ML20078A456
| ML20078A456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1986 |
| From: | Ramsey W GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078A351 | List:
|
| References | |
| PROC-860306, NUDOCS 9406010201 | |
| Download: ML20078A456 (200) | |
Text
. . _ .
Georgia Power Company Vogtie Project Readiness Review
, Post Office Box 282 l Waynesboro. Georgia 20830 Telephone 404 724 8114 404 554-9961 Vogtle Project .
A v March 6, 1986 Mr. D. O. Foster Vice President Vogtle Project Support Waynesboro, Ga. 30830 !
RE: Readiness Review Program Module 13C
- Post-Tensioned Containment LOG: RR-777 FILE: X7BD102
Dear Mr. Foster:
Pursuant to yodr instructions I am enclosing Module 13C of the ,
Readiness Review Program entitled Post-Tensioned Containment.
This module reports the work of the Readiness Review Team and .
has been prepared in order to present you with an accurate !
picture of the readiness for operations of the Vogtle Project.
l based upon a close examination of the containment post-tensioning system.
( The Readiness Review process included an initial assessment'and l
review of basic licensing documents in order to identify Project commitments within the scope of the module. The. Readiness l Revie 'eam then verified implementation processes designed to i
, meet .
.smitments, including programs and controls relating l
to wot, sith the scope of the module.
l The team then engaged in a process designed to verify that implementation programs were operating as described in procedures, policy statements, and other descriptive documents.
i 1
In concluding this verification process, the, team then actually verified that the licensing commitments idsntified during the process were being fulfilled and met.
O ,
9406010201 940512 PDR ADOCK 05000424 P PDR l 1
, - , - -._.,_3,
. 9 t+ , , ..m._ _ , . . - , . , ,
i Mr. D. O. Foster
() March 6, 1986 Page 2 We are confident that the verification methodology used allowed
() the Readiness Review Team to properly appraise the actual condition of the containment post-tensioning system and provided a valid means of assessing the quality of the program, having i
also considered applicable past audits, inspection reports, 'and problems experienced by other utilities. -
()
Based on the examinations, inspections, and evaluations of the f review and the responses and corrective actions committed to by the Project, it is the conclusion of the Readiness Review Team t that the design and construction programs that govern the .
containment post-tensioning system have produced a final product that meets design requirements and licensing commitments. l l
Additionally, none of the findings identified, either ;
individually or collectively, are such that the adequacy of the ;
containment post-tensioning system is called into question.
Therefore, the containment post-tensioning system meets the:FSAR !
commitments. L Members of the Readiness Review Team and I are prepared to' !
discuss this module with you at your convenience. If we can-O l
provide you with any further information or assistance regarding this matter, contact me.
Very truly yo rs, L
William C. Ramsey WCR/deg l
cc: R. E. Conway i Readiness Review Board Members ,
Reading File l Document Control 0179m/065-6
( l i
l
1 2
5 j
t a
1 i
i i
t 1
4 1
1 .
! I
.: 1 i
4 1
l VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 1
J UNIT 1 !
?.
i READINESS REVIEW 1
4 1 i
MODULE 13C - POST-TENSIONED CONTAINMENT j i
i 1
i i
4 i
l l i l 4
1 i
i i
l t
4 4
1 i
1 4
i 3
Ol60m/042-6
}
i I.
1
_ _ _ _ _ __ . _ . - , . . . . - _ , . , , , . . , . . _ . , , _ . ~ . . . . . . ,_.,_.-,__-,.,,_.,,.,.,m...,w,. ~
READINESS REVIEW - MODULE 13C List of Effective Pages March 6, 1986 Pace Revised Date O
All pages are unchanged.
O i
O O
O O
iii Ol84m/OO59-6
- (~N PREFACE Georgia Power Company (GPC), in order to gain added assurance of the operational readiness of the Vogtle Electric Generating
. Plant (VEGP), is conducting a pilot Readiness Review Program.
r^ The VEGP pilot Readiness Review Program is a systematic,
(,)g in-depth self-assessment of work processes and verification of compliance with regulatory commitments. To accomplish the VEGP pilot Readiness Review Program, the work processes and regulatory commitments were divided into manageable segments called modules. There are approximately 20 modules. Each module is a predefined scope of VEGP activities.
Each module is intended to provide a brief description of the method of complying with project licensing commitments pertaining to the module scope and is not intendbd to make further commitments or to revise in any way prior commitments.
If any differences exist between the commitments discussed in this document and the licensing documents, they are unintentional; and the licensing document governs.
Activities common to several modules are provided as General Appendixes. There are approximately 10 appendixes. These appendixes, as appropriate, are referenced in the modules and are augmented in each module with module-scope-specific details as needed.
}
The VEGP Readiness Review Program is being conducted on a schedule to provide added operational readiness assurance to GPC management in support of the VEGP Unit 1 operating license.
However, conclusions reached regarding programmatic and technical adequacy through review of VEGP Unit 1 are indicative of Unit 2, since both units are being designed and constructed ,
. together under a single quality assurance program: with like i management controls, procedures, etc.; and to the same l
. specifications and criteria.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation has been contracted to provide technical management for, and technical personnel to O implement, the independent design review as a part of the Readiness Review program.
l 1
The VEGP Readiness Review Program is not intended to eliminate !
or to diminish any authorities or regulatory responsibilities now assigned to or exercisec by the Nuclear Regulatory
()
f~
Commission or GPC. Further, the Readiness Review Program is not intended to change the techniques of inspections or assurance of quality program activities. Rather, the VEGP Readiness Review Program is an added program initiated by GPC management to assess the VEGP and to provide additional feedback to management so that they may initiate any needed corrective actions in an 4
O orderly and timely manner.
v
1 The scope of work processes and regulatory commitment compliance covered by each module will be assessed by, and the module i prepared and reviewed by, individuals collectively familiar with !
the design, construction, and operational processes of nuclear f power plants. It is the collective opinion of the Readiness i Review Task Force, Readiness Review Board, and GPC management i that, based on their experience, the methodology used in the module process will assess, on a programmatic basis, the ll 4 adequacy of project commitment implementation.
Readiness Review Discrepancy Reports and resulting dispositions i are reviewed by the Readiness Review Program quality assurance j staff and are input into the normal project process for safety i significance and potential reportability evaluations in l I accordance with regulatory requirements.
O i
O O
(Il 0161m/062-6 vi
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Introduction This module documents a review program conducted to ascertain r- s whether the design and construction aspects of the
' post-tensioned containment comply with licensing commitments and whether compliance is verifiable using existing project documentation.
The scope of this module includes the design and construction activities associated with the post-tensioned containment for O Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 1.
The program consisted of three separate reviews: a design program verification, a construction program verification, and an independent design review. In these reviews, project documents such as design criteria, specifications, and procedures were reviewed along with results of past audits, inspections, and recent industry problems. In addition, the Readiness Review Board's technical consultant (Wiss, Janny, Elstner Associates, Inc.) provided independent technical oversight and concurrence, and Readiness Review quality assurance (QA) personnel provided QA surveillance of the review activities. Statements from the technical consultant and QA f"') regarding their involvement and conclusions reached are provided N/ in section 8 of this module.
Following evaluation, findings were subjected to categorization as follows to indicate their relative importance:
Level I - Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern.
Level II - Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concerns.
/~N Level III - Violation of project procedures with no safety
() concerns.
A brief summary of the three reviews is provided below.
() Desian Program Verification The verification of the design program was performed in two parts. Part I consisted of a review to ascertain whether 40 licensing commitments were included in design criteria and other design documents. Part II consisted of a programmatic review of
(-)g selected design documents for compliance with applicable procedures and industry standards (e.g., ANSI N45.2.11) as vii
l l
l committed to in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Documents such as design criteria, drawings, specifications, and design change documents, were included in this review.
The design review was conducted by a four-man team having a cumulative 90 years of professional experience in design engineering.
The design program verification resulted in a single finding (13C-7), which was classified as Level II. This finding l
identified design calculations for the containment l
post-tensioning system which had not been submitted by the VSL
! Corporation as required by the engineering specification. As the result of this finding, the Project has obtained the subject calculations from VSL, has reviewed them for compliance with the engineering requirements of the design specification, and has found them to be acceptable and in compliance with those requirements. The corrective action taken by the Project has satisfactcrily resolved the finding, and there is no safety concern.
Details of the design program verification are found in section 6.1.
j Construction Procram Verification The construction program verification consisted of a commitment llh implementation assessment and a construction assessment.
Commitment implementation assessment determined whether Construction incorporated licensing commitments into implementing documents; construction assessment determined whether construction activities met the design requirements.
The Readiness Review constrJction team was composed of four team members having a cumulative experience of 66 years in power plant construction.
l Commitment implementation assessment consisted of a review of the four construction commitments identified in the commitment matrix (section 3.4). Each commitment was adequately traced to implementing documents.
The construction assessment consisted of a review of installation procedures for specification implementation, a review of construction records, and a walkdown inspection of the post-tensioning installation. The assessment resulted in two a W
findings (13C-18 and 13C-19), both classified as Level III, which documented minor discrepancies between the installation procedures and the actual installation practices. In each case, the actual installation practice was correct, and the procedures l
were changed accordingly.
I viii
Details of the construction program verification are found in O section 6.2.
Independent Desian Review The independent design review, conducted by Stone & Webster
(
Engineering Corporation, evaluated the technical content of the design documents relating to the structural design of the containment structure and post-tensioning system on a sample basis. The documents reviewed included calculations, test reports, design criteria, specification, drawings, and deviation (g reports.
V The review team was composed of two members having a cumulative experience of 30 years in power plant design.
The review team initially identified a total of seven findings.
Upon the presentation of additional information to the review team, two of the seven were classified as nonfindings. Two of the remaining five findings were classified as Level II and three were classified as Level III.
The two Level II findings (13C-4 and 13C-6) involved discrepancies between the FSAR commitments and corresponding specification / vendor drawing requirements, and submitted
(~T qualification test data for cyclic testing of tendons. Review k/ of the project responses indicates that "SAR materials were used, or substituted with engineering a groval, and acceptable cyclic test methods were used. Enginee: Ang personnel, however, had failed to make the corresponding updates to the FSAR or specification to maintain consistency.
Finding 13C-2 (Level III) resulted from the lack of documentation that the method used to consider thermal loading l on the containment shell adequately covered the discontinuity forces at the mat / wall junction produced by the compatibility of displacements under thermal loading. The review team has reviewed a study performed in response to Finding 13C-2. The study compares the results of a detailed finite element model O- subject to thermal loading with the results from the method used for Plant Vogtle. Comparing these results to the maximum stresses predicted for Plant Vogtle, the review team has concluded that there is sufficient margin in the Plant Vogtle l predicted stresses to account for the methodology and that the l containment design of Plant Vogtle is technically adequate and structurally sound.
The remaining findings are considered minor documentation deficiencies, r In summary, all of the findings have been satisfactorily t resolved.
ix
Readiness Review Conclusion Having performed a review of the post-tensioned containment j system design, construction, and project documentation and having evaluated the effectiveness of the corrective actions !
taken by the Project. Readiness Review concludes that adequate controls exist to ensure the quality of the work performed.
Moreover, none of the identified deficiencies, either collectively or individually, are such that the adequacy of any aspect of the VEGP post-tensioned containment is called into question. Readiness Review further concludes that the design and construction activities are producing a final product that is in compliance with licensing commitments and design requirements.
e l
l e
e 1
O 1
0162m/066-6 X
' V(") Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction
(' 1.2 Module Organization V) 2.0 Organization and Division of Responsibility l
2.1 Design Organization x 2.2 Field Construction Organization (A
L 2.2.1 GPC Civil Project Section 2.2.2 GPC Civil Quality Control 2.2.3 GPC Field Construction Operations i 2.2.4 VSL Corporation 3.0 Commitments 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Definitions 3.3 Sources 3.4 Commitment Matrix i 3.5 Implementation Matrix 4.0 Program Description 4.1 Design 4.1.1 Post-Tensioning System Description 4.1.2 Post-Tensioning Design Process 4.1.3 Design Criteria 4.1.4 Drawings and Documentation 4.2 Materials (m) 4.2.1 4.2.2 Supplier Supplier Quality Surveillance Program Quality Verification Documentation 4.2.3 Supplier Deviations 4.2.4 Material Receipt, Receipt Inspection, and l
Storage ;
/~
( )8 4.3 Training and Qualification 4.3.1 Engineers (Design) 4.3.2 GPC Construction Engineers 4.3.3 GPC Surveillance Inspectors (Post-Tensioning)
,-~ 4.3.4 Contractor 4.4 Post-Tensioning Installation xi
I 5.0 Audits and Special Investigations 5.1 Design Audits t
5.1.1 Georgia Power Company QA Audits 5.1.2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspections 5.2 Construction Audits l
<.1 Project Audits
'2
. NRC Inspections 2.3 Past Construction Problems 5.3 Past Design and Construction Problems in the Industry lh 6.0 Program Verification 6.1 Design Program Verification 6.1.1 Summary Evaluation 6.1.2 Scope and Plan 6.1.3 Part 1, Verification 6.1.4 Part 2, Programmatic Verification of Design Control Process 6.1.5 Findings, Project Responses, and Verification Team Conclusions 6.1.6 Finding Significance 6.2 Construction Program Verification 6.2.1 Summary Evaluation 6.2.2 Commitment Implementation 6.2.3 Construction Assessment 7.0 Independent Design Review Report 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Scope 7.3 Review Methodology lh 7.3.1 Containment Shell and Post-Tensioning Design 7.3.2 Engineering Specifications 7.3.3 Inservice Inspection of Tendons 7.3.4 Change Evaluation Review 7.4 Review Summary O 7.4.1 General 7.4.2 Containment Shell and Post-Tensioning Design 7.4.3 Engineering Specifications 7.4.4 Inservice Inspection of Tendons -
7.4.5 Change Evaluation xii
7.5 Review Findings O. 7.6 Appendixes Conclusions 7A Independent Design Review Plan 7B Review Team Members 7C Documents Reviewed '
O 7D Personnel Contacted 8.0 Program Assessment / Conclusion 8.1 Summary of Open Corrective Action ;
8.1.1 Section 6.1 Design Program Verification 8.1.2 Section 6.2 Construction Program Verification 8.2 QA Statement 8.3 Technical Consultant's Statement 8.4 Readiness Review Board Statement 8.5 Engineering and Construction Statements 8.6 Resumes O
l l l
\
I
, C:) :
i Ol86m/062-6 1
l xiii i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This module is one in a series of modules that provide an q evaluation of the design, procurement, construction, and readiness for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Q (VEGP), Unit 1 and common facilities. It is intended to describe the method of complying with the project commitments found in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and is not intended to make further commitments or revise in any way prior commitments. Any differences between the commitments discussed dp in this document and the FSAR, if any, are unintentional. In the unlikely event that a difference between this module and the FSAR should occur, the FSAR takes precedence in defining project commitments.
The scope of this module includes the design and construction activities associated with the post-tensioned containment for the VEGP Unit 1.
The effective date of this module is October 15, 1985. That is, changes in the included programs, organizations, commitments, etc., occurring after this date are not addressed.
O l
O O
O 0159m/055-6 m
r 1.2 MODULE ORGANIZATION NJ This module is divided into the following sections:
- 1. Introduction.
- 2. Organization and Division of Responsibility - A brief description of the project organizations and their division of responsibilities as they apply to this module.
- 3. Commitments - This section contains project licensing commitments pertaining to the post-tensioned s] -
containment, within the scope of this module, as found in the FSAR, generic letters, and other documents.
This section also lists documents that demonstrate implementation of these commitments.
- 4. Program Description - A brief description of the processes for design and construction applicable to the scope of this module.
- 5. Audits - A description of the level of audit activity by Quality Assurance or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it applies to this module. Also included in this section is a description of any special N investigations performed on work contained in this w module and past problems identified.
- 6. Program Verification - A description of the verification plan development, implementation, and results, including corrective actions.
- 7. Independent Design Review - A description of the program of technical review of the design process, its implementation, results, and corrective actions.
- 8. Assessment - The evaluations and conclusion, by the applicant's Readiness Review Task Force, the VEGP Readiness Review Board, the Readiness Review program g-)
(_ quality assurance staff, the IDR team, and the Readiness Review board module expert, of the subject work are stated in this section. The section also identifies any action items still open and the scheduled closure date.
1 (2) 0158m/059-6
I
- e i :
i 1.3 VOGTLE PROJECT STATUS (UNIT 1)
! Post-tensioning of the Unit.1 containment began'in the winter of !
1985, with the installation sequence for the first series.of l
~
. tendons. The first tendons were installed on March 7, 1985.
l Subsequently, the tendon stressing sequence began on :
4 April 3, 1985, and the greasing sequence began on ,
- - April 19, 1985. .i I . . l As of October 15, 1985, the post-tensioning system of the Unit 1 j containment was approximately 16 percent complete and is
- scheduled for completion May.1, 1986. Fuel load ~for Unit 1 is' ,
scheduled for December 1, 1986.-
IO 4
- The Unit 1 containment contains the following required'and installed quantities of post-tensioning tendons-4 i
! Installed and Greased- -
I Quantities Stressed as of as of Reauired October 15. 1985 October 15. 1985 242 74 39 i
1 I
i V
O O
O 0157m/058-6
l 2.0 ORGANIZATION AND DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY Gedrgia Power Company (GPC), acting on its own behalf and as agent for Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, is ultimately responsible for the design, procurement, and construction of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). The Western Power O Division of Dechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel),is contracted by GPC to provide architect / engineering services. Bechtel is i
responsible for the design of all Category I structures.
This section includes a brief description of the organization l and responsibilities of GPC and Bechtel starting with the q(_j functional group level for design and construction activities involving the post-tensioned containment. It includes the organization and responsibilities of site contractors involved in the construction process. Only those organizations pertaining to the content of this module are described.
i O
O O
!C:)
0078m/059-6
--c-y . - , - - r-,_ w w y,--ur
l i
1 2.1 DESIGN ORGANIZATION A brief description of the Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) organization responsible for the architechtural and engineering design of the Unit 1 containment is provided in this section.
Bechtel employs the matrix organization concept with an
( individual assigned as project engineering manager (PEM) who is assisted by a project engineer (PE) home office, the PE-field, I and functional group heads reporting to the PEM for the I performance of functional tasks. Functional group heads receive project direction from the PE, while functional direction is provided to them by discipline chief engineers. The Bechtel PEM
,O has been located at the VOGP site since February 1985.
Project engineering for the scope of work related to the analysis and design of the post-tensioned containment was accomplished by Bechtel Home Office Engineering (HOE). The home office project engineering group supporting the PEM in the design is comprised of the PE home office, assisted by an assistant project engineer-design (APE-design), the civil-structural engineering group supervisor (EGS), the civil-structural building engineering group leaders (EGL), the drafting group supervisor and the chief civil / structural engineer. Project Field Engineering (PFE) located at the l jobsite is an extension of the HOE and is comprised of the
! (~ PE-field, assisted by an APE-physical design, the
\ civil / structural EGS-field, the building construction support l EGL, other engineers, and drafting personnel. Both groups work l under the procedures contained in the Project Reference Manual (PRM) and within the framework of the Vogtle project l organization. Both receive technical direction from the Bechtel chief civil / structural engineer.
! The containment group of Bechtel HOE, is responsible for the I design of the post-tensioned concrete containment structure. 1 The concrete containment structure utilizes a post-tensioning system furnished and designed by VSL, having corporate offices in Los Gatos, California. The PFE building construction support group provides field coordination to HOE for the post-tensioning i(~)
l related activities. The BPC project civil-structural engineering organization is shown in Figure 2.1-1.
t l
1 0
l I
l Ol81m/059-6
.-_ _ _ . _ . . _ . ,_ _. _ - _ ~ . _ _ _ - , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
N $
(
l
.i PROJECT l f90G9NfffM00G
. asANAGfA 1
HOME OFFICE FIELD l
.i I
P.On e, P.Onc.
f G ff. .i f.G f. ,
Motif OFFICE l 7 'F L D I.
I-C,,,,, Ass,s, A.,
c,P. , P--
,,_,,,,,, .-- APf -,
,! f - E.
f G f E. . -s=
M WA l
f
.j g
., [
. _ _ _ . ,,c,..,,t,. A<
i c.
,U A<
l I-
- I -scfu4 foUs m. G l'
l C A f f GORv 8 DR AF fiteG
~
CnOUP g Simuttunts SUPf R.t$ftEt '~~
gypg gy,ggg fGL pGg I .
