IR 05000456/1986035
| ML20203F830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1986 |
| From: | Danielson D, James Gavula, Liu W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203F720 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-86-35, 50-457-86-27, NUDOCS 8607310185 | |
| Download: ML20203F830 (8) | |
Text
)
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-456/86035(DRS);50-457/86027(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. CPPR-132; CPPR-133 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Station, Unit 1 & 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Site, Braidwood, IL Sargent & Lundy, Chicago, IL Inspection Conducted: July 1-3 and July 8-11, 1986 fr>~~
Inspector-
. C. Liu Date b
7/2f//4
' J. A. Gavula Date 7 2f/A
&
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief Materials and Processes Section Da'te Jnspe_ctionSummary n e J Repo rt_s_No._ 50 _45_6/86_035 ( DRSJJ e
S Inspection on July 1-3 and 8-11,, 1986
_ _
Treas ]Insfecteif:)) Unannounced special safety inspection concerning allegatio 50-457860123FRS
~
associateTiiltW the design of structural steel columns.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
e607310185 e60725 DR ADOCK 0500
',:
)
,
,
m,,
.
-
J
'
'
DETAILS 1.
P_ersons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Co_mpany_,(_CE_C,ol a
C
_
,
- E. Fitzpatrick, Station Manager
'
'
,
- N. Kaushal, Project Field Engineering Manager
- L. Davis, Assistant Superintendent
- D. Paquette, Assistant Superintendent
_
- P. Barnes, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
-
- C. Schroeder, Services Superintendent
^
r
- W. Marcis, QA Engineer SargentandLun_dy_ Engineers _jS&L)
,
[
r
- R. Hooks, Assistant Head, Structural Engineering Division
- R. Marshalla, Supervising Design Engineer
- F. Shallwani, Senior Structural Engineer
- R. Johnson, Site QA Coordinator
-
NRC_ Inspectors
- T. Taylor, Resident Inspector, Operations The inspectors also contacted and interviewed other contractor employees.
- Denotes those attending the final exit interview on July 11, 1986.
2.
Fo_1lowup_on Al_1_ega_ tion RIII-86-A-0107
,
n a.
Allegation (1) The initial design did not take into account various mechanical, electrical, piping and beam modifications.
(2) To date no program has been started to analyze the columns for these additional loads and reinforce accordingly.
(3) The structure is now seeing many new dead and live loads that were not originally found in the design.
b.
NRC Review (1) Overall Program The NRC inspectors reviewed various design documents at Sargent
& Lundy Chicago Engineering Office in conjunction with structural
'
analysis / design. The relevant portions of the following design documents associated with structural analysis were reviewed for design adequacy.
.
.
Structural Project Design Criteria, DC-ST-03-BY/BR, Revision 20, May 13, 1986.
Technical Training Design Package, Final Load Check of Containment Building Internal Structures and Auxiliary Building Open Structural Steel, TTDP-SED-12-BY2/BR, Revision 2, June 12, 1986.
Technical Training Design Package, Final Load Check of Structural Components in the Auxiliary Building, TTDP-SED-04-BY/BR, Revision 7, January 21, 1986.
Project Instruction, Documentation of Hanger Loads, P.I.-BB-34, Revision 4, June 10, 1985.
.
'
Calculation Book No. 18.1.52, Elevation 395 Braidwood
Containnent Building Final Load Check Phase 1 and 2 Steel Framing.
Calculation Book No.18.1.50, Design Control Summary for
Final Load Check.
-
!
Calculation Book No.18.1.53, Elevation 399 Braidwood
Containment Building Final Load Check Phase 1 and 2 Steel Framing.
Calculation Book No. 18.1.59, Section 1-9, and Section 11-17, Column Analysis.
Calculation Book No. 18.1.59, Section 10, Pipe Supports on Columns.
Calculation Book No.18.3.1.5, Braidwood Auxiliary Building Final Load Check Steel Columns Area 5.
Calculation Book No. 18.5.6.1, Braidwood Auxiliary Building Area 1, Elevation 426.
