IR 05000424/1986105
| ML20211K488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1986 |
| From: | Imbro E, Parkhill R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209H789 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-86-105R, NUDOCS 8612010289 | |
| Download: ML20211K488 (9) | |
Text
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Report No:
50-424/86-105R Docket No:
50-424 Licensee:
Georgia Power Company Facility Name:
Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Vogtle Site, Waynesboro, Georgia Inspection Conducted:
August 11 to 15, 1986 Inspection Team Members:
Team Leader:
R. Parkhill, Inspection Specialist, IE Mechanical Systems:
T. DelGaizo, Consultant, WESTEC Services Electrical Power:
S. Athavale, Electrical Engineer, IE Controls:
.
J. Leivo, Consultant Mechanical Components: T. McLellan, Inspection Specialist, IE J. Blackman, Consultant, WESTEC Services (Pipe Stress)
Civil / Structural:
G. Harstead, Consultant, Harstead Engineering
- E. Imbro, Section Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, IE Prepared by:
Ronald Parkhill
-
Inspection Specialist, IE Team Leader j
Approved by:
f u dl& crz -
Eugene' V. Imbro, Chief Licensing Section Quality Assurance Branch r
l i
- Attended exit meeting h2c(6 kf-
,
L
'
.
.
.
V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 Inspection of Independent Design Review Results
-
August 11 to 15, 1986 1.
Background At a meeting with the NRC in Bethesda, Maryland on June 20, 1985, the Georgia Power Company (GPC) presented a plan for an independent design review (IDR) of Plant Vogtle, Unit 1 (Vogtle) to be performed by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). NRC inspection activities related to the
.
Vogtle IDR were conducted in three phases: (1) inspection of program prepara-tions, (2) inspection of program implementation, and (3) inspection of IDR results and corrective actions.
The first two phases of NRC inspection were conducted in July and August, 1985 and were reported in NRC Inspection Report No.85-34R, dated September 30, 1985.
2.
Purpose The purpose of this inspection was to conduct the third phase of NRC inspection activity, namely the inspection of IDR results and corrective actions.
The specific objectives of this inspection were:
(1) review calcu-lations and evaluations supporting the IDR findings to determine whether the IDR findings and cbrrective actions, including the evaluation of generic concerns, are technically acceptable, (2) review implementation of corrective or preven-tive actions, (3) ensure that NRC comments or concerns from previous NRC inspections were resolved or adequately incorporated in the IDR, and (4) review open items from Readiness Review Modules 8 and 13c to determine if these items have been resolved.
The purpose of this inspection report is to document the IE review and closure of items identified in a previous IDR inspection 85-34R, as well as inspections of the independent design reviews contained in Readiness Review Modules 8 and 13C (inspection reports85-64R and 86-42, respectively).
.
The assessment of the validity of the results and conclusions of IDR Module 22 will be addressed by the evaluation report that is being prepared for this module.
3.
Personnel Contacted A large number of GPC, SWEC, and Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) personnel were contacted through the course of the five day inspection.
The following is a brief listing of the key personnel contacted:
Name Organization Position P. Rice GPC V.P., Project Engineering D. Foster GPC V.P., Project Support W. Ramsey GPC Mgr., Readiness Review D. Read GPC General Manager, QA C. Hayes GPC Vogtle QA Manager F. Marsh BPC Project Engineering Mgr.
A. Sanders BPC Ass't Project Engineer D. Strohman BPC Project QA Engineer S. Stamm SWEC Tech. Manager, IDR
,
--
-., - - -
-
.,, -
_ -.
.
.--
. - -
.
.
~~
G. Bushnell SWEC Hazards Reviewer S. Frank SWEC Mechanical Systems Reviewer
-
W. Gardel SWEC Electrical Reviewer R. Mathur SWEC Structural Reviewer C. Tsai SWEC Pipe Stress Reviewer J. Lockaby SWEC Pipe Support / Duct Support Reviewer C. Mullen SWEC Instrumentation and Controls Reviewer J. Curtain SWEC Module 8 Team Leader 4.
General Conclusions As a result of this inspection, the NRC arrived at the following general conclusions:
(1) All prior NRC inspection comments or concerns were reviewed and considered acceptable.
These items are considered closed as detailed in Addendum (1) to this report.
(2) All prior open items from Readiness Review Modules 8 and 13c were reviewed and found to be acceptable.
These Modules are considered closed as detailed in Addendum (2) to this report.
.
O
-
.
.
..
ADDENDUM (1)
.
NRC INSPECTION COMMENTS FROM INSPECTION 85-34R OBS. NO.