I av.. .A . I l GU.N AND $tett PWW MANDLNeG
~' ~~
- EGL
.U. GE. =
, i I i
' BUIL DueG at*%CFtt AssFOUS i
L______._ c='A'a-va' f G1
_ _ _ _ ___ cO=s'auci =
%UPPO891 sun Of f am speG t
- v CL i i f Gf edD OI l _ . _ .
2 Pt P One, f o f f.
EGS fisGeset f phesG GmOur SUPT m.som 4
GL GftOUP LE ADER -- O toss ag (GL ENGINf f MWpG GftOUP (f AOf R OCL DGAF fueG GROUP Lf ADF R
, Art AS9857441PRORCT f esGput En Petom C g (Nnt t tense e SUO8C 880* sat D*8tf Cisnes e.a.=.= seeDeC a ff 3 PNV%BC at (ftC a f M188
" *== == C OORDees a t sO*e i Figure 2.1-1 Bechtel Vogtle Project Civil / Structural Engineering Organization (February 1985 to Present) t
. . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . - . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . __ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ m ,. . ~ .- . . . . - ._, - ._ -- - .
2.2 FIELD CONSTRUCTION ORGANIZATION
("')
%J Georgia Power Company (GPC) employs one contractor, VSL Corporation, to perform work associated with this module. GPC directs and maintains technical control of the work through three departments: Field Construction Operations, the Civil r^w Project Section, and the Civil Quality Control Section. The
(_) Administrative and Schedule / Budget Sections also interface with the contractor but do not directly affect the quality of the ;
work. The following is a description of the overall ;
responsibility of each contractor and GPC section along with a l description of the responsibility of individuals within the organization.
O('s 2.2.1 GPC CIVIL PROJECT SECTION The GPC Civil Project Section provides technical direction and support for contractors performing civil work. This includes providing assistance in the following areas:
o Developing civil construction procedures and assuring j they are in compliance with Bechtel Power Corporation ,
specifications and any applicable codes. I 1
o Resolving problems regarding civil work, including constructability issues, deviation reports, trends,
(~}
\s field change requests, and open items, o Assigning dispositions to deviation reports and open items.
o Providing schedule and budget input to various site organizations.
o Interfacing with Field Operations and Quality Control on problem identification and resolution.
2.2.2 GPC CIVIL QUALITY CONTROL
(
The Civil Quality Control (QC) Section implements the GPC field quality control program to verify quality compliance of field construction activities. This is done by conducting surveillance inspection of the work as it is being performed by rs contractor craftsmen and the documentation review of the
() contractor quality control inspection records.
The Civil QC inspectors inspect in accordance with established quality control procedures as required by the Vogtle Project quality assurance program, and to the requirementsoof the g- contractor's applicable procedures, construction specifications,
()x and design drawings.
1 l
i 2.2.3 GPC FIELD CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS The Field Construction Operations Group directs work at Plant O1 i I
Vogtle and ensures work is completed in a timely manner. They interface with the site contractors to facilitate work flow.
The lower tier operations groups help bring field conflicts and problems to the attention of the area engineers and inform QC when inspection hold points are reached. They maintain a watch for productivity and quality problems. The Field Construction Operations Group is responsible for survey and layout work on the project.
2.2.4 VSL CORPORATION g VSL Corporation (Figure 2.2-1) is responsible for the fabrication, installation, and inspection of the containment post-tensioning system, including the fabrication and delivery of the trumplate assemblies and duct sheathing which are installed by others.
l VSL is also responsible for the development and implementation of the fabrication, installation, and quality control I procedures. These field installation and quality control procedures are described in the VSL Field Instruction Manual
! titled, Installation of VSL E5-55 Post-Tensioning System Within l Nuclear Containment Structure. The VSL Field Instruction Manual was reviewed and accepted by Bechtel IIOE f or compliance with engineering and specification requirements. VSL's work is performed under the VSL Corporation's quality assurance program.
VSL's Quality Control Section develops implementing field procedures and verifies that tendon installation, anchor head j
assembly and installation, tendon stressing, and greasing activities conform to procedure, specification, drawing, and code requirements. VSL QC Section personnel assist in the development of the forms, checklists, and other quality documents necessary to control activities and to demonstrate compliance with specified requirements.
VSL interfaces with the GPC Civil Engineering Section to resolve construction problems. Field Change Requests (FCRs), Deviation Reports (DRs), and field procedure approvals. The VSL Production Department also interfaces with the VSL Quality Control Section for required hold points, work acceptability, and resolution of any deficiencies.
1 0
0152m/059-6 2.2-2
.,....m..m._m -.a..___a . - . . _ . _ . ~ . . . . . - _ . . . . .._m~.___.._m.. . ~.m .. m. ..m. . _ - - . . . . . . . . .. . . - ---. ...--. .. ....- .. . . _ . . _ _ ~ . . . --.
f
+
CORPORATE OFFICE t
J t
PR OJECT ,
MANAGER l
! t t
k i FIELO OA OF FIC E PROJECT PROJEC T
, MANAGER ADMINISTR ATOR SUPE RIN TEND E NT ENGINEER l 1
1 I
4 4
POST-T E NSIONING l LEVEL 18 INST AL L ATION
', FIELD INSPECTOR GENERAL FOREMAN "
t i
j- LEVELI POST-TENSIONING OC INSPECTOR INST ALL A TION
}
FOREMAN l
i .
1 I
j POST.TE NSIONING j INST AL L ATION
! CREW -
i 4
4 i 1 !
l Figure 2.2-1 VSL Corporation Vogtle Project Site Organization 1 ,
1 4
E__._____.___
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________._m.___m_____.m__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _.-.e,.e,*- -. .m .r w. s ,e . . ~ . . - < . sm...w,- . _ ~,. . . - .m. . _ , , , - - _. . . - . _ _ . _ _ _ - . - , -,-_-1..
3.0 COMMITMENTS k_' .
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains, in matrix form, project commitments that
(' affect activities described in this module and their
\_ corresponding implementing documents. These commitments are presented in two matrixes, the commitment matrix and the implementation matrix. A brief explanation of the development process for each matrix is included.
/~ Additionally, the Project has a commitment to comply with k_,} 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Quality Assurance Criteria, and other commitments such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
N45.2 and N45.2.11. Although they were not identified as specific commitments in this module, Readiness Review considered the applicable requirements of these types of commitments in preparing and assessing the scope of work represented by this module.
Differences, if any, between the commitments discussed in this section and the FSAR are unintentional and the commitments in the FSAR take precedence.
<d 0083m/066-6
3.2 DEFINITIONS A commitment is an obligation to comply with an industry standard, Regulatory Guide, Branch Technical Position, or owner plan of specific action. For the purpose of the Readiness Review Program, commitments will be identified from the Vogtle s Electric Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Report, Os Chapter 6 of the Technical Specifications, responses to Generic Letters, and responses to Inspection'and Enforcement Bulletins.
An implementing document is a working level document, either program control or test procedure, that fulfills a Nuclear Operations commitment applied to a specific activity.
O l
r l l
[
O O
0084m/059-6 I
3.3 SOURCES Commitments covered by this module are identified from the following sources:
i o FSAR including responses to NRC questions. ,
) o Responses to Generic Letters, o Responses to I&E bulletins.
These sources are reviewed for commitments based upon guidelines developed from the definition.
Implementation of commitments stated in the commitment matrix is typically contained in:
o Design criteria.
o Equipment / material specifications.
o Construction specifications.
l o Construction procedures.
o Technical specifications.
o Operations procedures.
i i
i l
I l
O l
l 0005m/059-6 l
l
3.4 COMMITMENT MATRIX O Once identified by the Readiness Review team, the commitnents are placed on the commitment matrix. Information identifying the source, source section, subiect, and module are also indicated on the matrix. Any relevant comments concerning the commitments or subject of the section are indicated in the remarks column.
The commitment matrix is presented at the end of this section.
Commitments on the matrix are accurate as of October 15, 1985.
This represents Amendment 19 of the FSAR.
O O
O O
O 0086m/059-6
O O O O O O O ComtlTENTS SDRTED BY SOURCE AND SECTION CON 91 TENT CON 91T E NT CON 41 TENT DOCUENT/ RESPONSIBILITY SOURCE SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE DESIGN CONST REMARKS REF NO.
EXPLANATION OF FIELDS COMMITMENT SOURCE - The document containing the comitment (FSAR, Generic letter, l.E. Bulletin Response, etc.)
COMM11 MENT SECTION - Identlfles the FSAR section, letter number, or question number COWillENT SUBJECT - The subject of the FSAR section or Generic Letter DOCUMENT / FEATURE - The document discussed in the FSAR section or the plant feature described in the FSAR section RESPONSIBILITY - An X is placed under the heading for the organization responsible for implementation of the comitment REF. NO. - A reference number that corresponds to the appropriate lin,e entry in the inplementation matrix i
4 d
l i
i
- - - . - __--- _ ___ _____ - . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - . . - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ . _ _ , - - . ____ __ -. . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - - .-- -w.- - - -,.
,.E.
O,O O O O O 03/04/86 COMMITMENTS
=
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT SOURCE & SECTION
===========================
COMMITMENT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT / RESPONS Ili1LITT REMARES REF NO SOURC5 SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE DESIGN CONST
===. ==================== ==================== ============================ e====== ======= ==================== =
r FSAR 1. 9. 18 STRUCTURAL RG 1.18 REY. 1 12/72 I I STRUCTURAL 681 ACCEPTANCE TEST FOR ACCEPTANCE TEST CONCRETE PRIMARY PROCEDURES TO BE REACTOR CONTAIRMENTS DEVELOPED LATER.
FSAR 1. 9.103 POST-TENSIONED RG 1.103 REV. 1 10/76 I SEE FSAR 3.8.1 1866 PRESTRESSING SYSTEMS FOR CONCRETE REACTOR VESSELS AND CONTAINMENTS 1 FSAR 3. 1. 2 CONFORMANCE WITH NRC 10CFR50 APP. A. GDC 16 X 793 GDC. PROTECTION BT 4
MULTIPLE FISSION PRODUCT BARRIERS FSAR 3. 1. 5 CONFORMANCE WITH NRC 10CFR50 APP. A. GDC-50 I 81B
$ GDC. REACTOR CONTAINMENT
$ FSAR 3. 2. 2-1 CLASSIFICATION OF NOTE (e): SEISMIC CATEGORY X FSAR TADLE 3.2.2-1 839
! STRUCTURES. RG 1.29 COMPONENTS. SYSTEMS i
FSAR 3. 2. 2-1 PRINCIPAL CODES AND ASME. III. DIV. 2 ART. .I INDEX OF CODES USED 875
! CC-3000 IN T3.2.2-1 TABLE
- STANDARDS FOR
! T.3.2.2-1 FSAR 3. 8. 1-1 CONTAINMENT INDICATES LOAD COMBINATION X. TABLE 1023
[
I LOAD-COMBINATION AND AND LOAD FACTORS
) LOAD FACTORS FSAR 3. B. 1. 2 CONTAINMENT DESIGN 10CFR50 X 1025 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 2 CONCRETE RG 1.103 X 1035 j CONTAINMENT.
i REGULATORY GUIDES FSAR 3. 8. 1. 3 CONTAINMENT DESIGN. POST LOCA FLOODING OF THE I 1039 f CONTAINMENT IS POSTULATED TO j LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS REACH EL. 181FT. 2 IN. & IS j . CONSIDERED AS A HYDROSTATIC:
LOAD l
_ . . - - _ . - - - - - - . _ . . _ . _ .. - _ _ . . . . . - - - . . _ _ . - . . ~ . - - _ . - _ . - - - - _ _ . _ ---------- - -w- -- - - ~ . , - _ - , - - - - - - -- - - ~ - +-------r+----
. - .--.--= +w - - -
Page No. 2 03/04/86 COMMITMENTS
=
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT SOURCE & SECTION
_============_=============
RESPONS IBILITT REMARE5 REF NO COMMITMENT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT /
SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE DESIGN CONST SOURCE
===== ==================== ============.:======= ============================ ======= ======= ========_
BC-TOP-5-A, SUB. 6.2.1 X 1040 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 3 CONTAINMENT DESIGN, LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS SEE 2.2.3 1041 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 3 CONTAINMENT DESIGN, THE BLAST LOAD 15 X LOADS AND LOAD CONSERVATIVELT TAKFN AS A COMBINATIONS PEAR PO5ITIVE INCIDENT OVER PRES 5URE... CONSIDERED IN DESIGN AS AN EQUIVALENT STATIC PRESS. OF 2 PSI.
CONTAINMENT DESIGN, CONTAINMENT DESIGN PRESSURE I 1042 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 3 LOADS AND LOAD OF 52 PSIG COMBINATIONS ASME III. DIV 2 ART CC 3200 X 1043 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 3 CONTAINMENT DESIGN LOADS CONTAINMENT DESIGN BC-TOP-T X 1045 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 4 CONTAINMENT DESIGN BC-TOP-8 X 1046 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 4
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
- 1. 4 CONCRETE TENDON (COMPUTER PROGRAM) X 1050 FSAR 3. 8.
COFTAIMMENT, DESIGN
& ANALYSIS PROCEDURES COMPUTER PROGRAMS FSAR 3. 8. 1. 4 CONTAIMMENT DESIGN BC-TOP-5 A, SEC. 6.6 6.2 & X 1052 6.3 FSAR 3. B. 1. 5 CONTAIMMENT DESIGN, ASME III. DIY 2 ART CC 3000 X 1053 FACTOR OF 5AFETY FSAR 3. 8. 1. 5 CONTAINMENT DESIGN, A5ME III, DIY 2 ART CC 3400 X 1054 ALLONABLE STRESSES &
STRAINS l
O O O O O O O
Page wsO. 3 O O O O O O 03/04/86 COMMITMENTS
=
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT SOURCE & SECTION
============r3=============
COMMITMENT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT / RESPONS IBILITY REMARES REF NO SOURCE SECTION SUBJECT FRATURE DESIGN CONST
======3= ==================== ==================== ============================ ======= ======= ==================== =======
F5AR 3. 8. 1. 5 CONTAINMENT DESIGN. BC-TOP-T I 1055 '
ALLOWABLE STRESSES &
STRAINS FSAR 3. 8. 1. 5 CONTAINMENT DESIGN, BC-TOP-8 I 1056 ALLOWABLE STRESSES &
STRAINS ,
F5AR 3. 8. 1. 5 CONTAINMENT DESIGN, A5ME III. DIV 2 ART CC I 105T ALLOWABLE STRESSES 3400 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE ASTM A36 I THIS COMMITMENT WAS 1098 CONTAINMENT. DELETED BY F53R PRESTRE55ING SYSTEM. CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER WEDGE RETAINER 243. 08/30/85 PLATES FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE PRESTRESSING STRAND 5 RAVN A I 1100 CONTAINMENT, MIN. ULTIMATE TENSILE PRESTRE551MG ST5 TEM. STRENGTR. F(PU). OF 270.000 PRESTRESSING STRANDS PSI BASED ON N04. STREL AREA 1
i FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE ASTM A52T I SEMIRIGID CORRUG. 1103 3 CONTAINMENT. TUBING PRESTRE55. SYSTEM.
TENDON 5HEATRING FSAR 3. B. 1. 6 CONCRETE MIN. TIRLD STRE55 0F I 1943 CONTAINMENT. PRESTRESSING STRAND IS NOT.
j PRESTRE55ING ST5 FEM. LEss TRAN 0.85 F(PU)
PRESTRESSING STRAND I
1 q FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE ASTM A416 I FOR WELDLESS GRADE 1944 CONTAINMENT, PRESTRE551NG SYSTEM.
$, PRESTRE55ING STRAND i FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE CONTAINMENT ASTM A537 CLASS 1 I 1945 4 '
PRESTRE55ING SYSTEM. CARBON-MANGAME58-5II. ICON
, BEARING PLATES STERL 4
l i
- \
l l
Pcge No. 4 03/04/H6 COMMITMENTS
=
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT SOURCE & SECTION
===========================
RESPONS IBILITT REMARES REF NO COMMITMENT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT /
SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE DESIGN CONST SOURCE m ======== ==================== ===============2==== ============================ ======= ======= ==================== ========
CONCRETE CONTAIK;:ENT ASTM A569 X 1946 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 PRESTRESSING ST3 TEM, TRUMPETS ASTM A513 X 1941 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE CONATINMENT, PRECTRESSING STSTEM, TRUMPET EXTENSIONS AISI 1026 I 1948 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONCRETE CONTAINMENT, PRESTRESSING STSTEM, ANCHOR READS CONCRETE ASTM A537 I 1949 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONTAINMENT, PRESTRESSING STSTEM, SHIMS CONCRETE AISI 86L20 X 1950 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CONTAINMENT, PRESTRESSING STSTEM WEDGES CONTAINMENT, TENDON VISCONORUST 2090P-4 OR X 1967 FSAR 3. 8. 1. 6 CORROSION-RETARDING TEXACO RUSTPROOF COMPOUND R COMPOUND
0F PRESTRESSING STSTEM DETAILS
PRESTRESSING STSTEM DETAILS FSAR 3. B. 1. T STRUCTURAL RG 1.18 I I STRUCTURAL 1108 ACCEPTANCE TEST ACCEPTANCE TEST.
SEE 1.9 FSAR 3. 8. 2. 3 STEEL CONTAIMMENT, RG 1.57 X 1984 LOAD AND LOAD COMBINATIONS O O O O O O O
. _ _ _ _ - _ .. ....m_. . _ _ _ _ .m_.__. ....-.m _.~---._..m_._..._m.-...__-_. .-_m._ ~__m-_-_.-....-. _ . . . ...._..-.__m._ . . _ . . . _ .
Page No. 5 03/04/86 COMMITMENTS
=
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT SOURCE & SECTION
===============.m=====-====
RESPONS I Bi n,i?T RFMANES REF NO COMMITMFMT COMMITMENT COMMITMENT DOCUMENT /
SOURCE SECTION SUBJECT FEATURE DESIGN CONST
==
==== ==================== ==================== ============================ ======= ======= ==============
d t'ONTAINMENT - 10CFR50, APP. A. GDC 50 X 1119 l FSAR 3. 8. 3. 2 I IWTERNWAL STRUCTURES .
TENDON I USED TO DETERMINE 1282 FSAR 3.B. 1. 3 COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED FOR STRUCTURAL. EFFECTS OF SEISMIC & PRESTRESSING THE i GEOTECHNICAL TENDON 5 IN THE
' ANALYSIS CONTAINMENT DOME.
4 ,
a 8
I.
4 I
i l
i 1
Ik i
l 1
1 i
4 I
I ,
a r 1
i i
k.
4 I
. _ . _ . . . . . _ _ ~ . . _ _ __ . , . _ _ , . _ . . . _ . - . ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . _ .._ __
3.5 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX After the commitments are identified, each team reviews the documents governing its areas of responsibility to ensure compliance with commitment requirements. The depth of verification is to the next level of detail below that stated in the commitment matrix. As an example, if a code is stated as a l
()
commitment, the verification will be to the sections within the code. If a code chapter is stated, the verification will be the subchapters.
f l
l l
l l
l l
i 1
]
l l
l
() 0087m/059-5 i
(
O O O O O O O 1pFLEENTAT10N SORTED BY REFERENCE NUleER DOCUENT/ FEATURE SECTION DESIGN LAST DESIGN FIRST CONST LAST CONST FIRST EMARKS REF NO.
EXPLANATION OF FIELDS DOCUMENT / FEATURE - The document discussed in the FSAR section or the plant feature described in the FSAR section. (See Comi tment Matrix.)
SECTION - The section of the document / feature that is being discussed ,
DESIGN LAST, CONST LAST - "Last" indicates the project document currently containing the information found in the comitment
. DESIGN FIRST, 2 CONST FIRST - "First" indicates the project document that contained the information found in the comitment when the a '
ctivities governed by the document first began.
1 REF NO. - A reference number that corresponds to the appropriate line entry in the comitment matrix.
i 4
)
i t
l l
l Ol89m/2/069-6 i
i _ _. . _ _.
7 O O Page No. 1 03/10/86 IMPLEMENTATI'N
==========.:
MODULE 13C - SORTED BY REFERENCE NUMBER
==========u================
DESIGN LAST DESIGN FIRST CON 5T LAST COM57 FIRST REMARES REF NO DOCUMENT /FRATURE SECTION
==================== ============ ==============s= ========t======= ========-======= ================ ============= ==
DC-1000-C. REV. DC-1000-C. RET. SEE REMARE5 STRUCTURAL 681.00 RC 1.18 RET. 1 12/72 ACCEPTANCE 3 APP. E, O. APP. B.
