 2 and was resolved by the

roadmap calculation and readiness review finding 13A-18 '

discussed in paragraph 3.f.(2)(a) above. This finding is resolve (d) Finding 4 - Static settlements for Category I structures

j This finding concerned the failure to recalculate the

,

settlements of the six smaller Category I structures

considering the effect of compression of the lower sand stratum as was done for the major plant -structures- in j ' calculation X2CF-S-10 The finding also questioned why the l effect of compression of the marl was ignored in computation l of settlements of these structures in calculation X2CF-S-87, l and why settlements had been computed for only four of the l six structures. This finding was resolved by the explanation l that the compression of the lower sand and mar: would be

'

negligible for the loading of the six smaller structure Also, the two structures that had not been analyzed were similar in size and loading for the four that had been analyzed, and thus predicted settlement for these two

,

structures would be simi-lar.

l .This iinding also questioned the use of the bearing pressure I of 6.3 ksf in calculation of the settlement of the fuel handling building (calculation X2CF-S-106) when FSAR Tcble 2.5i4-12 listed the bearing pressure for the fuel

!

.

.

handling building as 8.1 ksf. . This problem was. resolved by revising calculation X2CF-S-106 to incorporate the correct bearing pressure of 8.1 ksf in the settlement analysis. This finding is resolve (e) Finding 5 - Calculation of Factors of Safety Against Liquefaction The liquefaction analysis performed in calculation X2CF-S-S17

. considered the free field case only. While this method was-considered adequate for most - of the ' structures that have either. small net positive static loads, or net negative loads, the IDR questioned the use of this method for the few structures with net positive static loads on the order of two to three ksf. This finding was resolved by clarification of the: liquefaction analysis. The assumptions used in the calculations - were presented in a revised . calculation X2CF-S-SF17, Liquefaction Analysis of Compacted Backfil Explanation of these assumptions showed the free-field . case was the most conservative method of analysis which resulted in-the minimum factor of safety against liquefactio This finding is resolve (f) Finding 6 - Calculation of Bearing Capacity In calculations for bearing capacity. of various Category I structures (calculation X2CF-S-103), documentation of the input data was not clearly presented. This problem is similar to finding 13A-18 discussed above. Calculation X2CF-S-103 was revised to provide all necessary references and documentation. This finding is resolve (g) Finding 7 - Determination and use of Nc, the number of cycles of significant motion in liquefaction calculations Different values were used for Nc in design calculations for liquefactio A value of 30 was used in calculation X2CF-S-SF17 while a value of. 23 was used in calculation X2CF-S-3 The use of the value for NC of 30 for calculation. X2CF-S-SF17 is more conservative, which is for backfill compacted to 97 percent of maximum density. The design value of 23 was based on additional infonration and research developed after ' calculation X2CF-S-SF17 was completed and was used to evaluate the liquefaction potential of backfill compacted to 93 and 95 percent density. The value of 23 is still conservativ However, since the backfill was compacted to 97 percent, calculation X2CF-S-36 is not applicable and does not affect the final project desig A statement was added to calculation X2CF-S-SF17 which justifies the use of an extremely conservative value for Nc. This finding is resolved.

v

._

~

.

,

.

<

, /-

J (h) Ginding8-PermeabilityDeterminations y

Calculations were not available to demonstrate how average permeability values shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the 1985 Groundwater Supplement Report were computed. This problem was due to the fact that permeability values shown in Table 3-2 were computed in the early stages of the project (before 1974) and the original calculation was not retaine However, the original data on which the calculation was based, had been retained and thus it was possible to recompute the permeability values. The values noted in

>

Table 3-1 were not the result of numerical calculation of average values, but rather a conservative selection based on review of field data. This finding is resolve (i) Finding 9 - Document Inconsistencies This finding concerned inconsistencias for various soil design parameters between Bechtel reports and FSAR table This finding is similar to finding 13A-18 of the Readiness Review Staf Various calculations were revised to clarify sources of FSAR input data, including the Roadmap Calculation, number X2CF-S-112. The finding is resolve (j) Finding 10 - Deviation Reports During the IDR review of 44 deviation reports (DRs), minor discrepancies were noted on five of them. The discrepancies and resolution of the discrepancies were as follows:

Deviation ' Reports CD-353, CD-530, and CD-4186 did not

'

-

include elevations whcp describing the location. This

'

information was included in other documents and the DRs were revised to include the elevatio Justification for disposition of DR No. CD-3756 was not clear. The DR was reissued to include a description of the field review to resolve the problem and clarify the justification for disposition of the D Justification for disposition of DR No. CD-2674 was not clear. Review of the DR disclosed that no further evaluation was required and that the existing DR was adequat The discrepancies noted with the DRs were mino This finding is resolved.