Calculation Book No.18.5.6.2, Braidwood Auxiliary i
Building Areas 2, 3 and 6, Elevation 426.
l l
Calculation Book No. 18.5.7.2, Braidwood Auxiliary l
Building, Elevation 439.
I Calculation Book No.18.5.8.2, Braidwood Load Monitoring
System / Final Load Check for Auxiliary Building, Steel Framing.
j
"
The relevant portions of the aforementioned documents were
,
reviewed with respect to the methods and procedures utilized in l
the structural analysis. The inspectors noted that the Sargent
& Lundy's (S/L) practices with regard to the designing of i
structural members and the process to monitor the latest design l
,
-,. - - - - -
,
7.-
..
.
.
-
.
loads such as pipe hangers, cable tray supports, conduits, equipment, etc., are adequate and acceptable. The basis for this conclusion follows:
(a) S/L added a contingency load of 50 kips during the initial design phase (prior to initiating a final load check) of all Category I columns. This is a very conservative considera-tion in determining the column size.
(b) The final load check (FLC) program of the Byron /Braidwood projects was initiated in the fall of 1982 for structural steel, and has been a continuous design effort since that time. The final load check of each structure is initiated when final loads are available and is updated on a continual basis for significant load changes which occur after the final load check. This update is referred to as load monitoring and is used to insure that structural members are capable of withstanding any and all load changes made throughout the life of the plant. This can be accomplished through the use of Sargent & Lundy's computer program called Load Monitoring System (LMS).
-(c) The requirements of the Braidwood structural project Design Criteria and S/L's structural engineering standards for final load verification are implemented in each design area as required by the use of a Design Control Summary.
The design control summary is established for each design area in order to detail the specific design requirements for each type of structure rach as structural steel beams and steel columns, etc.
(d) The methods and assumptions used in the structural analysis are conservative. Calculation Book No.18.1.59 for example, states that all design loads are assumed to act in the same direction, at the same time, and at their peak seismic
acceleration. Further, full live loads have been used in
'
the design of steel columns when in fact these live loads could have been reduced in accordance with the AISC code.
i (e) All related loads such as pipe hangers, cable tray supports,
,
conduit supports, equipment, etc. have been included in the design of structural beams and columns during the course of i
the final load check program.
!
(2) Sampl,e_ Cal _cula_tions Review The NRC inspectors randomly selected 30 structural steel beams and 26 structural steel columns to verify whether these beams and columns are adequately designed.
(a)
26 Structural Columns
_
t l
l L
)
.
.
Con _tainm_ent Building:
R1 R5 RIO R14 R18 R2 R7 R11 R15 R19 R3 R8 R12 R16 R20 R4 R9 R13 R17 R21 Auxiliary Building - Area _5
_
_
S-12, S-13, S.7-12, S.7-13, V12.7, V.9-12.9 (b) 30 Structural Beams Co_n_tainment Building:
20304, 21703, 22010, 20701, 21310, 21504, 30412, 31912, 31681, 32012 Auxiliary Bui_lding:
6AB-30, 6AB-45, 7AB-3, 7AB-67, 7AB-91 7AB-123, 8AB-12, 8AB-81, 8AB-96, 8AB-132, 8AB-189, 8AB-294, 6AB-101, 6AB-103, 6AB-210, 4.3AB22N, 4AB53N, 4ABIN-6, 4AB40N, 4.3AB46N The design calculations for the above beams and columns associated with the final load check were partially reviewed for conformance to analysis criteria, applicable codes, NRC requirements and licensee commitments.
Further, the design loads with respect to pipe hangers, cable trays, conduit, and equipment were partially verified to ensure that these loads were adequately included in the design of the structural beams and columns. Design loads under seismic conditions were also verified for the selected beams and columns. The inspectors noted that computer applications were extensively used in the analysis of the structural beams and columns. The calculations for the aforementioned structural members appear to be adequate in terms of using conservative assumptions, design input, references, units (dirrension, force and moment), equations, tables and sketches.
Results of the structural analysis indicate that all the aforementioned structural beams and columns have been safely designed and all calculated stresses are less than the allowable stresses for all design conditions.