09-30-83, 02-28-74 TEST DC-2101 REV. 2 DC-2101 REY. O. PROCEDURES T3 COVER SRT-RO. SECT. 1.0-R0 BE DEVELOPED 08-16-83 03-11-74 LATER DC-1000-c. REY. DC-1000-c. REV. 793.00 10CFR50 APP. A, GDC 16 3 PARA 2.5.1.B. O. PARA 2.5.1.A.
4 09-30-83 02-28-74 i
DC-1000-C, REY. DC-1000-C. REY. 816.00 10CFR50, APP. A. GDC-50 3 PARA 2.5.1.B. O. PARA 2.5.1.A.
09-30-83 02-28-74 DC-1000-C. REY. DC-1000-C. REY. 839.00 NOTE (e): SEISMIC CATEGORY RG 1.29 3 PARA. 3.1.A. O. PARA. 3.1.A.
09-30-83, 02-28-74 DC-210!. REV. 2. DC-2101. REY. O,
' ARA 3.2.3, PARA 3.3.3 08-16-83 03-11-74 ASME, III. DIV. 2 ART. DC-1000-C. REV. DC-1000-C. REV. 875.00 CC-3000 3 PARA 2.1H, 1 PARA 2.1.D.
09-30-83, 11-22-74 DC-2101 REV. 2 DC-2101 REV. 1 PARA 2.0, PARA 2.19, 08-16-83 SPEC. 01-19-78, SPEC.
E2AF04 RET. 3 E2AF04 REV. 2
- ? ARA 5 2.0. & PARAS 2.0 & 4.1 4.1, 10-07-85 07-24-84 DC-2101 REV. 2 DC-2101. REY. O. 1023.00 l INDICATE 5 LOAD COMBINATION
! ANO LOAD FACTOR 5 TABLE 1 TABLE 3.5-1
' 08-16-83 03-11-74 DC-1000-C. REV. DC-1000-C, REY. 1025.00 a
10CFR50 4
3 PARA 2.5.1, O. PARA 2.5.1, 09-30-83, 02-28-74, DC-2101 REY. 2 DC-2101. REV. O.
COVER SRT-CDC. PARA 2.15, 08-16-83 03-11-74 I
Page No. 2 03/10/86 IMPLEMENTATION
3r
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT REFERENCE MUMBER 2=tT233?sS23333222=T2==3=t=222222=33223 CONST FIRST REMARES REF NO DESIGN LAST DESIGN FIRST CONST LAST ========
DOCUMENT / FEATURE SECTION === 3s== ======= ============g
====================3= .3=======.se= ================ ==========se==== ====3========
1035.00 RC 1.103 DC-1000 REY. 3 DC-1000 RET. 2 APP. E. 09-30-83 APP. E. 12-29-81 DESIGN VALUES 1039.00 POST LOCA FLOODING OF THE (SEE REMARES) USED (PER CONTAINMENT IS POSTULATED CALC.
70 REACH EL. 181FT. 2 IN. X2CJ2.9.0,
& IS CONSIDERED AS A REV. O. SRT HVDROSTATIC LOAD 125) ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE
' TRAN TBOSE OF FSAR.
1040.00 BC-TOP-5-A. SUB. 6.2.1 DC-2101. REY. 2. DC-2101 REV. 2 PARA. 3.1.1C. PARA. 3.1.lC.
08-16-83 08-16-83 1041.00 THE BLAST LOAD IS DC-1000-c. REV. DC-1000-C. REV.
CONSERVATIVELY TAKEN AS A 3 PARA 5.12 2. PAAA 5.7.3 09-30-83 12-29-81 PEAR POSITIVE INCIDENT OVER PRESSURE... CONSIDERED IN DESIGN AS AN EQUIVALENT STATIC PRESS. OF 2 PSI.
1042.00 CONTAIMMENT DESIGN
- C-2101 REV. 2 DC-2101. REY. O.
PRESSURE OF 52 PSIG PARA 3.2.5, PARA 3.3.5 08-16-83 03-11-74 1043.00 ASME III. Div 2 ART CC DC-2101. REY. 2 DC-2101 REY. O.
3200 PARA 3.0 TABLE PARA 3.0 TABLE
- 1. 08-16-83 3.5.1 03-11-74 REV. 2 1045.00 BC-TOP-7 DC-2101 REV. 2 DC-2101 PARA 2.5 PARA 2.5, 08-16-83 08-16-83 DC-2101. REV. 2 1046.00 BC-TOP-8 DC-2101. REV. 2 PARA 2.5 PARA 2.B.
08-16-83 08-16-83 O O O O O O O
. .. . . .. . . ._..___.._m__ . __m . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . ...m...~.
_ . . _ . . _ - . - _m- . . . _ _ . m... - - . . m ....-m . -=.-._.. _ . 4 __-__ _ . ._
- g
. [
( [ %. i Pete No. 3 03/10/86 IMPLEMENTATION
ne======
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT REFERENCE NUMBER
===========================
SECTION DESIGN LAST DESIGN FIRST CONST LAST CONST FIRST REMARES REF NO DOCUMENT / FEATURE
==================== ====e======= ================ ================ ================ ================ ============= ==
DC-2101. REV. 2 DC-2101 REV. 1, 1048.00 ASME III. DIV 2 ART '
CC-3000 PARA 2.0 & PARA 2.1.B.4 j 3.1.4.B. 01-19-78
' 08-16-83 DC-1000-c. REY. DC-1000-C. REV. 1050.00 TENDON (COMPUTER PROGRAM CE 239) 3. APP. A. ITEM 2 APP. A. ITEM 12-29-81 6 09-30-83 6 BC-TOP-5A, SEC. 6.6. 6.2, DC-2101. REV. 2 DC-2101 REV. 2 1052.00
& 6.3 PARA 3.1.1.C. PARA 3.1.1.C.
08-16-83 08-16-83 DC-2101. REV. 2, DC-2101 REV. 1 1053.00 ASME III. DIV 2 ART CC '
3000 PARA 2.0, PARA 2.0 08-16-83 01-19-78 BC-2101. REV. 2. DC-2101. REV. 1 1054.00 !
ASME III. DIV 2 ART CC 3400 PARA 3.4.1 PARA 3.6.1 08-16-83 01-19-78 BC-TOP-T DC-2101 RET. 2 DC-2101 RET. 2 1055.00 PARA 2.08.. PARA 2.05, j 08-16-83 08-16-83 i
BC-TOP-8 BC-2101. REY. 2 DC-1000-C. REV. 1056.00 PARA 2.09 O. PARA 2.3.5 08-16-83 02-28-74 ASME Ill. DIV 2 , ART CC BC-2101. REV 2 DC-2101 REY. 1 1057.00 3400 PARA 3.4.19 PARA 3.6.1
- i 08-16-83 01-19-78 .
ASTM A36 (SEE REMARES) TEIS ITEM WAS 1098.00 DELETED BT FSAR CHANGE NOTICE NO.
t 243 08-30-85 n
t t
E j
Page No. 4 03/10/R6 IMPLEMENTATION
==
MODULE 13C - SORTED BY REFERENCE NUMBER
===========================
DESIGN LAST DESIGN FIRST CONST LAST CONST FIRST REMARES REF NO DOCUMENT / FEATURE SECTION
==================== ============ ================ ================ ================ ================ ============= ==
DC-2101 REV. 2 DC-2101 REV. 1 1100.00 PRESTRESSING STRANDS RAVE A MIN. ULTIMATE TENSILE PARA 3.3.1 PARA 3.4.1 STRENGTH. F(PU). OF 08-16-83 01-19-78 270.000 PSI BASED ON NOM.
STEEL AREA SPEC. E2AF04 SPEC. E2AF04, 1103.00 ASTM A527 REV. 3 PARA REV. O. PARA 4.2.3.2 4.2.3.2 10-07-85 02-05-74 SEE REMARES SEE REMARES SEE REF. NO. 1100.00 RG 1.18 681 FOR IMPLEMENTATIO N
DC-1000-C. RET. DC-1000-C. REV. 1119.00 10CFR50 APP. A. ODC 50 3 9-30-83, 1 11-22-77 COVER SHEET COVER SHEET DC-1000-C. REV. DC-1000-c. REV. 1282.00 TENDON (COMPUTER PROGRAM CE 239) 3 APP. A. ITEM 2 APP. A. ITEM 6 09-30-83 6 12-29-81 DC-1000-C. REV. DC-1000-C. BEV. 1866.00 RG 1.103 REV. 1 10/76 3 APP. E. 2 APP. E.
09-30-83 12-29-81 MIN. TIELD STRESS OF SPEC. 22AF04 SPEC. 22AF04 AS THE RESULT 1943.00 PRESTRESSING STRAND IS REV. 2. PARA REV. O. PARA OF FINDING MOT LESS THAM 0.85 fru 4.2.1.2 4.1.2 02-05-74 No. 13C-06 07-24-84 DC-2101 REV. 1 E2AF04 REV.
DC-2101 REV. 2 PARA 3.4.1, 3 DATED PARA 3.3.1 01-19-78 10-07-85 08-16-83 REQUIRES MIN.
YIELD TO BE 0.90 fPU.
CORRESPONDING CHANGE MAS MADE INFSAR.
O O O O O O O
O O O c '
O Pete No. 5 03/10/RG IMPLEMENTATION
==
MODULE 13C - 50RTED BY REFERENCE NUMBER
=================e=========
DESIGN LAST DESIGN FIRST CON 5T LAST CONST FIRST REMARES REF NO DOCUMENT / FEATURE SECTION ========
================= == ============ ================ ================ ================ ==_============= ======-
DC-2101. REV. 2. DC-2101 RET. 1 1944.00 ASTM A416 PARA 3.3.1 PARA 3.4.1 08-16-83 01-19-78 SPEC. I2AF04 SPEC. I2AF04 1945.00 ASTM A537 CLASS 1 CARBON-MANGANESE-SILICON RET. 3. PARA REY. 3. PARA STEEL 4.2.2.1 4.2.2.1 10-07-85 01-02-80 5PEC. I2AF04 SPEC. 22AF04, 1946.00 ASTM A569 REY. 3 PARA RET. 1. PARA.
4.2.2.1 4.2.2.1 10-07-85 01-02-80 SPEC. 32AF04 SPEC. 12AF04 1947.00 ASTM A513 RET. 3. PARA RET. O. PARA .
4.2.3.1. 4.2.3.3 4 10-07-ES 02-05-74 AISI 1026 T5L DWG LOG V5L DWG LOG 1948.00 AI2AF04-36-7 AX2AF04-3P e V5L DWG LOG TSL DWG LOG MATERI AL W AS 1949.00 ASTM A537
. II2AF04-111-5 II2AF04-Ill-2 REVISED 70 ASTM A-572 BY F5AF CRANGE NOTICE NO.
243. TSL
- DWG5 AGREE 4 WITH TRIS CRANGE.
V5L DWG LOG V5L DWG LOG AS THE RESULT 1950.00 AISI 86L20 j AI2AF04-Il4-1 AX2AF04-ll4-1 0F FINDING 13C-06 FOLLOWING WEDGE MATERIAL 5 ARE
' PERMITTED FOR !
U5E:
DIN 17210 AISI 8620 PER FSAR CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER 297.
3
Pnge No. 6 03/10/R6 IMPLRMENTAtl0N
==
MODULE 13C - SORTED BY REFERENCE NUMBER
===========================
DESIGN LAST DESION FIRST CONST LAST CONST FIRST REMARES REF MO DOCUMENT / FEATURE SECTION
==================== ============ =======-======== ================ ================ ================ ============= ==
SPEC. X2AF04 SPEC. I2AF04 1967.00 VISCONORUST 2090P-4 OR TREACO RUSTPROOF COMPOUND REV. 3 PARA REV. 1. PARA H 4.4.3.4 4.4.3.4 10-07-85 10-07-85 SPEC. X2AF04 SPEC. X2AF04, 1974.00 CONTROL TESTS & INSPECTION 0F PRESTRESSING SYSTEM RET. 3, PARAS RET. 1. PARAS 4.5.1. 4.6 5.1. 4.5.1 4.6 5.1 5.2, 5.3 & 5.2. 5.3 &
7.2.1. 10-07-85 7.2.1 01-02-80 j1 SPEC. X2AF04 SPEC. X2AF04, 1977.00 ERECTION TOLERANCES FOR REY. 3 PARA REV. O. PARA.
PRESTRESSING SYSTEM 7.3.1.2 & 7.3.1.2 &
7.3.2.1 7.3.2.1 10-07-85 02-05-74 BC-1000-C. REV. DC-1000-C. REV. 1984.00 RG 1.57 3 APP. E. O. APP. E, 09-30-83 02-28-74 i
s e e e I
i G G G G
4.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION b
N_/
The work process followed in the design and installation of the post-tensioned containment is described in the following sections:
() o 4.1 Design.
o 4.2 Materials.
o 4.3 Training and Qualification.
() o 4.4 Fabrication, Installation, and Inspection.
The Vogtle Readiness Review appendixes which describe certain generic aspects of the engineering design and construction programs described herein for the post-tensioned containment are as follows:
o Appendix C, Procurement.
o Appendix D, Document Control.
o Appendix E. Material Control.
("] o Appendix F, inspector Qualification / Certification.
U/
o Appendix I, Quality Assurance.
O
(:) ,
l 0095m/059-6 I l
l l
4.1 DESIGN O This section describes the design engineering scope, workflow, do cu.nenta tion , and design control activities related to the post-tensioned containment. The civil discipline of Bechtel Home Office Engineering (HOE) is responsible for designing the post-tensioned containment for the Vogtle project. The design
.O was implemented through civil design criteria, the procurement specification for the post-tensioning system, Bechtel design drawings, and vendor design documents.
4.1.1 POST-TEN 610NING SYbfEM DESCRIPTION O The post-tensioning system for the Unit 1 containment is comprised of vertical and horizontal prestressed steel tendons routed through tendon sheathing embedded within the cylindrical shell and dome of the concrete containment structure. Anchorage of the tendons is provided by vertical concrete buttresses and base-mounted anchorage assemblies in the tendon gallery.
The post-tensioning system is installed as an integral part of the containment and is intended to ensure structural integrity of the concrete cylindrical shell and dome comprising the containment structure by applying a compressive force to the structure for the design life of the plant.
The configuration of the tendons in the post-tensioned containment is based on a three-way system consisting.of two groups of vertical tendons oriented at 90 degrees with respect to each other and a horizontal (hoop) group extending from the basemat level to the spring line and extending to approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal into the dome. Vertical tendons are continuous through the vertical cylinder wall and the dome forming an inverted "U". Hoop tendons are placed in a 240*
system in which three hoop tendons form two complete rings using three buttresses for anchoring the tendons as shown in the engineering design drawings listed in Table 4.1-1.
() 4.1.2 POST-TENSIONING DESIGN PROCESS The post-tensioning system was designed by the VSL Corporation based upon requirements specified by Bechtel in specification X2AF04. The Bechtel civil group determined the required level of prestress for the governing loading condition and developed a
() suitable tendon layout to meet the plant requirement. This information was conveyed to VSL in specification X2AF04 and design drawings. VSL then designed the post-tensioning system and developed the details of installation procedures.
During construction activities, the engineering group provides
() support for activities such as Field Change Requests, Supplier
l l
l l
Deviation Requests, and evaluation of deviations in the field from design documents. Engineering support to construction h activities ensures that changes requested by the field are evaluated to determine impact on engineering design. 1 4.1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA The design criteria for the post-tensioning system are contained O in design manual section DC-2101, Containment Building, and specification X2AF04, Containment Post-Tensioning system. l Portions of design manual section DC-1000-C are also applicable.
The post-tensioning system was designed in accordance with the ll applicable provisions of the following Bechtel Topical Reports .
(BC-TOP-XX) and design codes:
o BC-TOP-5A. Revision 3: Prestressed Concrete Nuclear Reactor Containment Structures, February 1975.
I o BC-TOP-7 Revision 0: Full Scale Buttress Test for Prestressed Nuclear Containment Structures, September 1972.
o BC-TOP-8. Revision 0: Tendon End Anchor Reinforcement Test, September 1972.
o American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 2, 1975 Edition through the Winter 1975 Addenda, Article CC-3000 only.
o American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),
Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, adopted February 12, 1969, and Supplements 1, 2, and 3.
4.1.4 DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTATION The Bechtel design drawings that pertain to the post-tensioning I system are listed in Table 4.1-1. These drawings show the general orientation of the tendon system, typical details, the i
available clearances, the required effective prestress forces for tendons, the anticipated losses, and the information to be furnished by the contractor. The number, size, and location of i
the tendons shown on the Bechtel design drawings provide VSL with the required design input. The design drawings show tendon lll layout which accounts for the design penetrations through the containment shell structure.
VSL prepared and submitted shop and field erection drawings for the following items:
l 1
i l 4.1-2
l I
o Tendons.
(:) o Bearing plates, trumpets, and transition cones.
o Sheathing, sheathing couplers, and protective caps.
o Air vents, vent piping, and drains.
fs k'} o Anchorage assemblies.
o Tendon sheathing filler retaining caps.
- o Sheathing, bearing plate, and trumpet placing drawings.
o Post-tensioning sequence drawings.
o Stressing record forts.
o Equipment drawings.
4.1.4.1 Calculations The VEGP Project Reference Manual (PRM), Part C, Section 9.
describes the procedure for preparation, checking, review, signoff, issue, and revision of calculations. Calculations for
,e~g the post-tensioning system have been prepared in accordance with
(_) project procedures contained in the PRM. The calculations are identified, scheduled, and updated on the Project Control of Engine'ering Budgets and Schedules (CEBUS) Control Log, which is maintained by the project document control group. The CEBUS log is the controlling document that provides a listing by discipline of calculations, drawings, or specifications by title and document number.
The supporting calculations are required by the procedures to be prepared by the originating engineer, checked by an engineer l designated by the engineering group leader (EGL), reviewed by j the EGL, and approved by the engineering group supervisor (EGS) J or his designee. In addition, certain calculations were designated by the chief engineer to be included in the Design (N- ) Control Check List (DCCL). The DCCL is a listing, approved by the chief engineer and maintained by the EGS, of design documents that require the chief engineer's approval prior to issue. Calculations are selected for review by the chief engineer at his discretion and usually in consultation with the EGS. Generally, calculations are selected because of the
[_]
' uniqueness of the design they support, the importance of the design to safety, or the potential impact on the cost or schedule of construction.
Calculation packages are maintained within the civil / structural
/ discipline during their preparation, prior to being approved by
-) the EGS and the chief engineer. After calculations were 4.1-3
approved for the first time, they were submitted to the document control group, who microfilmed and issued the packages as revision O. Since the design process is iterative, the calculations may require revisions subsequent to the revision 0
- issue. Revisions to the calculations are originated, checked, approved, and issued using the same procedures as were used on the original calculation. An exception to this is that revisions to calculations on the DCCL are reviewed by the chief engineer only at the discretion of the EGS, based on the significance of the change.
The following sections describe design documents and indicate their current status.
O 4.1.4.2 Supplier Design and Drawinos THE VEGP PRM, Part C, section 5 describes the processing of supplier data.
Control and administration of the post-tensioning specification is assigned to home office engineering (HOE). All supplier data are processed through HOE Drawing and Document Control (DDC).
The type, quantity, and quality of supplier data, and their schedules for submittal to the engineering office are defined in section 17 of the drawing and data requirements of the post-tensioning specification proposal form.
Supplier data submittal to HOE is assigned a sequential number O
by DDC and is entered in tl:e supplier data register (SDR). The documents are sent to the ':ivil engineering group for review.
An engineer designated as c responsible engineer (RE) will review or coordinate review of these documents with other disciplines or specialists in the chief engineer's office, as needed. Supplier design materials and drawings are reviewed by engineering to verify that they satisfy the specification requirements, design input provided to the supplier, and the specific commitments made in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Supplier test data are also reviewed to verify that they satisfy specification requirements.
Supplier drawings, regardless of acceptance status by the project, may be revised by HOE if they have not been resubmitted by the supplier for acceptance by HOE.
O 0096m/066-6 h
4.1-4
(.
I TABLE 4.1-1 POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM REFERENCE DRAWINGS (Bechtel Drawings)
.i Drawing .
Number Title 1X2D01K001 Containment Prestressing Requirements Key.