L

.

(k) Finding 11 - Settlement Marker Numbers Specification X2AP01, Section C10.1 requires that settlement marker numbers be stencilled on a flat surface adjacent to the markers. No identification numbers had been installe However, the marker numbers can be easily determined by referring to the settlement marker location drawing. Plaques were installed to identify settlement markers. This finding had no safety significance and is resolve (4) Review of Section 7.0 of Module 13A showed that the IDR was comprehensive in scope and depth. The IE reviewer and Region II inspector agree with the IDR team findings and their resolutio No new findings were identified by NRC during review of this sectio . Conclusions Based upon the review within the scope of Module 13A, Foundation Materials and Backfill, the NRC has reached the following conclusions for foundations for Vogtle Unit Summary of Specific Conclusions

'

(1) Comitments - The NRC has reviewed the commitments as listed in Section 3.0 of the module and determined that the licensing comitments and implementing documents comply with the FSAR, SRP, Regulatory Guides, and industry standard (2) Program - The NRC reviewed the description of the program as given in section 4.0 of the module. The following areas of the program were reviewed:

Design Controls Materials Training and Qualification Construction Controls We have determined that the program description in Section 4.0 is generally correct and is in agreement with FSAR and project requirement (3) Audit and Special Investigations - We have reviewed Section 5.0 on audits and special investigations and concluded that this is an accurate presentation of the audit process and previously identified construction problems and NRC inspection result (4) Program Verification - The program verification conducted by GPC consisted of a design program verification and a construction program verification.

!

!

- .

.

.

The design program verification consisted of verifying that the

' design process for Category I foundations was adequately controlled and that licensing commitments were implemented in design documents. The construction program verification consisted of verifying that construction incorporated licensing commitments into implementing documents such as drawings, procedures and specifications and that construction activities complied with design requirement The program verification also included a limited walkdown inspection of earthwork activities to assess the implementation of requirements delineated in construction specifications and field procedures. The program verification identified 1 finding in the design area and six findings in the construction area. These were categorized on the basis of their individual significance and cumulative programmatic effec The review conducted by the Readiness Review Staff for the design and construction verification program was comprehensive and

. adequate. Findings were of minor significance and the resolution of the findings were adequate. Quality records indicated they were representative evidence' of quality controls for foundation activitie Observation of construction activities observed

,

during review of this module and during inspections conducted from 1974 to 1985 indicated that foundation activities were controlled in accordance with applicable requirements and that the assessment of design and construction activities described in this module are correc (5) Independent Design Review - GPC contracted an outside organi-zation, Stor,e and Webster Engineering Corporation, to perform an Independent Design Review of foundation This review was performed to assess the technical adequacy of the foundation design and to verify that the design was in compliance with licensing commitments, specifications and procedures. This is analogous on a smaller scale to an independent design verification program (IDVP) performed by other utilities and accepted by the NRC. The review resulted in 11 findings being identifie The NRC concluded that the IDR program for foundations was comprehensive and adequat The NRC agrees with the findings and their dispositio b. General Conclusions This module presents an adequate assessment of the GPC process for design and construction of foundation During the review, it was apparent to the NRC reviewers that GPC management supported the program by their active participation in the development of the program. Review and evaluation of Module 13A by the (

- - _ . . . . ..-

'

,

l

NRC ' indicates that the review performed by the GPC Readiness Review Staff was sufficiently comprehensive in scope and depth to identify i problem areas, and that the dispositions of Readiness Review findings >

were proper and- satisfactory. The procedures for design, engineering,

,

construction, and quality control were consistent with comitments and, therefore acceptable. Based on the review of this module, and the results of previous NRC inspections, the inspectors concluded that foundation construction was performed- in- accordance with the appropriate procedures and that records reflect quality of the f- construction. The NRC finds that the Vogtle program for the design and construction of Category 1 foundations complies with the Final Safety Analysis Report ~ and that compliance is verifiable witt, existing documentation.

.

The NRC furthermore believes that Module 13A accurately assesses the status of design and construction activities for. Category I founda-tions. This conclusion is based on information currently available to the inspectors and~ reviewer Should information subsequently become available which was not considered during - this review or previous inspections and .which conflicts with earlier information, it will be evaluated to-determine what effect it may have on the above conclusion.

.

e i

4

-

. - , - , , . - , . . , - . - , ,

-

, ,-- .,,.- r -. , , ..,_,c,_,.~.m.