During the inspection, the NRC inspectors identified inconsis-tencies for six columns in the Containment Building. These inconsistencies were the differences between the design loads contained in the calculation book and the computer analysis.
Subsequent evaluations were performed by S/L engineerirg personnel regarding the above concerns.
Results of the engineering evaluation revealed that the inconsistencies
l
.
.
contributed less than 0.2% of the design capacity. The calcu-lated stresses for the six columns are much less than the allowable stresses. Therefore, the inconsistencies were considered to be insignificant in terms of overall design requirements.
(3) Field Inspection The NRC inspectors verified portions of the following structural beams and columns for conformance to design analysis.
Beams in Containment Build _ing:
_
22010, 20701, 21310, 21504, 30412, 31681, 21912, 32012 Beams in Auxili_ary Building:
8AB12, 8AB81, 8AB96, 8AB132, 8AB189, 8AB294, 7AB3, 7AB91, 6AB103, 4ABIN-6, 4AB40N Columns:
R16, R19, V.9-12.9 The above beams and columns were inspected with respect to the number of attachments to the structural members. These attachments were associated with pipe hangers, cable tray supports, conduit supports, instrument line supports, and equipment supports. No discrepancies were identified during the NRC field inspection.
(4)
Interviews The NRC inspector held discussions with each of ten structural engineers who were randomly selected from S/L's Final Lead Check group. The discussions were focused on the safe design of structural members such as beams and columns. All the structural
'
engineers interviewed expressed the following:
i
!
They feel very comfortable with respect to the methods /
j procedures used in the designing of structural members such
!
j as beams and columns.
They agree that many conservative considerations / assumptions
!
are used in the area of structural analysis / design.
.
Its their opinion that all related loads such as pipe hangers, cable tray supports, conduit supports, and equipment are
'
included in the designing of structural members during the final load check program.
They believe that the structural members are very safely
designed / analyzed.
<
!
t
+ e. rr e-
-
.-,---.-,-,,<--,.m--
--,-,v.-em...-*_-----..enzw.
e,.--,%,,,_,2 y-
--
,~-
..y---c.--
,,---,y,,,-.y
. - ---r
- -.--
vn----
)
.
.
As suggested in the allegation the NRC inspector also held discussions with each of five structural engineers who were randomly selected from the site structural engineering group.
Results of the interview revealed the following:
They krow of no structural columns that are overstressed.
They ai, N ? that the S/L has an established program such as the 'es anitoring system (LMS) to design / analyze the structui.!
eel members.
They feel very comfortable with respect to the methods /
program that S/L is implementing.
They are aware that all related loads such as pipe hangers, cable tray supports, conduit supports, equipment supports, etc. are included in the designing of structural members during the final load check program.
They believe that the structural members are very safely designed and installed.
c.
Conclusion (1) Program Review Sargent & Lundy has an established program (since 1982) to monitor and analyze structural members such as beams and columns under various loading (including dead, live and other)
conditions. The program appears to be well developed in terms of monitoring the latest design loads during the final load check processes.
(2) Calculations Review A review of the 26 structural columns and the 30 structural beams indicates that the calculated stresses for each of the structural members are less than the allowable stresses set by the applicable codes. Design loads (including dead, live and other) associated with pipe hangers, cable tray supports, conduit supports, and equipment supports have been included in the design of structural members in accordance with the final.
load check program.
(3) Field Inspectio_n Attachments to the structural members were partially verified with respect to the design drawings and design analysis. These attachnents are the supports in conjunction with pipe hangers, cable trays, conduits, equipment, etc. No discrepancies were identified during the field inspection.
I
!
l
!
l
\\
.
.
.
.
(4)
Interview All the 15 structural engineers interviewed were very satisfied with their work activities in terms of sound engineering design /
analysis. The responses were very positive regarding the safe design of structural beams and columns. They know of no structural columns that are overstressed.
On the basis of the above inspection, the NRC inspectors concluded that the allegations are not substantiated.
3.
Exit Interview The inspector met with site representatives (denoted in fersons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection noted in this report. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietary.
r i
!
l
,
l l
--
e,