Plan 1X2D0lK002 Containment Prestressing Requirements Dome Plan ,
1X2D01K003 Containment Prestressing Requirements Wall Developed Elevation :
1X2D01K005 Containment Prestressing Requirements Wall !
and Dome Cross Section Containment Prestressing Requirements Hatch- .I 1X2D0lK006 and Lock Details-Sheet 1 ;
1X2D0lK007 Containment Prestressing Requirement Hatch and. Lock Details Sheet 2 1X2D01K000 Containment Prestressing Requirement
()
t Sections and Details Sheet 1 f '
l i
i l
i l
l l
l i
0097m/059-6/2 L
4.2 MATERIALS A
V The materials for the post-tensioning system and equipment used in the Unit 1 containment are procured through specification X2AF04 written and controlled by Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel). This specification is prepared in accordance with the design criteria prepared by Bechtel and contained in the
() Project Design Manual. These criteria incorporate commitments of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The materials supplied for the post-tensioning system consist of tendons, bearing plates, trumpets, transition cones, sh.athing,
() sheathing couplers, protective caps, air vents, vent pipes, drains, anchorage assemblies, tendon sheathing filler, and filler retaining caps. The material specifications are shown in specification X2AF04 or in the approved vendor documents.
Georgia Power Company (GPC) awarded the purchase order to the contractor for detailed design, fabrication, supply, and installation of the post-tensioning system.
The procurement process is described in Appendix C. Material receipt and document review are contained in Appendix E.
4.2.1 SUPPLIER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM Specification X2AF04 requires that the supplier of the post-tensioning system impler quality assurance program which satisfies the requirent if ANSI 45.2-1971. The contractor's Quality Assurance "rogram Manual was submitted to Bechtel for review and approw . The approval manual is the basic document to which the contractor's work is audited.
Quality surveillance is also based upon the technical i requirements of the specification, codes, and standards.
An outline of the procedures that a supplier must follow to comply with ANSI N45.2-71 in implementing requirements of the quality assurance program is given at the end of the Proposal Form in the specification. Supplier quality surveillance is implemented and records of the activities are maintained by i
Southern Company Services (SCS) in accordance with project 1 procedures as identified in Appendixes C, D, E, and I. These l l procedures are in accordance with Bechtel standards for conducting supplier quality surveillance activity.
Thirty-eight surveillance visits by Bechtel inspectors have been made as of January 1985 to observe the post-tensioning system.
During these surveillances, three Quality Surveillance Deficiency Reports (QSDR) were issued and were satisfactorily closed by VSL. Although SCS manages the supplier surveillance program, the Bechtel Home Office Engineering Civil / Structural ~
s Discipline maintains responsibility for review of quality
surveillance reports and for taking action when required by the surveillance reports.
4.2.2 SUPPLIER QUALITY VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION The contractor must produce certified documentation when executing his quality assurance program. Requirements for ihis documentation were established by Bechtel and were based, in part, on the experience of Bechtel in interpreting and applying the 10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria. These criteria require that documented evidence that material and equipment conform to procurement requirements be available at the site prior to installation or use of an item. The Vogtle Project is committed to meeting the requirements of ANSI N45.2.13-1976 and Regulatory Guide 1.123 to the extent stated in section 1.9.123 of the FSAR. In general, this requires the type reports shown below:
o Certified performance data and test reports.
o Mill analysis and material properties test reports.
o Nondestructive examination qualification certifications.
o Nondestructive examination reports.
o inspection reports. lh, o Nonconformance reports (after work has been done and accepted).
o Certificate of compliance for tendon sheathing.
To establish which documentation le to be provided, the supplier submits a Supplier Quality Verifa.. tion Documentation i List-Summary (SQVDL-S) form summarizing the certified documents i to be delivered with the shipment or at the end of contract to this jobsite in accordance with specification requirements.
After the SQVDL-S has been approved, the supplier submits a Supplier Quality Verification Documentation List-Detailed (SQVDL-D) form listing in detail documentation that is submitted with each delivery of post-tensioning items and materials.
4.2.3 SUPPLIER DEVIATIONS Vendor requests for approval to deviate from the requirements of I a material specification are submitted on a Supplier Deviation Disposition Request (SDDR) form. These requests are reviewed and approved (or rejected) by the Bechtel civil / structural discipline group supervisor (EGS) following a technical i
4.2-2 .
evaluation. In addition, the SDDRs approved by the EGS are reviewed and approved by Bechtel Quality Engineering, the Bechtel project engineer, and Bechtel Quality Assurance. The O approval disposition of each request is categorized as one of the following: Accepted, rejected, or rejected / resubmit.
j Following is the summary of approval disposition of SDDRs to date: j l
() o o
Accepted Rejected 5
4 o Rejected / Resubmit None l
() Deviations or deficiencies can also'be discovered during normal surveillance visits, full scope quality program audits, or-progressive audits of the supplier's quality program. Such post-tensioning system inspections and audits were conducted by Bechtel on materials covered by this module. A deviation discovered during a normal surveillance visit is documented in either one of two reports. The QSDR covers a violation of :
procedures, nonconforming hardware, and/or deficiencios noted in the documentation that can be related to a ningle item or group of materials. The programmatic audit finding report (AFR) covers lack of implementation of an established quality program ,
l requirement. Following are the number and type of audits conducted: !
l o Audits 1 o~ Reaudits None o AFRs submitted None 4.2.4 MATERIAL RECEIPT, RECEIPT INSPECTION, AND STORAGE Embedded items supplied by VSL are received, receipt inspected, and placed on hold by GPC QC in accordance with GPC procedure ;
GD-A-30. Quality verification documentation is reviewed by GPC 1 Document Review personnel following procedure DC-A-06. Upon i lO acceptance of the documentation, material is released from hold and is available to be issued for installation.
l l
Tendons, anchorage material, and grease supplied by VSL are received and receipt inspected by VSL QC. Quality verification
,p documentation is reviewed by VSL QA. Receipt inspection and l () document review are in accordance with VSL procedure PT-05.
l Upon acceptance of documentation, the material is released for
! installation. Material receipt documentation is turned over to GPC by transmittal to the GPC Document Review Vault in accordance with VSL procedure PT-03.
Both GPC and VSL verify that the material and documentation conform to specification X2AF04 and approved vendor documents.
4.2-3
/
. ._, -m . . , - . . - - - - - . , . _ . - _ , - , , - - -
Material not meeting acceptance criteria is documented with Deviation Reports. Nonconforming material and material with insufficient documentation is identified with hold tags which are controlled on a Hold Tag Log.
Post-tensioning materials are stored in accordance with applicable requirements of ANS1 N45.2.2 (1972).
O l
O O
O 1
1 i
O, O
0092m/063-6 4.2-4 !
l 4.3 TRAINING AND OUALIFICATION This section contains a description of*the project programs for ;
training and qualification of design engineers, Georgia Power Company (GPC) construction engineers, contractor staff and craft, and inspectors.
l() For GPC surveillance inspectors, the information contained herein should be reviewed along with Appendix F, Inspector Qualification / Certification.
4.3.1 ENGINEERS (DESIGN)
'(
! Engineering personnel assigned to the Home Office Engineering l (HOE) organization and the Project Field Engineering (PPE) organization receive training to familiarize them with project l
procedures governing their assigned responsibilities.
Section 6, Part A of the Project Reference Manual establishes the program structure and requirements for indoctrination and training of Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) personnel assigned to the Vogtle Project. It defines procedures, i responsibilities, documentation, and records maintenance for the Bechtel project training program. Participation in the program is mandatory for permanently assigned home office and jobsite personnel.
() The overall training program includes training in the following subject areas:
o Quality program.
o Engineering indoctrination program.
o Project Reference Manual.
o Technical and specialized training, o New arrival orientation. -
(} o Quality Concern Program.
The project engineering manager or his designees are responsible for the formulation and impl~ementation of the training program.
The civil engineering group supervisor (EGS) is responsible for easuring that assigned personnel attend required project and discipline training sessions in procedural and technical aspects
-- of the discipline's design activity. The civil EGS identifies the training requirements for each individual in the civil group commensurate with assigned tasks, and maintains records of training in accordance with PRM part A, section 6. The project administrator receives and stores training records of personnel
(} no longer asgigned to the project.
l l
- 4.3.2 GPC CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS This section discusses the training and qualification of GPC construction engineers and other personnel reporting to the civil project section supervisor who perform work related to the activities of this module.
Candidates for construction engineering positions are either degreed engineers or have construction experience. Normally, the new engineer is assigned pertinent procedures to read.
Newly assigned engineers work with an experienced engineer who provides instruction on specifications and procedures, shows the new engineer how to use design drawings, and familiarizes him with plant orientation and site organization.
The civil project section supervisor is responsible for making certain his personnel are capable of performing the tasks assigned to them. Therefore, in addition to the on-the-job training just described, the supervisor trains his personnel on changes and revisions to specifications and procedures and provides them formalized training as necessary to maintain or upgrade job skills.
l 4.3.3 GPC SURVEILLANCE INSPECTORS (POST-TENSIONING)
This section contains a brief description of the training course used to qualify civil QC inspectors employed by GPC to perform h surveillance inspection of post-tensioning operations.
Appendix F contains a detailed explanation of the certification program.
To perform inspection in this area, the inspector must be certified in Structural Steel Inspection. An inspector certified in this area is also qualified in receipt, storage, and handling inspection of post-tensioning items. The l applicable training course for this aspect of Structural Steel l Inspection is Post-Tensioning. I Post-Tensioning is a 32-hour course that provides basic information required to inspect post-tensioning activities. The &
course also provides the inspector with recommended and W specified techniques of inspection which enable him to become familiar with post-tensioning procedures, construction specifications, and drawings. In addition, the post-tensioning surveillance inspection includes, but is not limited to, tendon '
installation, tendon stressing, and tendon greasing, along with a review of contractor QC documentation for completeness.
W O
4.3-2
l 4.3.4 CONTRACTOR O The training and certification of contractor personnel to perform installation work associated with post-tensioning is discussed in this section. The primary contractor employing personnel to perform this work is VSL Corporation.
(
\
GPC reviews and approves training programs established by the contractors.
4.3.4.1 VSL Corporation Ouality Control VSL inspectors performing post-tensioning work inspections are
( qualified and certified in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6-78.
Training is conducted and certification is obtained in accordance with the VSL Field Instruction Manual, section VII.
Successful completion of the VSL Corporation QA/QC Inspector Training Program certifies the personnel to perform inspection in the following activities:
o Post-tensioning system materials - receipt inspection.
o Tendon installation.
o Tendon anchorage assembly installation.
lON/
o Tendon stressing.
o Tendon-end cutting, o Tendon grease cap and seal installation.
o Tendon sheathing - filler injection.
o Documentation of post-tensioning inspections.
The training program enables the inspector to become proficient and to improve his skills commensurate with time in grade. In l(~h addition, the program includes the required data to ensure the
!k/ inspectors are knowledgeable of the information needed to perform their duties.
The following requirements are completed and documented during the training program:
o Formal inspection training.
o On-the-job training.
Training program material is presented by the field QA/QC
() manager and consists of that material required to complete or 4.3-3
update the inspector pbooe of training. Training records are retained in the VSL per sonnel file.
4.3.4.2 VSL Corporation Craft The VSL craft training program consists of an informal indoctrination and hands-on practical performance period in g which the craftsman is assigned to work under the direct W supervision of the project superintendent.
The project superintendent is a company employee who has been employed by VSL on other post-tensioning projects and transferred to the Vogtle Project. After the craftsman is hired, he is assigned to work under the direct supervision of the project superintendent at various phases of the post-tensioning system whi'ch may include:
o Receipt, storing, and handling.
o Tendon installation.
o Anchorage assembly.
o Stressing.
o Greasing.
o Equipment familiarization, O
o QC hold points.
When the project superintendent is confident that the craftsman is knowledgeable and competent in the responsibilities required to perform at an acceptable level, he assigns that person to one of the post-tensioning installation crews which is under the supervision of a VSL foreman.
O O
l l
O 0094m/059-6 l
l 4.3-4 1
s
4.4 POST-TENSIONING INSTALLATION l
(1) The following section contains a brief description, flowchart, and list of procedures and specifications applicable to the installation, stressing, greasing, and inspection work relevant to Module 13C.
() The flowchart (Figure 4.4-1) illustrates the contractor's work activity as well as the resulting inspection activities required to support, inspect, and document these work processes. Each organization listed in the left hand margin of the flowchart is responsible for the activities shown to the right of it. The nodes (circles) denote the starting and completion points of
() work activities. Between the' nodes are descriptions of the work activities performed and the applicable procedure governing that work activity. The dotted lines with directional arrows .
indicate the flow of documentation or instructions for an '
activity. The flowchart does not contain the flow of documents such as Deviation Reports or Field Change Requests, as they may be generated at any time.
Table 4.4-1 is a listing of the applicable procedures and the specification used in the receipt, storage, and handling along I with the installation, inspection, and documentation of the post-tensioning system.
O
, (:)
l 1
I l
O 0167m/059-6 aw-- -g-- y,g,- --
m.,,, 94-.yy.,g-ypy,yq.qp,..i..iyggy-y_. ,.ypy..g.,
, yg,p. 99 p g..,%9.-.p.m., yyy._e eqpg.+y,wyg -,g4..,.y..,---. -y y y. gyp,
f_
TABLE 4.4-1
\- POST-TENSIONED CONTAINMENT )
( APPLICABLE PROCEDURES fs Georgia Power Company I
\~' DC-A-06 Review and Control of Quality Assurance Documentation l
l CD-T-28 Surveillance of Post-Tensioning Quality Control !
Inspection
() VSL Corporation Field Instruction Manual (FIM) for Installation of VSL E-55 Post-Tensioning System Within Nuclear Containment Structures PT-03 Review and Control of Quality Assurance Documentation PT-05 Receipt. Receipt Inspection, Storage, and Handling Bechtel X2AF04 Containment Post-Tensioning System l
l l
-s U
o)
L-Ol69m/059-6 l
.- u w - - - -~ r e ,= n . a - s- --n n n-n. &
\ h D % [
d G s d s V 8 eof f $
SPSCtf SC A feces R74 Fee APPt eC Att f Pat)rf Dumf 3 g g RFCitPT & STORAGE Of ter5f Att ff eeDoses . seetf at t A8erteOmagt STetts Vf eeDOset - GAf ASE ff eeDOsel .
P T teaf f esat 5 stouteutf Atsfestet V BrouissCE St out eete 5f 00f 880f t.-O_T_
o 68188 SECT eV 48 .9 SFIEW SECT tv CD
_m speme lf CT ev tl
. m 89888 8f C9 eW D2
_m (Fihe lf Cf W es 9
, , , i 0 0 1 1 8 I i 1
i i I I I I
1 e l i I I l I g 3 1 1 I I , I I I I t I 1
l AtreePT eersPfCitose ! 4884PSCf Tf eeDose g
98e9PEC T A8ertene AGf l MEPfCI ff erOtm i
tesqPECT YeeeDOso I
g I DF P f etAff meat I tessf 4LL Af sDes I ASSp eset y
- ST455SeerG Gmf 4StesG g
g g wSt - OU444f v COsethOs 6 O A O i y O A y 2 A y 7 Pt agt e e8 48A Sf Cl VHD tr ees tf C ' Wiel etees S*C1 West tF9a8 5f C T Wut i i I i Y/ b p 1 RfCf sPT teetPOCY80% DortMsf esT AYtDes P t seetT At t Af ttpe pe1Pf C T100e TR40staket tf D TO GPC Oc DOf Umpf tet ATIOss t#Ame8Eeme? TED TO GPC QC iP14sH ePT S16
) YI Y e
M OC 9f vif set TfetOOst g
g GPC Sungf ogi A8erf Os sorgtat t aysous ime9PtCttDes Para AGE m _ _At e.. m.e,.m C ICDT Mi
=00 SCD9 Ne
=
af Wef se g 4 eDini y I e
i 4 N KIPC OC Umasegesses etcfiPt easqPECgoose GPC OC 7AAsesameit tf seDOne egewfCT40se DOrtfe#F41419t18e TO Dortmotset of vtf ee FAC# AGE FD DtK Uust sof af vef ee grO T MD eCDT Me P T
' 1
- o e.,
Dt o f.9- ti f ope - mt f.. .f.,tes f.. .f.ef.M..t f
-..t s . ..
- pg 1
I t
Figure 4.4-1 Post-Tensioning Activity Flow e i 1
i
l 5.0 AUDITS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS O This section of module 13C contains a discussion of the Quality ,
Assurance (QA) audits. NRC inspections, and special evaluations performed in the area of containment post-tensioning. This section also summarizes the results of a Readiness Review ,
evaluation of audit findings to determine their impact on the O programs assessed, and to ensure inclusion of significant issues into the verification process. These audits have been performed during the Plant Vogtle design and construction activities by QA- .
organizations. The onsite audits have been performed by Georgia ;
Power Company QA and Bechtel Power Corporation QA. Also, -
regularly scheduled and unscheduled NRC inspections and O investigations, including the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) evaluations and a special investigation by the regional Construction Assessment Team (CAT), have been conducted. Plant Vogtle was also 1 of 22 utility sites that initially participated in the onsite investigations and evaluations of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). An offshoot of the pilot INPO program and the subsequent followup onsite investigation was the Self-Initiated Evaluation (SIE) program. .
The content of this section is divided into two subsections:
5.1, Design Audits, and 5.2, Construction Audits. Section 5.1 is limited to discussion of audits pertaining to design-related items; section 5.2 is limited to discussion of audits pertaining O to construction related items. These sections briefly discuss organizations, programs, investigations, evaluations, and audits, and list findings or violations that are applicable to this module.
O O
O Ol66m/059-6
L l
5.1 DESIGN AUDITS i
~
~
The project's design effort for the post-tensioning system has been audited by quality assurance (QA) organizations, as ;
described in this section, to verify compliance with criteria, ;
such as 10 CFR 50, Appendix B: Final Safety Analysis (FSAR) commitments: Design Criteria Manuals; project procedures ;
O manuals; etc. The QA audits provide assurance that the actual work / activity was performed in accordance with specific written i
requirements.
Audits that specifically pertain to the post-tensioning system were those performed by Georgia Power Company (GPC) and the
() Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). These audits are described in the paragraphs below and are listed in the matrix at the end of this section.
5.1.1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY QA AUDITS Seven audits performed by GPC QA identified seven findings and one observation pertaining to the design scope of Module 13C.
These audits and their results, as they pertain to design :
activ' ties, are as follows.
Number of Audit Number Date Findings Other CD08-81/49 7-22-81 1 CD08-82/83 7-13-82 0 1 - Observation CD08-83/41 5-16-83 0 l CD08-84/83 12-5-84 3 CD08-85/25 3-22-85 0 CP01-85/33 5-24-85 1 SP01/CP15-85/26 7-10-85 2 6 The seven findings identified deficient conditions in i specification (X2AF04). These conditions involved deficiencies l with supplier documentation which include items such as load test report being incomplete, a substitution of material for O some of the shims not being formally approved, and a lack of procedural requirements for the removal of condensation from sheathing prior to tendon installation. Other deficiencies i noted were minor and consisted of documentation concerns; for example:
() o The VSL instruction manual was granted a Level 1 approval, but should have received Level 2 since -
comments were provided.
o The specification was revised to incorporate a more practical requirement regarding the tests to be
() witnessed.
i l
--.- . - - - - . - , ,--,..,,,n,..,.-n, ,-.-~w- -.,.,---------v~~,-- ner - , -
The conditions noted by the seven findings were found to have no adverse effect on installed hardware. The findings were dispositioned and corrective actions were taken; for example, there were two vendor procedural changes, two specification changes, and one FSAR change in which cited conditions were 1 satisfactorily rectified. l l
5.1.2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - INSPECTIONS OI The NRC performed six audits in which they specifically reviewed )
the program and processes involved in the scope of Module 13C.
No NRC violations or deviations were identified which concerned the design scope of this module.
O O
O l
~
0168m/069-6 5.1-2
O O
~
l DESIGN AUDITS SORTED BY INITIATING ORGANIZATION AND AUDIT NUlWER ,
SUPPLR DEVIAT. TRAIN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN WEST.
EDIT INIT AUDIT DESIGN CALCU- DRAW-NUleER DATE CRIT LATIONS INGS SPEC DATA REPORTS PRGM REVIEW- DOC CNT CHANGES MISC S(X)PE NO. ORGAN EXPUWIATION OF FIELDS for convenience, categories were con 61ned where appropriate. The following is a listing of combinations and explanations:
l !