CONCERN STATUS COMMENT MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 1.1 Examples of insufficient CLOSED Improved documentation was documentation were observed.
observed.
Documentation is Specifically, checklists satisfactory for checklists were not filled out com-1901-2G,1908-2G and checklist pletely and several attri-associated with calculation butes on checklists did X4C1302V, R4, 4-9-85.
not have an appropriate justification for their associated review status.
1.2a Assumptions of calc.
CLOSED Open Item G-28-0 was initiated X4C1302V05 appear to con-by the IDR team.
The project's tradict each other with response clarified the apparent regard to using 3% or 13%
contradiction to the satisfaction channel error for steam of the IDR team.
The inspec-generator instruments.
tion team concurs with the IDR team's disposition.
1.2b Computer verifications CLOSED IDR observation 22-G11 was were no longer valid initiated.
The valid veri-due to a revision of fication was still available the input to the in Revision 0 to the cal-calculation.
culation.
The IDR team accepted the project response and the inspection team concurs with this action.
-
'1.2c Questions were raised CLOSED IDR observation 22-G18 was regarding the use of initiated.
Ultimately, this a piping wall thick-portion of the calculation was ness formula from the voided for other reasons and ASME code.
therefore the calculation was not revised. The IDR team accepted the project's response to this observation and the inspection team concurs with the action taken.
1. 3 Checklists were not CLOSED These checklists were reviewed at the time of reviewed during this inspection (85-34R) and inspection and were therefore no conclusions found to be acceptable.
could be drawn as to their adequac.. g
-
.
.
..
OBS.NO.
CONCERNS STATUS COMMENT
'
MECHANICAL COMPONENTS 2.1 Open items not cross CLOSED Open item list dated referenced back to checklist October 3, 1985 provides a cross-reference.
2.2 Concerns were identifed CLOSED a.
BPC reviewed all pipe in comparing pipe stress supports within their scope calculation X4CP-7075, of supply (ie. 2142 supports RS, data point 221 to from 208 isometrics) for (1)
pipe support calculation location deviations, (2)
Vl-1301-012-H021.
load deviations and (3)
load direction deviations.
From this review 76 devia-tions were identified, one resulted in a hardware change and the other 75 will be re-solved during the as-built reconciliation program.
b.
Pipe support stiffness was determined to be adequate.
c.
Page 2 of the subject pipe support calculation does reference the drawing of the steel to which it is attached. Thus, the concern regarding design traceability is not valid and this item is closed.
2.3 HELBA should include CLOSED The review of a postul-ated a postulated break break inside containment inside containment.
was conducted by SWEC and the consequences of this break were appropriately evaluated by SWEC in check-list 1920-2B dated 8-13-85.
2.4 IDR hazards checklist did CLOSED Appropriate references not reference the documents were added to the IDR which implement the design hazards checklist.
feature being audited.
2.5 Several significant concerns CLOSED All these observations were raised by SWEC will be reviewed and have been closely followed by the NRC resolved to the satisfaction to assure adequate resolution.
of the inspection team.
Specifically refer to obser-vations C04, C06, C04, D-01, 002, 004 and 006.
_
.
.
.
...
OBS. NO.
CONCERN STATUS COMMENT
.
ELECTRICAL POWER 3.1 Specification checklist CLOSED Source documents have did not contain comments been identified and on the review of values reviewed against operating parameters operating parameters.
reviewed against source documents.'
3.2 Review of the DC system CLOSED The IDR team reviewed failed to include three the three problem areas; potential problem areas (2) and (3) were adequately related to the station resolved and (1) resulted battery, viz. :
in observation 22-F1.
(1) Review of battery manufacturer's test data for establishing a minimum voltage during the first minute.
(2) Comparison of load profile used for sizing the batteries to the load profile included in the specification.
(3) Comparison of the purchased cell size to the calculated cell size.
3.3 Questions were identified CLOSED Open item reports were by the SWEC audit team subsequently issued by the concerning cable flame test IDR team and observations data and approved lubricants 22-F25 and 22-F52 resulted for cable pulling; however, for cable flame test and
-
no open item reports were cable pulling lubricants, issued.
respectively.
3.4 Nine of thirteen checklists CLOSED The IDR review period was were not completed at the extended by one week and time of the NRC inspection.
all checklists have been The NRC is concerned that completed.
insufficient time remained to complete a thorough review.
3.5b No review was conducted CLOSED Review of the battery room
to assure adequate HVAC HVAC system was subsequently for the switchgear and performed.