EDIT NO. - Used for conplete entry / corrections '
INIT ORGAN - Initiating or responsible organization: DPC, GPC, NRC, SCS
$ i AUDIT NUIOER - Number appiicable to specific audit DATE - Date of audit, finding, or report
\
DESIGN CRIT - Design Criteria, FSAR
$ CALCULATIONS - Calculations, Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs), engineering studies DRAWINGS - (Self-explanatory)
I
- SPEC - Design specifications, procurement specs, construction specs, bid evaluations SUPPLR Dr.TA - Supplier data includes expediting, inspections, Supplier Deviation Disposition Requests (SDDRs)
) - Supplier data package problems DEVIA1. REPOR1S - Deviation Reports, Nonconformance Reports, reportabIe items TRAIN PRGM - Training program for design personnel
- DESIGN REVIEW - Design reviews of engineering documents, Design. Review Notices (DRNs), and interf ace between engineering !
disciplines
}
DESIGN DOC CNT - Document Control - records, correspondence, design control (of design documents), manual control Project
! Reference Manual (PRM)-
l DESIGN CllANGES - Field Change Requests (FCRs), Design Change Notices (DCNs), greenlining, Field Engineering Change Orders (FECOs) 1 2 MISC - Licensing deviation disposition requests procedures, miscellaneous design audits 1
2 WEST. SCOPE - NSSS and activities specific to Module 16 i
Ol89m/4/069-6 h
1
_ _ _ , ._ _,-..,.-. _ ,.- _ , . . , . . _ , _ . , . . . . - _ _ . . , _ , _ - - , , , , , . , _ , . ~ . . . , . _ _ . . . . . . ~ . . _ ._ .. I
._..m.__.. _ . . . . . . ._,__m.z.__..-__._. ...m. .. . m. - .. .um.m.._ -.___..___.._u... ..___..-a __. ,
w
'N Page No. 1 03/10/86 DESIGN AUDITS
=
MODULE 13C - SORTED BT INIT. ORGANIZATION & AUDIT NUMBER
============================================
EDIT IMIT AUDIT DATE DESIGN CALCUL DRAW- SPEC SUPPLR DEVIAT. TRAIN DESIGN DESIGN DE510N MISC WEST.
NO ORGAN NUMBER CRIT ATIONS INGS DATA REPORTS PROM REVIEW DOC CNT CRANGES SCOPE
e== ========== =4======== ======== ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======
158 GPC-QA CDOS-81/49 07-22-81 222 I .
161 GPC-QA CD08-82/83 07-13-82 I 015-095 .
910 GPC-QA CD08-83/41 05-16-83 I
' 162 GPC-QA CD08-84/83 12-05-84 I 717.718 I 716 i'
911 GPC-QA CD08-85/25 03-22-85 I 912 GPC-QA CP01-85/33 05-24-85 807 I 913 GPC-QA 5P01/CP15- 07-10-85 816,817 I
- 85/26 79-13 08-08-79 I I 630 NRC-INS 82-17' 07-29-82 I I 4
702 MRC-INS 84-27 10-19-84 I I I j 824 NRC-INS 85-13 05-22-85 I I
! 914 NRC-IN5 i
85-21 06-14-85 I I I 915 MRC-IN5 85-38 09-10-85 I I I 916 MRC-INS i.
i I ,
k 2
4 l
i 4
t
. , . - _ . _ . . .. - ~ . --, _ ,
5.2 CONSTRUCTION AUDITS 5.2.1 PROJECT AUDITS The Georgia Power Company (GPC) Quality Assurance (QA)
Department has conducted 11 audits that examined the programs and processes involved with containment post-tensioning. Those (w') - 11 audits resulted in 10 findings, 2 observations, and 2 deficiencies that are listed in the findings matrix at the end of this section. These audits are listed in the matrix at the end of this section.
<f~' For Module 13C, each audit was reviewed and categorized into one or more of the eight categories listed below.
Audit No. of Audit Catecory Frequency Findings Materials 4 2 Train / qual. 2 0 Fabrication 4 2 Inspection 5 1 Testing 0 0 M&TE O O Document control 0 0 QA records 7 5 V
Each finding was reported to project management and received an evaluation that included an assessment of its impact on the project, corrective action, and action to preclude recurrence.
The findings, observations, and deficiencies were evaluated by the construction team who determined no major problems were identified relative to the scope of the construction assessment. None of these findings were directly factored into the construction assessment.
l 1
5.2.2 NRC INSPECTIONS Two Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspections addressed containment post-tensioning and resulted in no violations within the scope of the construction assessment for Module 13C. These inspections are listed in the matrix at the end of this section.
O 5.2.3 PAST CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS Problems which could adversely affect the safety of operations of the plant at any time during its expected lifetime are to be T reported to the NRC according to criteria in the Code of Federal i {s/
s Regulations [10 CFR 50.55(e)].
I
Of the 97 potentially reportable problems identified to the NRC as of October 15, 1985, none have pertained to the subject of
,! containment post-tensioning.
1 i
i l
4 O
}
i O 1
O O
O 0173m/069-6 0
5.2-2
- ~ . . . . , . . . . _ , - . . - . . . . - . - - .. ,.,. .. _ . _ - . - . . . . . . . - - - . - - . . . - . - _ . - . - , . . . _ _ - . . - - . .
i.
S K
R A
M E
R S
D R
O n C o AE QR i t
a z
- T i n
N L a O
. ER UT g
r C N o O)X D ( g n
i t
Q a EE i t
R t UT r i
n S S AE y o
p I
KS T n
a R e
b y
. p .
m n d c
~ - o o e t T C i n g
e
~ SG t s EN n y c n i ,
TI : t o n a
ep o s s
s s
n n i S
S D i om ec mitn p s t a
a e n
T -
L E
t t e o I r n i .
I D C c r p C ep o l n
c U E I
F e a s n i n e t
A PN p p e In e o O t c
a e o
~
SO s c N NI F O n D i is r e
ep lc l
e i ,
I T i d v s n s t s
- O N A n r i o e w s n s a t a eS n in te gn, n ose n t s I
T C
O r Q o n i
t i c oP i i e
I y r o a v m t r d a i U - N T a R
I O A t i nap le n C r r r r i T RI N o y o
p S e a e o t l d
e p i v x d e ao
~ BT A d i S AA u m lo t r r t ip n t t
- N O F C P L a o B a ot o y lcu i a f o ac ev l n e
C X C l C n d e h , m E
g m l a a N u c , n n i
p s n r a a l r p a e t s
/ r e i m weo t e t s
u g
es e m w o o f
f r
e g io i o cu s t
iu q
d s
IN L b r S n e u o C o t a t t r e r am ac AA m o fP I R o P e r a t t e o RU u d h n t r o l s c T Q n r a r r r r u eb p d i l e w t e e ig o a a n g le e t e f a d o s r e p f e e ti t h i m r , i t n l e
~ c r t l c lc h t t u e l s o f t e EL T A
- n n o e
r i o eG l r
a u u N N s c u e e o n W B S I s n n
r o a g r
uaq /ndi n s d
n l
o r
na c
- AI e t I
o t o g n t a t r MR f a = i i t d n a s n u e zi = t d s n e t o s
~ r n
6 1
=
a c a u ,
a iru n o t n e
c s A E l a A 4N i l a n c a t g t i e me nt y
- T a g Q = S f f r e t A n r N = = i to i i c e
u r u m D r o - - O I e = n e e t r n f p s
s s u i
e O
- C - t i u l T
- t. e C R IS C s C S P e t a a a n a n s e ae c o ua h P A R e P C N dI r r R 8 T G il N N W B S I D M T M I P M D Q TE - - - - - - - - -
I Dp W - - -
- UU AN N O
I
. T N A O Z GI I Q -
N T N E L A A O IT Z G 1 R AI I N R
O R S
E T
l" 4 T A E N T C 9 _
I N R G G NI et L
A IO N
O &
C S D
6 0
I O . U L U T I T R /
O T N A Q A T G E N O 3 _
.- T N
T A
I T TI E E I
R
/
N I
C I
R P C
E N
I T
R U
S EE U R C /
9 m
. I I D T T A u S S A C 8
~
IDO EN D
E N
I U
A A A D M R
T A
F N
I E KD O QA T
1 0
' ' i'* a ' i ' 4 !i a j i
~
f f .
Page No. 1 03/10/86 CONSTRUCTION AUDIT 5
=======
MODULE 13C - 50RTED BT INIT. ORGANIZATION & AUDIT NUMBER
============================================
MATERIAL TRAIN / FABRIC- INSPECT- TESTING MEASURE DOCUMENT OA REMARES I EDIT INITIATING AUDIT DATE NO ORGANIZATION UUMBER QUAL ATION ION & TEST EQ CONTROL RECORD 5
============ =============== ======== ======== ======= ======= ======== ======= ======== ======== ======= ====================
072,073 115 GPC-OA CD08-79/10 05-08-79 069 07-22-81 I I 220 116 CPC-QA CD08-81/49 118 GPC-QA CD08-82/144 01-26-83 E. 043-DEF I 044-DEF 04-16-82 I 120 GPC-QA CD08-82/35 122 GPC-QA CD08-82/83 07-13-82 317,013 014-088
-055 I I 123 GPC-QA CD08-83/41 05-16-83 I 06-23-83 450 451 124 GPC-QA CD08-83/50 08-07-84 I 670 126 GPC-QA CD08-84/52 I 128 GPC-QA CD08-84/83 12-05-84 165 GPC-QA CP01-85/33 05-24-85 803 1400 GPC-QA SP01/CP15-85/26 06-19-85 815 10-19-84 I 4
1294 NRC-IN5 84-27 I 1580 NRC-INS 85-30 09-10-85 I I 4
i l
9 1
i
1 5.3 PAST DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS IN THE INDUSTRY This section describes the problems encountered in previously built post-tensioned containments for similar nuclear power plants and their impact on project design and construction of Plant Vogtle.
O The Civil / Structural Chief Engineer's office in Bechtel Power Corporation Home Office Engineering is responsible for review, evaluation, and dissemination to all'potentially affected projects, of industry related or generic type civil / structural defects, deficiencies, or design problems. The chief's staff reviews NRC I.E. Bulletins, Information Notices, circulars,
(" Generic Letters, industry periodicals, and Bechtel experience on other projects for problems that may be applicable to other projects on a generic basis. Engineering department procedures require that a Problem Investigation Request (PIR) or a Problem Alert (PA) be issued describing the generic problem. These PIR/PA are then issued to potentially affected projects within the originating office and to the civil structural chief engineers of the other Bechtel offices. The other chiefs will then issue it to their potentially affected projects.
Each project is required to reply back to its respective chief engineer with the following information.
o Action taken to investigate the problem for this project.
o The applicability of the problem for this project.
o Ii the problem is applicable to this project, steps being taken to resolve the problem.
Project responses are then reviewed by the chief engineers. If the responses are satisfactory, the problem is considered closed. If not, the chief will work with the projects until satisfactory resolutions are obtained.
For future projects and designs, data letters will be issued, or design guides, topical reports, or standard specifications will O be revised accordingly to correct or address the generic problem.
The following information specifically addressed industry.
problems associated with containment post-tensioning systems.
The Plant Vogtle post-tensioning system is similar to those used in other containments. No significant. generic problems have O5 been identified for these containments. The following problems were reviewed and evaluated by the civil / structural chief's office. The conclusions'of these reviews as they relate to the Plant Vogtle containment design are discussed below.
O
o Farley Anchor Head Hydrogen Embrittlement The Parley anchor head failed as a result of hydrogen-assisted cracking. For hydrogen-assisted cracking to occur, the anchor head steel must be very high strength (fut > 150 ksi), it must be subjected to sustained tensile stresses, and the steel must be exposed to environments from which atomic hydrogen can be absorbed. If any one of these conditions is not present, hydrogen-assisted cracking cannot occur. These are the conclusions reached from the metallurgical reports on the failed Farley anchor heads.
The Plant Vogtle post-tensioning system uses anchor heads fabricated out of AISI 1026 plain carbon steel material. AISI 1026 material has chemical properties
'rery similar to ASTM A36 material. As with A36 steel, l
l l
5e tensile strength of AISI 1026 steel is far below the 1 30 ksi threshold for hydrogen-assisted cracking. It should also be noted that anchor wedges made of AISI 8620 and DIN 17210 material have yield strengths far below the 150 ksi threshold for hydorgen-assisted l cracking. Thus, it was concluded that the Farley anchor l head pr c ~lem was not applicable to the Plant Vogtle post-te - ning system.
o Dome Delamination The Turkey Point and Crystal River dome delaminations resulted from the lack of radial reinforcement to resist the radial tensile stresses induced by the curved tendons. Bechtel designs completed since this problem was identified have incorporated radial dome reinf 'ement to resist these tensile stresses. Bechtel Desig aides and Topical Reports have been revised accordingly. No project that has included radial reinforcement in its design has experience a dome delamination problem.
The Plant Vogtle containment design includes radial reinforcement to resist these tensile stresses and 3 W
prevent a dome delamination. Thus, this problem has been satisfactorily addressed for Plant Vogtle.
o Concrete Failure Around Equipment Hatch This problem resulted from misplaced tension sheathings in the region of the equipment hatch. The tendon sheathing was out of location from the design drawing by as much as 10 to 12 inches. The normal tolerance for the installation of the tendon sheathing is 1 2 inches.
Thus, it was concluded that this problem resulted purely from construction error. If the specification limits had been observed, no failure would have occurred.
l 5.3-2
j The Plant Vogtle containment design is similar to other Bechtel designs. Tendon sheathing erection tolerances, O spacings, and locations relative to the equipment hatch are similar. Since construction specific &tions have been followed, similar problems should not . occur at Plant Vogtle.
o Bearing Plate Collapse At the Calvert Cliff project bearing plates had l
collapsed during post-tensioning tendon stressing ,
because of large voids and cavities which had developed l in inadequately consolidated concrete behind the bearing plates. In the case of Plant Vogtle, similar conditions Os have not been experienced because construction specifications have been followed and good construction -
procedures have been implemented.
t l Plant Vogtle reinforced concrete structures and discussed in Module 1.
o Microbiologically Induced Corrosion of Steel l
IE Information Notice No. 85-30 addressed this issue. ,
Some stainless steel water carrying systems showed microbiologically induced corrosion in the vicinity of weld joints. No mention of its appl.tcability to post- .
(} tensioning systems was suggested in the notice.
In 1984, the Fort St. Vrain Project reported an incidence of microbiological corrosion of prestressed ,
, concrete reactor vessel tendons. The Fort St. Vrain l Project used only a phosphate coating and a l micro-crystalline wax inhibitor on the tendon and the interior of the sheath. The. tendon sheath was not ' ':
filled with grease. The Plant Vogtle post-tensioning l system is specifically designed to preclude water from being in contact with the prestressing strands and other ;
associated hardware. The Plant Vogtle post-tensioning ;
system employs a grease-filled tendon sheath. Thus it i is concluded that is problem is not applicable to the !
jO Plant Vogtle post-tensioning system. ;
l \
The post-tensioning system used by Plar,t Vogtle is similar to that used on many other Bechtel projects, most of which are already complete and are in service. No significant unresolved generic problems are known to exist.
O
() 0113m/069-6 5.3-3
- - - - - - - - . , , -, -em., , . . - _ ..,,,7 , _ . . ,.y_,,r.4,_..cy,%..,.y.....,.y ,,r'~ T'~r7-+ - T yr
6.0 PROGRAM VERIFICATION This section describes the activities undertaken to ascertain whether the design and construction work processes have been adequately controlled to ensure implementation of licensing commitments and that the results of these work processes conform to project procedures and design requirements.
This section is divided into two subsections, 6.1 and 6.2.
Subsection 6.1 describes activities related to design program verification: 6.2 addresses construction program verification.
Resulting findings were subject to categorization as follows:
I- Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern.
II - Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concerns.
III - Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns.
O O
O
!O Ol88m/064-6
_ . . . . , _ . . _ _ _ .._y - - _ ,
v . . .
i 6.1 DESIGN PROGRAM VERIFICATION The following sections describe the design program verification, resultant findings, and corrective actions. Approximately 300 '
manhours were expended by the Readiness Review design verification team during the verification. The 4 members of the team have a cumulative profcasional experience of 90 years in engineering design.
6.1.1
SUMMARY
EVALUAT'10N i
The design verification included a review of the documents listed in Table 6.1-1. i During the verification activities, a single finding (13C-7) was issued by'the Readiness Review Team. The finding concerned design calculations which were not submitted by VSL Corporation in accordance with the specification requirement. As the result of this finding, the subject calculations were obtained from VSL :
by Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) engineering who have reviewed them for compliance with engineering requirements. The ,
VSL calculations were found to be acceptable.
6.1.2 SCOPE AND PLAN O
This section describes the scope of the design verification for Module 13C and the plan implemented during the performance of the verification.
I i 6.1.2.1 Scope of the Verification '
1 Design program verification focuses on the programmatic aspects !
I of design. Programmatic verification is a systematic review of l design documents to determine whether the design control process j has functioned effectively and whether it ensures proper l
implementation of licensing commitments (i.e., the inclusion of l commitments in criteria or design base documents).
{
l
() The design criteria, design drawings, design calculations, specification, supplier documentation, and design change documents were included in the scope of this verification of the post-tensioning system. These documents were reviewed for conformance to licensing commitments and design control quality program requirements. The documents reviewed are listed in O Table 6.1-1.
l l
\
I l l I
6.1.2.2 Verification Plan .
The verification of licensing commitment implementation in design documents and in the design control process was performed in two parts. In part 1, licensing commitments were reviewed to ensure that they were included in the design basis (design criteria) or other appropriate design documents and were further reviewed for implementation in second-order design documents; lh' namely, calculations, drawings, etc., as applicable. In part 2, the design documents were reviewed to verify implementation of project procedures and to ensure that design controls consistent with the intent of ANSI requirements are adequately implemented. In.part 1 and 2, engineering documents such as criteria, calculations, drawings, specifications, and procedures ll as applicable were reviewed. Design change and nonconformance documents such as Field Change Requests (FCRs), Design Change Notices (DCN), Deviation Reports or Nonconformance Reports (DR/NCR), and Supplier Deviation Disposition Requests (SDDR) were also reviewed for compliance with appropriate procedures and for technical adequacy of the change they represent.
Although these two parts of the verification review were coordinated, not all documents reviewed in part 1 were reviewed in part 2. The details of the two-part review are outlined in the following sections.
6.1.3 PART 1 VERIFICATION 6.1.3.1 Commitments in Desian Criteria Commitments were identified from the FSAR or other source document and were reviewed to ensure that they are included in the project criteria or other design document. Based upon the identified commitments, an implementation matrix (section 3.5) was developed that identifies the design document in which the commitment is incorporated. For commitments pertaining to codes, standards, or other multisection documents, subsections are identified and correlated with the appropriate design criteria. The implementation matrix identifies the criteria revisions where the commitment was first implemented and the most recent revision that includes the commitment. In this manner the commitment matrix provides a cross-reference between design criteria (or other design documents), and commitments, thereby ensuring that each commitment was properly recognized as being a requisite for the detail design or construction.
In some cases the commitments may have been of a nature O inappropriate for inclusion in the design criteria. For these commitments, the implementation matrix identified the second-level design document, such as calculation or specification, in which the commitment appears.
O 6.1-2
i i
These steps ensure that every commitment was recognized by the design engineering group as a requirement for the detail design or construction as appropriate.
i 6.1.3.2 Implementation in Detail Desion i
A sample of 14 commitments, from a total of 40 design O
commitments, was selected for further review to ascertain whether they have been applied during the design process. This was accomplished by identifying and reviewing related second order design documents to ensure that the selected commitments l were incorporated. The documents reviewed included representative samples of calculations and specifications O Table 6.1-2 shows the summary of commitment implementation in the design documents.
The commitments implemented in second-order design documents-were selected on the basis that they provide a broad cross section of the design of post-tensioning system.
The details are discussed in the following section.
6.1.3.3 Part 1 (Commitment Verification) Results and Discussions ;
Two design criteria sections in the Design Manual were reviewed,
'()
including previous revisions, for evaluation of commitment implementation in first-order design documents. These sections from the Design Manual are as follows:
o DC-1000-C, General Design Criteria Civil / Structural.
o DC-2101, Containment Building.
In some cases, VSL design documents were also identified as having implemented the commitment in first-order design documents.
It was concluded that the commitments made in the Final Safety l Analysis Report (FSAR) are implemented in the design criteria or i other applicable documents.
Further, in part 1, 14 of the 40 commitments were selected for a verification of implementation in second order design documents. During this review, one specification, four Bechtel calculations, six vendor drawings and two vendor documents were
( reviewed. Table 6.1-2 shows the summary of commitment verification and design documents reviewed. Tables 6.1-3 through 6.1-6 also identify the documents that were reviewed for i part 1 implementation and commitments. l l
6.1.-3
l 1
I No finding were issued as a result of this verification. It was concluded that the FSAR commitments have adequately been implemented in the design of the post-tensioned containment. ,
! 6.1.4 PART 2, PROGRAMMATIC VERIFICATION OF DESIGN CONTROL PROCESS in part 2, a sample of design documLnts was reviewed for conformance to the project procedures and ANSI N45.2.11 to ascertain whether the design processes had been adequately controlled. The emphasis of this review was verification that the design process had been controlled to ensure that technical requirements have been adequately incorporated into the detail design, coordination among entities participating in the detail design has adequately taken place, and that changes in the design have been controlled. This programmatic verification of the design control process was accomplished by reviewing f
selected design documents to ensure compliance with the project design control procedures. Checklists identifying the aspects of the design program were developed for each type of document.
Design Criteria, calculations, drawings, specifications and vendor documents, and design change documentation were included in this review.
6.1.4.1 Part 2, Desian Program Verification Results In Part 2, a programmatic review of implementation of design control procedures applied to design documents, discipline l
interfaces, vendor submitted data, and design change documents associated with the post-tensioning system was performed.
Tables 6.1-3 through 6.1-9 show the list of documents reviewed.
The guidelines used for review and results of these verification reviews are briefly described in the following paragraphs.
6.1.4.2 Bechtel Design Calculations and Drawinas Tables 6.1-3 and 6.1-4 list the design calculations and drawings that were reviewed to verify that they were prepared in accordance with project procedures and industry standards. The design drawings given to the vendor for detail design of the system were also examined to ascertain whether the results of l these calculations had been implemented correctly. The following items were specifically checked:
o Approval checking and revisions of calculations meet Project Reference Manual (PRM), Part C, section 9.
lh o Applicable design input, FSAR commitments, loading conditions were addressed.
O 6.1-4 l
1 l
o Selected input is consistent with the references.
O Selected output data were incorporated into affected drawings.
o Preparation, checking, approval, and revisions of drawings meet.PRM Part C, section 4.
No deficiencies were observed. The team concluded that the design control process was adequate and was in compliance with applicable project procedures to' satisfy the intent of ANSI N45.2.ll requirements.
6.1.4.3 Specifications Post-tensioning system specification X2AF04 was specifically checked for the following:
o Preparation, approval, interdiscipline review, and control of revisions comply with PRM, Part C, section 8.
o Test requirements to ensure specified performance.
o Incorporation of specification change notices.
O o Compliance with design criteria, design calculations, and FSAR commitments.
o Quality assurance requirements.
o Drawing and data Gurmittals.
No deficiencies were observed. The team concluded that specification preparation and control were adequate and in compliance with project procedures to meet the intent of ANSI N45.2.11 requirements.
6.1.4.4 Vendor Drawinas and Documents Vendor drawings and documents reviewed are listed in Tables 6.1-5 and 6.1-6. These were specifically checked for the following:
o Compliance of test data with the specification O requirements.
o Compliance of data and material specifications to FSAR commitments.
O 6.1-5
...__.._...i____
l l
o Conformance of vendor design to input given in Bechtel drawings and specification.
o Drawing and data submittals satisfied per specification requirements.
l o Bechtel approval of vendor documents complies with PRM Part C, section 5.
o Whether selected output from designs is correctly shown on construction drawings.
l As a result of this review, one finding (13C-7) was issued because VSL had not submitted design calculations as required by the specification. This finding is described in section 6.1.5.
6.1.4.5 Field Chance Requests (FCRs)
Table 6.1-7 lists FCRs reviewed for compliance with applicable project procedures. These FCRs were reviewed to ascertain whether they are in conformance to PRM Part C, section 17 and whether the design documents against which the FCRs were written have been revised to incorporate the design change, if needed.
No deficiencies were observed. The team concluded that FCRs are being processed in compliance with the applicable project procedures to satisfy the intent of ANSI N45.2.11 requirements.
6.1.4.6 Deviation Reports Table 6.1-8 lists the DRs reviewed for compliance with applicable project procedures. These DRs were reviewed for conformance to PRM, Part C, section 18. None of the DRs reviewed affected licensing commitments. Also, none of them resulted in revision of the post-tensioning system design.
No deficiencies were observed. The team concluded that DRs are being processed in compliance with the applicable project design change control procedures, and meet the intent of ANSI N45.2.11.
6.1.4.7 Supplier Deviation Disposition Requests Table 6.1-9 lists the SDDRs reviewed for compliance with applicable project procedures.
No deficiencies were observed. The team concluded that SDDRs are being processed in compliance with the applicable project procedures and meet the intent of ANSI N45.2.ll.
O 6.1-6
6.1.5 FINDINGS, PROJECT RESPONSES, AND VERIFICATION TEAM i CONCLUSIONS i During the design program verification process described in section 6.1.2, questions were raised which either required clarification or involved conditions which did not comply with the design control procedures and required resolution by Project fG personnel. These conditions were documented by the issuance of !
() a Readiness Review Finding. The findings were documented using 1 the Readiness Review Finding form and the were categorized based j upon the project response as described in section 6.0.
The design program verification process resulted in one finding, 13C-7, which was designated Level II.
o Finding 13C-7 (Level II) l l
l Specification X2AF04 requires the vendor (VSL Corporation) to provide a detail design of the post-tensioning system in compliance with its design requirements and to submit certain design documents for review and acceptance. VSL failed to submit one set of calculations. As a result, the following items could not be verified:
- 1. Implementation of the design requirements in vendor ;
design of the prestressing system. !
i
- 2. Commitments made in FSAR section 3.8.1.5 and 3.8.1.6.3.
- 3. Stressing data given in vendor documents do not show reference to source and their relation to prestressing system design.
Proiect Response: Specification X2AF04 (sections 1.1.1 l and 4.1.1.) states that the post-tensioning system vendor (VSL Corporation) is responsible for the design of the post-tensioning system. Further, the specification requires the vendor to submit their design calculations for review in accordance with section 8.1 O and item 19 of the drawing and data requirements. There is one design calculation that VSL did not nubmit in compliance with these requirements.
A sample calculation was provided by VSL Corporation in f- their proposal (a proprietary document which is not a
, controlled design document) to specification X2AF04,
- revision O. It was not formally resubmitted as a l
controlled design document subsequent to the award of the contract.
O 6.1-7 l
L
l This calculation was provided by VSL to demonstrate that their post-tensioning system met the specification requirements. This calculation was not required for Bechtel to complete the containment design. Bechtel calculations provide the complete basis for the containment shell design.
VSL has submitted the subject calculation (Bechtel Log No. AX2AF04-143-1) which was reviewed and accepted by Bechtel on February 7, 1986. This calculation, together with the other existing calculations, demonstrates that l
the post-tensioning system meets the specification requirements and FSAR section 3.8.1.5 commitments. The commitments of FSAR section 3.8.1.6.3 involve only material commitments which can be verified from other VSL Corporation submittals and the response provided to independent design review Observation No. 13C-6 l
(discussed and explained in independent design review l section 7.0).
f Materials used in load-bearing components have been reviewed in connection with post-tensioning system qualification test reports (Bechtel log AX2AF04-115 and AX2AF04-40) and found to be technically acceptable.
Another issue associated with this finding concerns the relation to the prestressing design of three other VSL Corporation documents (Bechtel Log Numbers AX2AF04-80-0, h t 1X2AF04-119-1, and 1X2AF04-120-1). These documents have been correlated and processed in accordance with project procedures.
Bechtel determined that the root cause was an oversight by engineering. Since the undocumented calculation was not required as a design input for Bechtel containment shell calculations, the responsible engineer overlooked its formal submittal. Other required calculations for the post-tensioning design have been formally submitted as controlled design documents. Therefore, this is l
considered to be an isolated incident.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
The project response, in conjunction with the response to independent design review finding 13C-6 (Section 7.0), is acceptable. The l
! Readiness Review Team has reviewed the VSL calculations I which were submitted as the result of Finding 13C-7.
The materials for the post-tensioning system committed l
to in the FSAR were not specifically identified in the I post-tensioning system design calculations. As a l result, the materials for the post-tensioning system ;
were reviewed and verified in other VSL documents for :
implementation of FSAR commitments.
1 6.1-8 .
i
During the verification, the team noted that materials
/~N used in load-bearing components VSL had sent to the k_) jobsite were different from the materials reported in their post-tensioning system qualification test reports. Bechtel technical personnel have evaluated the
! materials used in load-bearing components in conjunction with the qualification test reports submitted by VSL and
, /~l have found them technically acceptable.
(> Materials received at the jobsite were in compliance with the requirements of specification X2AF04, with one i
exception. Anchor wedges were made of AISI 8620 steel,
! which was not a qualified material and was different l s>
{'] from the materials committed to in the FSAR. The i AISI 8620 material has now been evaluated and found to be technically acceptable. Acceptance has been documented in an FSAR change notice and a revision of the VSL design documents.
The Project responses to Readiness Review Finding 13C-7 and independent design review finding 13C-6 document the l project evaluation and technical acceptability of materials received at the jobsite. j i
Project Field Engineering has initiated Deviation Report (DR) VF-0078 for previously unapproved material for the anchor wedges (AISI 8620) to be dispositioned by Bechtel
() Home Office Engineering.
The project response, together with the corrective actions taken to resolve differences between the FSAR, the specification, VSL document submittals, and receipt of materials at the jobsite adequately addresses the issues identified in the findings. i l
6.1.6 FINDING SIGNIFICANCE The design program verification finding described in section 6.1.5 involved a procedural violation and identified a r~ minor discrepancy between the FSAR and design documents relative
(_%) to wedge materials used in the post-tensioning system design.
The finding does not affect the technical adequacy of the completed design or represent a trend which requires further review.
'\
u) 0098m/069-6 6.1-9
TABLE 6.1-1 SAMPLE SIZE AND NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED l l
i Description Size _ Total (a)
( BPC Design Documents criteria 2 2 Calculations 4 4 Specifications 1 1 Drawings 10 10 Supplier (VSL) Documents 41 140 Calculations 6 6 Reports and Documents 20 76 Drawings 15 58 Design Change Documents Field Change Requests 12 25 (Approx)
Deviation Reports 19 65 (Approx)
Supplier Deviation 9 9 Disposition Request
- O l
lO l
l O
- a. Number of total documents relative to this module.
O .
. 010lm/059-6/2 I
O O O O O O O Table 6.1-2 (SHEET I 0F 3)
COMITENT VERIFICATION MATRIX PART I Design Subject FSAR Comi tment Criteria Desian Docuremt Description Section Nurrber Section m T Number Notes Remarks RG 1.103 1.9.103 1866 DC-1000-C Vendor Log IX2AF04-36-7 i VSL VS-55 systm used on Dwg the job is approved in RG 1.103 Containment Design 3. 8.1.3 1042 DC-2101 Calc. X2CJ2.6.0 Rev. 3 1, 2 Pressure of 52 psig Sheet 5 BC-TOP-SA Sec. 66, 3.8.1.4 1052 DC-2101 Calc. X2CJ2.6.0 Rev. 3 1, 2 Section 6.2 is for 6.2 and 6.3 Sheet 5 preliminary design so will not appear in final design.
Calc. X2CJ5.4 Rev. 3 i Sheets 18 and 25 Dwg. IP01C016 Rev.7 I Calc. XICJ2.10.4 Rev. I I, 2 Sheet 2 Dwg. IPolWO59 Rev. 3 1 8C-TOP-8 Containment Design 3.8.1.5 1056 DC-2l01 Calc. X2CJ5.4 Rev. 3 1 Allowable Stresses Sheets 18 and 25 and Strains Dwg. IP010016, Rev. 7 1 I Trumpet Extensions 3.8.l.6 1957 Spec. X2AF04 Rev. 3 1 ASTM A-513 Para. 4.2.3.1 Vendor Log AX2AF04-87-3 1 D*g.
Anchor Heads 3.8.1.6 1948 Vendor Log Ax2AF04-36.7 .I ASME 1026 Dwg.
Ol02m/059-6/2 5... .
O O O O O O O i
Table 6.1-2 (SHEET 2 0F 3) r Design Subject FSAR Comni tment Criteria Deslan Document i Description Section Number Section Type Nuneer Notes Remarks Control tests and 3.8.1.6 1974 Spec. X2AF04, Rev. 3 inspection of Para. 4.5 and 5.3 prestressing Vendor Log AX2AF04-81-9 I system QA Manual Post-LOCA 3. 8.1.3 1039 Calc X2CJ2.9.0 Rev. O I ,
flooding of the Sheet 125 ,
containment is postulated to reach el. 181 ft 2 in. and is
] considered as a hydrostatic load i
i AS E Ill Div. 2 3.8.l.5 1054 DC-2101 ART CC-3400, Allowable Stresses j and Strains l
l ASE Ill Div. 2 3.8.1.5 1057 DC-2101 ,
j ART CC-3400,
! Allowable l Stresses I
I -
i'
\
l t
Ol02m/059-6/3 4
+
0
i O '
Table 6.l-2 (SHEET 3 0F 3)
! Design Subject FSAR Comi tment Criteria DesIon Document l
Description Section Nunber Section M Nun 6er htes Remarks Prestressing 3.8.l.6 1100 DC-2101 Strands have a
, minimum ultimate
' tensile strength f p, of 270,000 l psi based on nom.
, steel area i
l j Min. yleid stress 3.8.1.6 1943 DC-2l01 VSL Log AX2AF04-IO6-3 1, 2 of prestressing Manual l
strand is not-l less than 0.85 fpu i
ASTM A-537 3.8.1.6 1949 VSL Log IX2AF04-ill-5 I l*
Prestressing Shims Dwg.
ANSI 86L20 3.8.1.6 1950 VSL Log 2X2AF04-37-7 1 Prestressing Dwg System Wedges VSL Log AX2AF04-Il4-1 I Letter e
ktes: 1. Reviewed for part i
- 2. Reviewed for part 2 also Ol02m/059-6/4 4
- - . . - - - . _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ - . . - _ ~ _ . - - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - . -
e f
(
4
! i Table 6.1-3
]
BECHTEL DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND SPECIFICATION Reviewed For Associated
$ Number Title Part 1 Part 2 Findings j Calculations i
i X2CJ2.6.0 Containment Prestressing X X ,
3 Design
- I X2CJ2.9.0 Containment Shell Analysis X l X2CJ5.4 Containment Building, X
^
Basemat and Cavity Reinforcing Steel Design I X2CJ2.10.4 Containment Reinforcing X X l Steel Design for Buttresses ,
Specifications I f X2AF04 Containment Post-Tensioning X X i System i
- O a
i j
! i
! i
!O s
d i i !
I-I
- O 1
4, i
j iO I
i 010lm/059-6/3
'l 1
i i
.. .-_,-__ _ .._. _ . - . . , . . . . , . . . _ _ . _ . . . _ , , . . ~ . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . - . . . . . - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , _ , _ , . . . _ . . - . _
Table 6.1-4 BECHTEL DRAWINGS Reviewed For Associated Number Title Part 1 Part 2- Findings 1PO1C016 Basemat reinforce. layers X 1, 8, 8, 14 and dowels pour 1-01C-001 and 1-01C-002 Basemat E-W bars layer X O 1P01C017 3, pour number 1-OlC-001 1P0lWO59 Buttress, plan and X sections el 169'?"'
to 327'9" 1X200lK001 Prestressing requirements X key plan 1X2D0lK002 Containment prestressing X required, dome plan 1X2D0lK003 Restressing requirements, X wall, developed elevation 1X2D0lK005 Restressing requirements, X wall and dome cross section 1X2D0lK006 Prestressing requirements, X hatch and lock details SHT-1 1X200lK007 Prestressing requirements X hatch and lock details SHT-2 1X2D01K008 Prestressing requirements X sections details SHT-1 O
O 010lm/059-6/4 .
1- ;
Table 6.1-5 (SHEET 1 OF 2) 4 VENDOR DOCUMENTS ,
4 Reviewed For Associated Number Title Part 1 Part 2 Findings i O ,
j V AX2AF04-5-0 Pressure test procedure X !
l and report l 1
! AX2AF04-6-3 Performance test results X AX2AF04-7-0 In-service tendon X surveillance program
{i
. AX2AF04-8-0 Vertical dome tendon X j pull-in demonstration
- program ;
) AX2AF04-9-0 Proof test procedure for X !
! . stressing equipment 1
AX2AF04-39-0 Certified load tests, X ,
j tendon bearing plates ;
i
, AX2AF04-43-0 Stress determination in X
]( bearing plate
! AX2AF04-41-0 Report of static tensile X i test 2.2 I l AX2AF04-42-0 Three dimensional X
- analysis of a bearing l 3
plate using the finite ;
- element method j i
- AX2AF04-43-0 Simplified bearing plate X i computations for post-
! tensioning anchorage AX2AF04-80-0 Tendon stress diagrams X 13C-7 AX2AF04-81-9 Quality Assurance X ,
Program j 1
i AX2AF04-84-2 Properties of visconorust X 2090P-4 casing filler
) AX2AF04-88-2 Viscondust 4256/2090P-4 X storage / application J
AX2AF04-90-1 Storage specification X
. 010lm/059-6/5 -
......_,ymve <-.r_ y-.y.---. .,e7v., w,%,my.e,g v. n. ,.%.,-a ,w,,r ,_.n.,._r.,.... .,,-..,%., rom ,
I 1
Table 6.1-5 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
Reviewed For Associated Number Title Part 1 Part 2 Findings AX2AF04-100-13 Field instruction X
('}
\s/
manual for installation of VSL E5-55 post-tensioning system AX2AF04-101-4 Strand relaxation data for X FWCC material conforming to ASTM A416 l %./
l AX2AF04-106.2 Procedure manual for X X fabrication of VSL E5-55 post-tensioning system l
l AX2AF04-108-1 Telecon confirmation X AX2AF04-ll4-1 Wedgers alternate material X X AX2AF04-ll5-1 Post-tensioning system X l
qualification test report 1
() AX2AF04-118-2 Vertical grease cap flange rework procedure X
1X2AF04-119-1 Stressing data for vertical X 13C-7 tendons of sequence 10 through 18 l 1X2AF04-120-1 Investigative report on X 13C-7 high lift-off forces experienced on vertical tendons stressing sequence 2 through 9 g- AX2AN14-4-1 Studies of concrete, X l(, final report 1
AX2AF04-143-1 Prestressing Calculations X lo
! V l 0101m/059-6/6 l
Table 6.1-6 VENDOR DRAWING REVIEWED Reviewed For Associated Number Title Part 1 Part 2 Findings AX2AF04-13-5 Tendon gallery top panels X
,D]
1X2AF04-16-1 Detensionable tendon X anchorage .
2X2AF04-19-1 Dome vertical tendons X 1X2AF04-36-7 Anchorage details X X 1X2AF04-47-4 Vertical tendon elevation X Unit 1, Buttress 1 to 2 2X2AF04-54-5 Vertical tendon elevation X l Unit 2 Buttress 2 to 3 AX2AF04-60-3 construction joint data X AX2AF04-66-0 Horizontal tendon offset X data Buttress 1 to 2 AX2AF04-72-3 Horizontal tendon offset X i data Buttress 2 to 3 l
AX2AF04-78-4 Horizontal tendon X X stressing data AX2AF04-87-3 Air vent and drain detail X 2X2AF04-93-4 Equipment hatch, tendon X i
layout AX2AF04-98-2 Dome-tendons-geometry X i 1X2AF04-lll-5 Split shim and anchorhead X Q shim details 2X2AF04-37-7 Anchorage details X 1
- v 010lm/059-6/7
l Table 6.1-7 FIELD CHANGE REQUESTS (FCRs) REVIEWED (a)
Number Description C-FCRB-14975 Finish of wedges C-FCRB-14976 Finish of wedges C-PCRB-14977 Modification to grease cap O C-FCRB-14978 Removal or addition of anchor head split-shims V
C-PCRB-15073 Traceability of wedges C-FCRB-15088 Installation of anchorhead split shims C-FCRB-15196 Modification to vertical tendon C-PCRB-15217 Elongation measurement of strands C-FCRB-15369 Measurement of elongatio of strands C-FCRB-15377 Grease pump capacity i
C-PCRB-16519 Check for number of strands C-PCRB-16618 Seating losses for tendons l
1 1
O l
O
- a. FCRs were reviewed for programmatic implementation only.