The switchgear HVAC battery rooms, was not reviewed because other similar areas were reviewed.
.
.
..
"
.
,
.
..
OBS. NO.
CONCERN STATUS COMMENT
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL 4.1 Many of the checklists CLOSED The IDR review period were not completed at the was extended and all time of the NRC inspection.
checklists were completed.
The NRC is concerned that The inspection team insufficient time remained is satisfied that to complete a thorough sufficient review was review, performed in the controls area.
4.2 No area of NSSS interface CLOSED NSSS interface was has been evaluated for subsequently evaluated instrumentation and by the IDR Team to the controls, satisfaction of the inspection team.
4.3 IDR team's checklists were CLOSED Additional details were not in sufficient detail to added to the checklists support the conclusions reached such that the conclusions by the reviewers.
of the review are sufficiently justified.
4.4 Vogtle project has not yet CLOSED The inspection team performed setpoint calcu-reviewed and is satisfied lations, but has established with the Project procedure instrument setpoints.
A for performing setpoint review of setpoint calculations calculations.
Implemen-should be included in the IDR.
tation of the procedure will be verified during the NRC's review of
-
corrective action.
4.5a Design changes to be re-CLOSED A number of design changes viewed had not been selected.
were reviewed by the IDR Team and the inspection team is satisfied that the review in this area is complete.
..
..
.
-. - -, -.,
. _,. -,
.
".
.
.
.
..
ADDENDUM (2)
.
INSPECTION OF OPEN ITEMS FROM READINESS REVIEW MODULES 8 AND 13C AUGUST 15-19, 1986 MODULE 13C OPEN ITEM 86-42-01 COMMENT 1 The project revised Civil Engineering Study No. 91 to include the discontinuity effects at the mat-wall interface of the containment analysis, and has included this revised study as Attachment 2 to Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0.
Revised study No. 91 shows that the increase in the hoop moment is in all cases less than the design membrane hoop moment.
This item is therefore considered closed.
OPEN ITEM 86-42-02, COMMENT 2 BPC has revised Civil Engineering Study No. 90 to include scaling factors derived from the results of FINEL and OPTCON for a similar plant.
Additionally, revised study No. 90 has been included as Attachment 1 to Calculation No.
X2CJ2.9.0 and is also referenced on sheet 24 of 109 of calculation No.
X2CJ2.10.1.
This resolution-is acceptable to the NRC team and the item is considered closed.
MODULE 8 OPEN ITEM 85-64R-02, COMMENT 1 The source of the 15 PSI fluid pressure was identified as coming from the Nuclear Group via calculation NO. X2CK4.05.3.
Additionally, updated calculated pressures indicate that the 15 PSI is conservative.
The NRC team considers this item closed.
.
OPEN ITEM 85-64R-03, COMMENT 2 The IDR team has confirmed that the connection details as shown in BPC drawing AX2008G029, Rev. 3, 9/20/83 are adequate.
Calculation X2CK4.9.6 has been revised by deleting the sketches and establishing ths. adequacy of the connection details.
The NRC team finds this resolution acceptable and the item is considered close *
..
.
,
..
OPEN ITEM 85-64-01, COMMENT 4
.
In response to this comment the IDR team reviewed three calculations, X2CJ4.1.4.2, X2CJ4.1.4.4 and X2CJ4.1.4. 7.
This review is documented in a SWEC letter to Southern Company Services, dated July 9, 1986.
The NRC team found the IDR review of these calculations to be adequate and agrees with the resolutions proposed as a result of this review.
This item is considered closed.
OPEN ITEM 85-64R-04, COMMENT 5 The IDR team confirmed that the referenced loads in Calculation AX4AL01-46-2 performed by the Whiting Company, the supplier of the polar crane, were correctly calculated, and that these loads were correctly utilized by Bechtel in the design of the polar crane girder.
The NRC team considers this item closed.
OPEN ITEM 85-64R-05, COMMENT 6 GPC stated that the reason that two turbine building cranes were not modeled as being simultaneously on the same side of the turbine building in the calcu-lations associated with the seismic analysis of one unit's turbine building was because mechanical stops will be installed prior to fuel load as shown on drawings AX2010F081 and AX2010F083.
This rationale is acceptable as it pre-cludes both cranes being in the same building.
This item is considered closed.
OPEN ITEM 85-64R-06, COMMENT 6
<
In response to this comment GPC stated that two five-way restraints will prevent a complete failure of the Category II portion of the main steam piping from adversely affecting the Category I portion.
The NRC team reviewed the associated stress analysis isometric and concluded that this item is closed.
.
,, _ _
-
--