010lm/059-6/8 j l ;
Table 6.1-8 DEVIATION REPORTS (DRs) REVIEWED (a)
Number Description CD-1407 Tendon sheathing location out of tolerance CD-1563 Tendon sheathing location out of tolerance CD-1937 Handling a storage of sheathing CD-2050 Tendon sheathing location out of tolerance CD-3077 Tendon sheathing location out of tolerance CD-4863 Sheathing did not pass rabbit test CD-4931 Tendon sheathing location method of measurement CD-5379 Tendon sheathing projection from construction joint CD-5380 Tendon sheathing location out of tolerance CD-5535 Sheathing did not pass rabbit test CD-5714 Damage to trumpets CD-5892 Sheathing did not pass rabbit test CD-6107 Sheathing did not pass rabbit test CD-6361 Tendon sheathing location out of location CD-6426 Sheathing did not pass rabbit test CD-6470 Sheathing did not pass rabbit test CD-6489 Dents in sheathing CD-7465 Neat tines in buttress out of tolerance l CD-8220 Leakage of grout into sheathing O
- a. DRs Were reviE.Wed for programmatic review only.
0101m/059-6/9 .
4 Table 6.1-9 SUPPLIER DEVIATION DISPOSITION REQUESTS (SDDRs)(a)
Number Description 0014 Mill test report elongation exceeds specification requirement
{}
j 0015 Drilled holes omitted in bearing plates 0016 Weld length revised 0017 Chemical composition of plates
{}
0018 Bearing plates identification 0019 Plate material traceability 0048 Sheathing lengths to be supplied 1274 coating of tendons, as they are installed i
1325 coating of tendons, as they are installed O
i i
i l
4 O
i i
J
!O1 i
- a. SDDRs were reviewed for programmatic review only.
I 010lm/059-6/10 1
. , = . . ,,.
6.2 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM VERIFICATION
) This section contains a description of the construction assessment program which was intended to evaluate the adequacy of the installation of the VEGP containment post-tensioning system. The assessment was divided into two parts: Commitment implementation and construction assessment. The commitment implementation identified three construction-related licensing
(~)
( ,j commitments and traced implementation as recorded in section 3 of this module. The construction assessment consisted of a review of the construction procedures and a walkdown inspection of post-tensioning installation within the scope of Module 13C.
- The Readiness Review Team for Module 13C consisted of 4 team membera with a combined total experience of 66 years in power plant construction. These team members devoted approximately 40 manhours to the investigation and resolution of the implementation process and 300 manhours to the investigation and resolution of the construction assessment process.
6.2.1
SUMMARY
EVALUATION Two findings were identified during construction assessment I activities in Module 13C. The construction team assessed the impact of the findings on the project and classified each with respect to the following categories:
b
- N_/ o Category A - Paperwork.
o Category B - H9rdware.
o Category C - Programmatic.
The findings, their level of importance, and their categories are given in Table 6.2-1.
The findings (13C-18 and 13C-19) were classified as Level III.
There were no Level I or Level II findings. Both findings were minor deviations from procedure requirements that were not fs indicative of hardware discrepancies. Each item was corrected i by revision to the procedure. Details of the construction assessment are found in sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.
It is the conclusion of the Readiness Review Construction Team, from reviewing the results of the assessment, that the
- post-tensioning system is being installed and inspected in compliance with licensing commitments.
l 6.2.2 COMMITMENT IMPLEMENTATION Section 3.4 contains the matrix for the commitments identified by the FSAR and generic letters that are applicable to Module l 13C. After identification of the commitments, the Readiness i
1 l
t Review Construction Team reviewed each construction commitment and identified the project document that currently implements llh each commitment. Additionally, a review was performed to identify the project document that initially implemented the commitment.
The commitment implementation matrix identified four construction commitments. Each of these commitments was appropriately traced to the implementing documents from the time lh l of initial implementation to current status. No findings were identified as a result of this review.
6.2.3 CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT h The assessment plan was developed to provide an appraisal of the contractor's installation, inspection, and programmatic activities. The assessment was conducted using two plans, programmatic and walkdown.
6.2.3.1 Programmatic Activities Assessment The programmatic activities plan was developed to provide assurance that the VSL Corporation's programs meet project requirements. The specific programmatic activities assessed are:
o Specification / installation manual comparison.
o Measuring and test equipment.
o Inspector certification.
o Nonconformance control.
o QA records maintenance.
The assessment was conducted using instructions and a checklist (Figure 6.2-1) prepared by the Readiness Review Team.
6.2.3.1.1 Specification / Installation Manual Comparison Prior to assessing construction activities, the VSL Field Construction Instruction Manual and other VSL procedures and associated documents were reviewed for assurance that the requirements of the specification and the FSAR were adequately addressed. Thirty installation requirements and two lh manufacturing and receiving requirements were assessed to determine contractor conformance. Each of the 32 requirements was found to be properly incorporated into the Field Installation manual.
There were no findings as a result of this comparison.
6.2-2
6.2.3.1.2 Measuring and Test Equipment O
This part of the assessment was performed to ascertain whether the gauges uced by VSL to determine tendon jacking force were calibrated and whether the calibration was current. Since a stressing jack and its gauge are calibrated as a unit, the assessment also verified that the gauges were used with the O proper jacks and that the pressure tables developed from the calibration data were used with the correct jack-gauge combination.
The documentation for 6 gauges was reviewed. The review confirmed that the gauges were used with the proper jacks, calibration records for each gauge were on file with VSL and O- were traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, and that the calibrations were current.
While conducting the planned assessment, the team also determined that the pressure gauge and one thermometer used during greasing had been calibrated and that these calibrations
- were also current.
There were no findings identified as a result of this part of the assessment.
6.2.3.1.3 Inspector Training and Certification O Personnel certifications of the VSL inspectors were assessed to determine whether the inspection activities were performed by qualified personnel. Individual certification packages were reviewed for evidence that personnel were certified to the proper level.
Certification of two Level I data recorders and the PQAM (Level i III) were reviewed and found to be acceptable. Although VSL's I procedures allow for a Level II field inspector, none was assigned to the Vogtle project and those duties were fulfilled by the Level III POAM.
l There were no findings identified as a result of this part of O the assessment.
6.2.3.1.4 Deviation Reports /Non-Conformance Control i
/~ An assessment of VSL Deviation Reports (DR) was performed to determine whether resolutions were in compliance with GPC procedure GD-T-01. The assessment involved six DRs selected at random that were reviewed for the following attributes:
o Content - is the problem adequately addressed by the approved c.sposition t
and justification?
6.2-3
o Proper signatures in each signature block.
The six DRs reviewed were found to be acceptable. No findings O were identified as a result of this part of the assessment.
6.2.3.1.5 QA Records As assessment was conducted to determine whether VSL's Quality O
Assurance records were maintained in accordance with procedural requirements. The assessment reviewed the inspection packages of 10 tendons for the following items:
o Records are kept in lockable fireproof cabinets. lh o Records are retrievable.
o Recorded data is in accordance with acceptable criteria.
o The following reports are in the file:
- Tendon installation report.
- VSL streesing report.
- Tendon greasing report.
From the assessment, the team determined that the records were maintained according to the procedure requirements. Copies of the documents were kept in a lockable, fireproof two-drawer filing cabinet in VSL's trailer. Original reports were forwarded to GPC for permanent storage.
The team also determined that the records were retrievable, the data met acceptance criteria, and the inspection packages contained the required documentation.
No findings were identified as a result of this part of the assessment.
6.2.3.2 Walkdown Assessment Plan The walkoown assessment was conducted to provide an appraisal of VSL's installation and inspection functions to determine whether they were in accordance with the FSAR, the specification, the VSL Quality Assurance Manual, and the VSL Field Installation Manual.
There are four major construction activities associated with the tendon installation sequence which were selected as the focal points of the walkdown assessment.
These activities are:
o Sheathing cleanliness.
6.2-4
o Tendon installation.
k- o Anchor head assembly and tendon stressing o Tendon greasing.
Each activity was assessed using instructions and checklists
(} (Figure 6.2-2) prepared by the Readiness Review Team.
6.2.3.2.1 Sheathing Cleanliness Prior to installation of a tendon, cleanliness of the sheathing O' must be determined. This is accomplished by making certain all J low point drains have been opened and any accumulated water drained. A wire brush 6 in. in diameter and 6 in. long with a 6 in. diameter mop attached is pulled through the sheathing to clear an) foreign material and to remove moisture. If the mop exits the sheathing in a saturated or nearly-saturated condition the processes is repeated until the mop is removed with little moisture in it and then compressed air is blown through the sheathing to dry it.
One tendon was selected for assessment. The sheathing associated with the tendon had no low point on the drawings,.and when the brush and mop were pulled through the sheathing, the mop came out dry. A subsequent review of installation reports
() in the contractor's files indicated that those sheathings having low point drains have been consistently opened and drained per procedure as documented by the data recorder's initials and date on the installation checklist attached to each Tendon Installation Report. The sheathing selected for the assessment was properly documented as clean on the Tendon Installation Report for the selected tendon.
There were no findings identified as a result of this part of the assessment.
6.2.3.2.2 Tendon Installation i The tendon selected for assessment of sheathing cleanliness was also selected for installation ascessment. The team reviewed the 7 attributes associated with the VSL tendon installation and t all were found to be acceptable. However, a somewhat continuous I
coating of 2090P-4 grease was applied to the tendon as it entered the trumpet, and the installation checklist did not l {'}
x- document compliance with the specification. Readiness Review Finding 13C-19 was written.
l o Finding 13C-19 (Level III) l l (']
Description:
Specification X2AF04 and the VSL Field l (_/ Instruction Manual require the application of a coating l
l l 6.2-5 i
l l
l of Visconorust 2090P-4 to the tendon as it is being pulled into the sheathing. The VSL installation j checklist does not adequately document the application. ;
Proiect Response: Field Change Request C-FCRB-17,311 l
l was generated and approved to provide adequate l documentation on the VSL checklist for the application of the Visconorust 2090P-4.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
The Readiness Review Team has reviewed the FCR and agrees that it provides adequate documentation for the activity.
6.2.3.2.3 Anchor Head Assembly and Tendon Stressing h l
l Once a tendon is installed, the anchor head must be installed before stressing can commence. After installation of the anchor heads, the tendon can be stressed. The assessment consisted of observing the 29 attributes associated with anchor head assembly
! and tendon stressing for three tendons as VSL performed the work and the VSL inspector verified the work.
Measurements were accurately taken and properly recorded.
Wedges and shims were noted to be properly installed and elongations and lift off forces were within allowable tolerances.
There were no findings in this part of the assessment.
6.2.3.2.4 Tendon Greasing One tendon was selected for assessment of the greasing operation from a group of three being greased at the time of the assessment. Greasing of the tendons is accomplished by pumping grease through the sheathings of three tendons at a time. The sheathings of the three tendons are connected by hoses. The grease is pumped into the first tendon sheathing and exits the third sheathing on the opposite side of the same buttress.
Bleeding of air and bleeding of the first 1 to 3 gallons of grease at vents and at the end of each tendon is closely monitored by the VSL data recorders (Level I inspectors).
lh Inspection data from each inspector is collected and summarized into one report for each tendon.
The assessment consisted of witnessing one sequence of a greasing operation to determine whether the procedure was being adhered to. The greasing operation was accurately documented by lh the data recorders, even to the point of recording that adequate protection of concrete surfaces was not provided before greasing. Failure to protect the concrete resulted in the finding described below.
O 6.2-6 .
o Finding 13C-18 (Level III) l
Description:
Specification X2AF04, Revision 3, paragraph 4 4.3.5.3, requires the post-tensioning contractor to establish and implement a protective program and furnish all coverings to protect the surfaces of the concrete from grease during greasing operations.
Although the contractor has provided for such a program in his Fi,ld Instruction Manual, the program is not being implemented and grease, sometimes large quantities, is being spilled or splashed on concrete
\ surfaces.
{J Proiect Response: The requirement for a sheet of Visqueen above and below horizontal bearing plates has not been met by the ccrtractor in all cases. This was addressed in Deviation 26 cort VF-00056. Following this deviation and prior to further greasing operations, GPC FCR C-FCRB-17,091 deleted this requirement from VSL's l
Field Instruction Manual.
The justification for deleting the Visqueen requirements is that 1) the Visqueen is a construction aid for cleanliness, 2) grease spills on the concrete around the grease caps are cleaned immediately as required by VSL's j ()
l Field Instruction Manual, and 3) the possibility of grease spills onto concrete at the location of the grease caps is remote sir.ce shutoff valves and hose l connections are used to contain grease flow.
Readiness Review
Conclusion:
Readiness Review agrees with the project response and the corrective action.
e
(
wJ 0165m/062-6 6.2-7
I TABLE 6.2-1 i CONSTRUCTION FINDINGS l Level of(a) RRF
! Importance Number Catecory(b) Description III 13C-18 C Failure to follow field instruction manual for protection of concrete surfaces from spilled grease.
III 13C-19 C Installation requirement to " apply by hand or other suitable means, a coating of Visconorust ,
i 2090P-4 to the tendon as l it is being pulled into the sheathing is not complied with or ;
adequately documented.
O I
O
- a. Level 1 -
Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern.
Level II -
Violation of licensing commitments or
,,/ engineering requirement with no safety concerns.
Level III - Violation of ptoject procedures with no safety concern,
- b. Category A - Paperwork concern.
Category B - Hardware concern.
Category C - Program concern.
0170m/059-6
A
[~'T Module 13C Post Tensioning
\s,/
Programmatic Activities Assessment Plan The purpose of the Programmatic Activities Assessment Plan is to determine 'if certain of VSLs programs are in conformance with project documents they are committed to. The scope includes a O review of the contractor's procedures and associated documentation, the equipment calibration records, inspector qualification and certification records, deviation reports, and the storage and maintenance of Quality Assurance records.
A. Prior to assessing construction activities the Readiness Review Team will review the VSL Field Instruction Manual, other VSL procedures, and associated documentation to assure that requirements of ,
the specification and the FSAR are adequately addressed. In particular. 30 installation requirements and 2 manufacturing and receiving requirements will be
- assessed to determine contractor conformance to the '
governing documents. These requirements will be summarized in tabular form along with the corresponding reference to the VSL document where the requirement has been satisfied. Any discrepancies will be noted by the 7-s assessment team on the appropriate form either as a gM
' Readiness Review Finding or a Readiness Information Request.
The following activities will be' assessed by reviewing records to insure compliance to the applicable procedure, specification and FSAR requirements.
B. Measuring and Test Equipment On the walkoown checklist, enter the identification numbers and calibration dates of six of the gauges used on the stressing cams. Check the calibration records to determine if calibration of the gauges has been performed weekly as required by VSL's procedure and that the appropriate jacks and gauges are used together g as calibrated. Verify conversion tables used with stressing rams are the correct ones. Document any 4 discrepancy as a Readiness Review Finding.
C. Inspector Training and Certification Select two of the inspectors (Level I) listed on the walkdown checklist and verify their certifications as of the date they were observed recording their data.
O. Select a Stressing Report and record the name of the Field Inspector (Level II) who signed the report and the date signed and verify his certification as of that date. Also check the training records of these O Figure 6.2-1 Programmatic Activities Assessment Instructions and Checklist (Sheet 1 of 4)
j i
l l
l inspectors to verify that they meet the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6. Document any discrepancy as a Readiness i Review Finding. ,
D. Deviation Reports Randomly select 6 Deviation Reports associated with post tensioning and review them for content as to whether the problem identified has been addressed by <
the " Approved Disposition" and justification as j required by the appropriate organization. If the DR is , l still open locate the original and enter the status as ) ]
of the assessment date. For DRs initiated after June 27 1985 check each signature block to assure that .
it has been signed by an appropriate individual P (discrepancies prior to this date have been adequately addressed by AFR 802). Document any discrepancies as p Readiness Review Findings. ; :
a i E. QA Records l Select ten of the tendons which have been completed and verify that the records for each are kept in lockable' l O fireproof cabinets. Verify that the records are retrievable, that recorded data is in accordance with the procedure and specification acceptance criteria.
I and that the following reports are on file for each h l
tendon: Tendon Installation Report. VSL Stressing ,
Report, and Tendon Greasing Report. Document any t deviation as a Readiness Review Finding. >
l ,
i l
k
() ,
I i i l
4 l
I I
l 0171m/055-6 ;
l !
O V
Figure 6.2-1 Programmatic Activities Assessment Instructions and Checklist (Sheet 2 of 4) 4
l l
l i
l l
t Module 13C Programmatic Activities Assessment Checklist B. Measuring and Test Equipment Used with Weekly Corres.
Gauge Calibration Calibration Stressing Not Number Date Check? Eam Accept. Accept. Resolution l
l I
i i
1
( Are correct calibration charts used l with the respective jacks?
Remarks:
C. Inspector Training and Certification 1 Signoff Not Name Date Accept. Accept, Resolution
- 1. Data Recorder s (Level I)
- 2. Data Recorder (Level I)
- 3. Field Inspector (Level II) i l Remarks: I l
l
\
l l
l i l
Figure 6.2-1 Programmatic Activities Assessment Instructions i and Checklist (Sheet 3 of 4)
. I
i O D. Deviation Reports /Nonconformance Control DR/WCR Date Date Disposition / Not Number Initiated Closed Acency Accept Accept Resolution 1
l l
l Remarks:
E. QA Records Not Aegept Accept Resolution Location of Record Storage _
Are records properly stored in lockable, fireproof cabinets?
Are records retrievable?
Do records contain the following reports?
Tendon Installation Report VSL Stressing Report _
Tendon Greasing Report O "--
0 l Section Completed By: Date:
0171m/055-6 l
1 Figure 6.2-1 Programmatic Activities Assessment Instructions and Checklist (Sheet 4 of 4)
1 I
([])
^
1 O Module 13C Post Tensioning Tendon Installation, Stressing, and Greasing Walkdown Assessment Plan b)\_ The purpose of the post tensioning walkdown assessment plan is to determine if VSL is performing their installation and inspection functions in accordance with the VSL Field Installation Manual, VSL QA Manual, site specification X2AF04 and FSAR requirements. The scope includes a review of the tendon installation, tensioning, and greasing processes, and the ' f documentation of these processes.
One sequence for each of the following installation activities ;
will be witnessed by the Readiness Review Team.
. A. Tendon Sheathing Cleanliness - Record ";he tendon number, sequence number, date, the name of the VSL inspector, and the name of the GPC QC Inspector, if 4
applicable. Observe the preparation of the sheathing prior to tendon installation. If the team member is unable to observe the cleaning process, mark the "no" blank, and mark the other questions in this section as i
i "NA". The VSL data recorder should verify and document 1
on the " Tendon Installation Report" that the sheathing is clean, dry, and free of corrosion. Record in the
- appropriate column whether the observed activities are acceptable or not. Note any comments in the remarks section.
1 B. Tendon Installation - Record the tendon number, sequence number, date, and the name of the VSL O
Figure 6.2-2 Walkdown Assessment Instructions and Checklist
- (Sheet 1 of 4)
I O
inspector, and the name of the GPC QC Inspector, if applicable. Observe the installation of a tendon into the sheathing and verify that the VSL data recorder is ;
following the VSL Quality Control Checklist, items 3 I through 10, and that he accurately completes the VSL
( T,endon Installation Report. Record acceptance or lack of it in the appropriate column, and any comments in the remarks section.
C. Anchor Head Assembly and Tendon Stressing - record tendon number, sequence number, date, the name of the VSL inspector, and the name of GPC QC Inspector, if applicable. Observe the installation of the anchor head and wedges and verify that the VSL data recorder is following the Stressing Checklist, items 1 through
- 9. Observe stressing of the tendon and verify that the data recorder accurately completes the VSL Stressing Report per items 10 through 29 of the Stressing Checklist, paying particular attention to the 5 percent elongation tolerance. Record acceptance or lack of it O in the appropriate column, and any comments in the remarks section.
D. Tendon Greasing - Record tendon number, sequence number, date, the name of the VSL inspector, and tue name of the GPC QC Inspector, if applicable. Observe the greasing operation for one tendon and verify that the VSL data recorder is following the Greasing Checklist, items 1 through 17. Verify that the Tendon Greasing Report is complete and accurately filled out.
Verify that the tendon is greased within 15 days of I being stressed. Record acceptance or lack of it in the I appropriate column, and any comments in the remarks section. Document any unacceptable observation in
() areas A, B, C, or D as a Readiness Review Finding.
l l
O
(::)
Figure 6.2-2 Walkdown Assessment Instructions and Checklist (Sheet 2 of 4)
1 t
J l
o 1
1 M ule 13C 1 i
Walkdown Assessment checklist A. SHEATHING CLEANLINESS Tendon No. Sequence No. Date VSL Inspector GPC QC Inspector
- 1. Did RR Team Member observe sheathing being cleaned? Yes No Not Accept Actept Resolution
- 2. Was sheathing cleaned in accordance with VSL Field Instruction Manual?
(Free of foreign material, moisture, corrosion)
- 3. Did VSL inspector accurately document sheathing cleanliness on VSL Tendon Installation O Report?
V Remarks:
B. TENDON INSTALLATION Tendon No. Sequence No. Date
. VSL Inspector GPC QC Inspector 4 1. Does tendon number match installation d
location?
l 2. Was sheathing filler material applied to tendon as it was pulled into sheathing?
?
- 3. Did VSL inspector accurately document a tendon installation in accordance with VSL QC checklist, items 3 through 10?
]
Remarks: _
i J
Figure 6.2-2 Walkdown Assessment Instructions and Checklist (Sheet 3 of 4)
)
l l
1 l
(\
C. ANCHOR MEAD ASSEMBLY AND TENDON STRESSING Tendon ko. _ Sequence No. _ Date VSL Inspector GPC QC Inspector Not L Accept Accept Resolution
- 1. Did VSL inspectcr accurately document installation of anchor head assembly in accordance with items 1 through 9 of the Stressing Checklist?
- 2. Did vsL inspector accurately cceplete the
- Stressing Report' in accordance with VSL procedure? (items 10 through 29 of the Stressing Checklist)?
- 3. Is elongation for this tendon within 5 percent of calculated elongation?
- 4. Are grease gaps and seals installed?
- 5. Was tendon stresssed within 28 days after installation?
Remarks:
D. TENDON GREASING Tendon No. Sequence No. Date VSL Inspector GPC QC Inspector
- 1. Did VSL inspector accurately document greasing operation of the Tendon Greasing 1 Report in accordance with the Greasing I checklist, items 1 through 17? l
- 2. Was the tendon greased within 15 days of
' stressing?
Remarks:
l J
Section Completed sy: Date:
0172m/037-6 O Figure 6.2-2 Walkdown Assessment Instructions and Checklist (Sheet 4 of 4) e
, .-,--.r w.--,e ..,,e -,--, ,+ >,,-,-w
J.O.No. 15224 February 27, 1986 O. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant O
Independent Design Review Module Report (Module No. 13C)
Post Tensioning
)
Prepared for I
Georgia Power Company l Readiness Review Program O
Approved By: Module Team Leader [/ b u '
Project Manager
)
de J(~
O O
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Boston, Massachusetts 02107 0405-1522401-B4T
1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW REPORT l O TABLE OF CONTENTS :
Section Title Page Table of Contents i ;
Summary lii 7.1 Introduction 7.1-1 7.2 Scope 7.2-1 7.3 Review Methodology 7.3-1 7.3.1 Containment Shell and Post Tensioning Design 7.3.2 Engineering Specifications !
7.3.3 In Service Inspection of Tendons 7.3.4 Change Evaluation Review j 7.4 Review Summary 7.4-1 7.4.1 General 7.4.2 Containment Shell and Post Tensioning Design 7.4.3 Engineering Specifications 7.4.4 In Service Inspection of Tendons 7.4.5 Change Evaluation 7.5 Review Findings 7.5-1 Finding 1 - Containment Analysis - Lack of Consideration of Buttress Stiffening Effects Finding 2 - Containment Analysis - Lack of 7 Consideration of Discontinuity i Stresses from Thermal Loading Finding 3 - Test Sampling Ambiguity Finding 4 - Cyclic Tendon Testing Not in Accordance with Specification and O FSAR Finding 5 - Prestressing System - Testing Requirement Ambiguities Finding 6 - Prestressing System Materials Not Consistent with FSAR Finding 7 - Liner Thermal Expansion Effects 7.6 Conclusions 7.6-1 l
O 0405-1522401-B4T i
k 1
i
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)
- 1 O;
I APPENDICES l l i 7A Independent Design Review Plan I Review Team Members I 7B 7C Documents Reviewed 7D Personnel Contacted i
l 1
4 1
4 4
S
'N I
=i i
9 i
l I
i O
O O
0405-1522401-B4T ii
SUMMARY
O This Independent Design Review (IDR) of the containment and post tensioning design at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) was conducted by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as part of the Vogtle Project Readiness Review Program.
The review identified a total of seven findings. Two of the findings were later considered to be nonfindings based on further information and the ,
remaining five are considered to be documentation deficiencies with no safety concern.
All of the findings have been satisfactorily resolved.
O i
l 4
0 l l
l 1 l
'O 1 1
0405-1522401-B4T iii Ty pr+y -
c-- , - --w
--e-- * - - - ' e, -
r g- - -e-, =y--s t- 'PTFr -**+'--'e*P?"N
a i
I a j
! l 4
l O
I i
O 1
i u
O' O
O O
O
7.0 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW O
b '7 .1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the Independent Design Review (IDR) of the containment shell and post-tensioning system design at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). This IDR was conducted by Stone O Webster Engineering Corpor-O V
ation (SWEC) as part of the Vogtle Proj ect Readiness Review Program (RRP).
The IDR described in this review covers the design activities of Module 13C
" Post-Tensioning."
The review was conducted at Bechtel Power Corporation's (BPC) offices in Norwalk, California, during the week of June 17, 1985 and at Plant Vogtle during the week of June 24, 1985.
] The review team was composed of the team D leader and one SWEC engineer experienced in the design of nuclear power plant structures, neither of whom had any previous association with the Vogtle Project. Each reviewdr has a minimum of 10 years of power plant design experience with a minimum of 5 years of nuclear power plant. design experience. The collective experience of this review team represents 30 man years of experience in the detailed design of nuclear power plants.
This report has been organized into six basic sections as follows:
7.1 Introduction 7.2 Scope - Provides an outline of the scope of the IDR review for this module.
O 7.3 Review Methodology - Provides the methodology utilized in the review.
7.4 Review Summary - Provides a summary of the review and its results at the time that the review itself was conducted. It does not address or consider the resolution of review findings. These are included in Sections 7.5 and 7.6.
7.5 Review Findings -
Includes the findings from the review, the p roj ect response and the IDR assessment of that response.
j 7.6 Conclusions - Presents the overall evaluation and conclusions of j p the IDR team with respect to the work reviewed under the scope of (j this module.
O O
l- 0423-1522401-B4T 7.1-1 t
l i
)
. . , . - , , , . - - . , , . . . . - - . . , -_._._s,c .-
7.2 SCOPE This review assesses the technical adequacy of the civil / structural design of the containment structure and its associated post-tensioning system. The focus of this review was limited to the technical content of the civil /
structural design documents (specifications, design criteria, calculations, drawings, deviation reports, etc) to ascertain whether the project licensing commitments were implemented in a technically adequate manner. The extent O' of this review has been established on a sample basis described in Section 7.3. The project activities reviewed included:
- 1. The design of the containment wall, dome and mat structure and the associated post-tensioning system.
- 2. Engineering specifications for procuring, fabricating and install-ing the post-tensioning system.
- 3. The In-Service-Inspection (ISI) program for the containment post-tensioning system.
- 4. Evaluation and dispositioning of deviations from project require-ments for the above items.
A separate programmatic verification of the design process was performed by other members of the Readiness Review Team to ensure that the proj ect licensing commitments were correctly carried through the various levels of governing design documents and procedures. The results of this programmatic g
g verification effort can be found in Section 6.1 of this module.
i l
O O
0423-1522401-B4T 7.2-1 i
i em 7.3 REVIEW METHODOLOGY lIU)
! This review effort was initiated with pre-review discussions between the team leader and the reviewer (Appendix 7B), at which time the reviewer was given a briefing on the Readiness Review Program and his role in the review.
A single team leader and a combined review plan (Appendix 7A) was utilized for Modules 13B and 13C due to the limited scope for review of these topics.
p t The combined review plan was prepared and provided to the reviewer defining the scope, method, limits and key attributes of the review. The methodology utilized in this review consisted of a review of project design criteria, calculations, drawings, specifications, and procedures for technical adequacy and for consistency with each other and the project licensing commitments. In addition to a review of proj ect documents, the design O philosophy of the project was discussed with the responsible engineer during the BPC headquarters review. Alternate or independent verification calculations did not constitute a part of the review activities.
The design review was performed using the documents listed in Appendix 7C and by discussion with the individuals listed in Appendix 7D. The evalua-tion approach consisted of the following primary tasks:
- Review of criteria documents for consistency with project licen-l sing commitments l
- Review of containment and post-tensioning design calculation I
methodology, and assumptions, for technical adequacy O
(
- Review of reinforcing and post-tensioning drawings for consistency with design calculations
- Review of post-tensioning ISI procedures for compliance with licensing commitments
- Review of the Containment Post-Tensioning System specification
- Review of Deviation Report dispositions for appropriateness and technical adequacy.
In addition, FSAR Section 3.8 and the Containment Design Report were review-l ed to understand the licensing commitments and the overall design process I
for the containment.
Specific methodology for each area of review is discussed in the following
- sections.
l 7.3.1 Containment Shell and Post-Tensioning Design
~ 7.3.1.1 Review of Criteria Documents l
Project Design Criteria DC-1000-C, " General Design Criteria (Civil /
Structural)" (Reference 2) and Design Criteria DC-2101, " Containment Building" (Reference 3) were reviewed for consistency with FSAR require-ments. Detailed requirements for the containment structure are given in G DC-2101 which is referenced by DC-1000-C. Review of DC-2101 included review 0423-1522401-B4T 7.3-1
1 l
of load definitions, load combinations, allowable stresses, specified loads and materials.
7.3.1.2 Review of Containment and Post-Tensioning Design Calculations Calculation No. X2CJ2.6.0, Revision 3, 1985, " Containment Prestressing Design" was selected for review during the IDR, since this calculation determines the minimum effective prestress force required in the dome and hoop tendons (including short term, long term and frictional losses) and sets the tendon force performance requirements for the post-tensioning vendor. Based on past experience a minimum effective prestress force was determined, in accordance with the recommendations of BC-TOP-5A (Reference 7), to provide a force twenty percent greater than the hoop and meridional forces induced in the containment shell by the design accident pressure alone.
Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0, Revision 0, " Containment Shell Analysis" which analyzes the containment shell and dome for the FSAR load combinations was reviewed. This calculation models the containment shell, dome and mat with two-dimensional, plate bending and stretching, finite elements available in the BSAP (Bechtel Structural Analysis Program) computer code. A detailed model of the wall and dome is included in this analysis with coarser finite elements included for the mat to represent its stiffness effect on the wall.
This calculation was selected for review as being representative of the design methodology used for both the shell and mat since the containment design report described use of BSAP and OPTCON in a similar manner for the mat analysis. Dead, live, soil pressure, accident pressure, seismic loads, etc. are applied to this model as nodal or element forces. The effective prestress force from the cylinder hoop tensioning tendons was applied as an effective inward pressure on the cylindrical portion of the containment.
Vertical longitudinal nodal forces, equivalent to wobble friction losses in the vertical inverted tendons, were applied to the cylinder nodes and the Bechtel computer program " TENDON" was used to calculate normal and tangen-tial nodal forces on the dome from the orthogonal set of inverted tendons.
Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1, Revision 2, " Containment Reinforcing' Steel Design for Cylinder" was also reviewed during the IDR. This calculation takes the internal member force results, calculated by BSAP in Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0 for each loading condition, as input to the Bechtel computer program OPTCON which performs the load combinations and cross-section design (i.e., calculation of required bonded reinforcing and check of concrete compressive stress allowables). This procedure is similar for the mat design. OPTCON does not calculate required radial shear reinforcing. This is perf o rmed manually in Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1. Since BSAP does not calculate radial shears in the shell, these are calculated manually by determining the moment gradient (rate of change) in the shell from the BSAP moment results. The required radial shear was then determined using the applicable equations of ASME III, Division 2, Section CC-3000.
Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.4, Revision 1, " Containment Reinforcing Steel Design for Buttresses" which determines the adequacy of the reinforcing steel in the vicinity of the tendon anchors was reviewed. The buttress reinforcing was designed in this calculation by examining the reinforcing 0423-1522401-B47 7.3-2
- - -- - .~_.- _ _ - .-
i
+
used in full scale buttress testing reported in BC-TOP-7 and selecting similar or greater density of reinforcing around the tendon anchors. l 7.3.1.3 Review of Post-Tensioning System Test Data )
1 In addition to the Bechtel calculations described above, vendor submittals e by VSL (Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-6, " Performance Test Results," Log Nos.
9510-AX2AF04-39-0 and 40-0, " Design Calculations and Certified Load Tests, ,
Tendon Bearing Plates," and Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-101-2, " Strand Relaxation :
Data for FWC Material, Conforming to ASTM A416") were reviewed. l Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-6 was reviewed to ensure that the tendons and anchor head assemblies tested were the same as proposed for Plant Vogtle. ;
Log Nos. 9510-AX2AF04-39-0 and 40-0 were reviewed to assure that the bearing plates tested were the same as proposed for Plant Vogtle and that the con-crete bearing stresses calculated therein were within the anchorage bearing !
stresses permitted by ASME III, Division 2, Section CC-3000. f Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-101-2 was reviewed to ensure that the tested relaxation properties of the wire proposed for use on Plant Vogtle were consistent with the calculated prestress losses from strand relaxation.
i 7.3.1.4 Review of Reinforcing and Post-Tensioning Drawing '
Reinforcing steel design drawings for bonded reinforcing were reviewed for consistency with the design calculations. Flexural reinforcing at the O mat / wall junction was . reviewed for consistency of bar - size, and spacing with design calculations. Radial shear reinforcing at the mat / wall junction i
'and dome / cylinder junction was reviewed for consistency of bar size and '
spacing with that shown in the design calculations. Membrane reinforcing 1 (hoop and meridional) was reviewed for consistency of bar size, spacing, and i cover with the design calculations. Reinforcing at the buttresses anchoring the hoop tendons was also reviewed against the reinforcing requirements _j listed in the design calculations. '
Bechtel " Containment Prestressing Requirement" drawings were reviewed for consistency of specified minimum prestress force with the calculated required minimum and consistency of tendon quantity and spacing with that used in the containment shell analysis. VSL post-tensioning drawings were O reviewed for consistency of tendon size and material with that used in the containment shell analysis and for consistency of maximum stressing force and force at anchoring with that used in the containment shell analysis.
7.3.2 Engineering Specifications O The engineering specification evaluation consisted of identifying the project licensing coramitments and reviewing the post-tensioning specifica-tion for compliance with the commitments and applicable industry standards.
Specification X2AF04, " Containment Post-Tensioning System" was evaluated against the project licensing commitments identified in FSAR Sections 1.9 and 3.8. In addition, the specification was evaluated for content and completeness. Specifications for mixing, placing and delivering of concrete and fabricating, furnishing and splicing of deformed bar reinforcing were 0423-1522401-B4T 7.3-3 1
i i
not evaluated since these are common to all structures and were reviewed by the IDR Team in Module No. 1 " Reinforced Concrete Structures."
ll 7.3.3 In-Service Inspection (ISI) of Tendons ISI requirements for the containment post-tensioning tendons will be inclu-ded in the plant " Technical Specifications" with detailed implementation procedures for this inspection included in plant maintenance procedures. At the time of the IDR, the plant maintenance procedures had not been initiated lf and the applicable technical specification had not been completed. However, draft Technical Specification, Section 4.6.1.6 was provided by BPC. This draft was reviewed for compliance with the requirements of R.G. 1.35 for Surveillance of Ungrouted Containment Tendons. '
7.3.4 Change Evaluation Review O The review of change evaluation consisted of a review of Non-Confo rmance Reports and Deviation Reports. Both reports have the same purpose and use; however, the title of the report was changed in late 1981 from Non-Conform-ance Report to Deviation Report (DR).
The Civil DR Log was reviewed for DRs that would apply to containmeat post-tensioning duct, tendons or anchors. i 1
The log contains a listing of all civil DRs, concrete and soils as well as structural steel, and a short description of the problem. Approximately 60 !
DRs were selected for screening based on the information in the log. Copies ,
of these DRs were reviewed to select a sample for detailed review. The sample was chosen based on the engineering importance of the problem. The sample covers the full construction time span of post-tensioning related )
activities. Twenty-two (22) DRs were selected for detailed review after I screening the initial selection of 60 DRs. l i
The DRs were then reviewed for technical adequacy, including appropriateness )
of disposition, completeness of information, and the validity of the basis of acceptance (i.e., experience, judgment, or comparison to a previously evaluated DR).
l w
O' l
O 0
0423-1522401-B4T 7.3-4
p 7.4 REVIEW
SUMMARY
> \.]
! 7.4.1 General This section presents a summary of the IDR following the review itself but prior to the resolution of the review findings. Individual findings are q resolved in Section 7.5 and the overall IDR evaluation is provided in Q Section 7.6.
7.4.2 Containment Shell and Post-Tensioning Design 7.4.2.1 Criteria Documents Review of Design Criteria DC-2101, Revision 2, " Containment Building" found allowable stresses, load combinations, and load definitions to be in accordance with ASME III, Division 2, Section CC-3000 as committed to in FSAR Section 3.8.1. Design for tangential shear stress in the plane of the shell was specified to be accounted for by an increase in the hoop and meridional design forces, as specified in FSAR Section 3.8.1.
Post-Tensioning tendons were found to have been specified as 1/2"$, 7 wire-55 strand ASTM A416, Grade 270 tendons, which is consistent with the FSAR. Maximum creep and shrinkage strains of the concrete were specified in DC-2101 to permit calculation of long term prestress losses as required by CC-3000. The actual concrete mix used for the containment was tested to determine its creep and shrinkage properties (Bechtel Log C No. 9510-AX2AN14-4-1, Long Term Testing of Concrete Properties (Final
( Report) by the University of California at Berkeley. These test results were reviewed during the IDR for consistency with the values specified in DC-2101.
The longest test conducted was for approximately one year from initial j loading. During the review, BPC was asked to extrapolate these results to a 40 year plant life. Prior to completing the review in BPC's offices, the test results were extrapolated by BPC using the method given by A. H. Nilson in Equation 2.10a of " Design of Prestressed Concrete," John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978. The resulting 40 year creep and shrinkage strain from this l extrapolation was found to have been enveloped by the values specified in DC-2101.
! Review of the design criteria for the containment resulted in no concerns or observations being identified.
! 7.4.2.2 Containment and Post-Tensioning Design Calculations Calculation No. X2CJ2.6.0, Revision 3, June 12, 1985, " Containment /
O Prestressing Design" was reviewed during the IDR. Creep and shrinkage strain values of concrete for calcu'.ation of long term prestress losses used were consistent with and referenced to DC-2101. Frictional prestress losses from wobble and cu rvature were found to be based on wobble and friction coefficients consistent with industry experience (Refer to ACI 318-71, Commentary Section 18.6.2, Table 1) and were judged to be reasonable design
,(T values. Frictional losses were found to be calculated in accordance with
'd the requirements of CC-3000.
I l 0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-1 l
l l l
1 I
The calculation of prestress losses was found to be reasonable and to i consider all appropriate losses. Elastic shortening, concrete creep and shrinkage, wire relaxation, friction (curvature and wobble) and anchorage l losses were all included. Creep and shrinkage losses were based on concrete l properties confirmed by test. Wire relaxation properties were found to be conservative when compared to wire test data extrapolated to a 40 year life.
Anchorage losses are adequately accounted for by requiring the vendor to -
provide a tendon force of .7 times the guaranteed ultimate strength (GUTS) at the anchor head after all anchoring slippage losses. This value, imposed on the vendor in Specification X2AF04 and Drawing IX2D01K001, make the calculation of effective prestress force after anchoring consistent with that used in the calculation of effective short term and long term prestress force.
I Tendon properties (ASTM A416, GR 270) were found to be consistent with 1 DC-2101. Concrete stresses at anchoring, used to calculate elastic shorten- )
ing and for bearing at the anchorage, were found to be in accordance with I CC-3000 allowable stresses as were the tendon stresses. Containment design ,
I pressure (Pa) used to calculate the required effective prestress was found to be consistent with DC-2101 and greater than the maximum calculated i pressure of FSAR Table 6. 2.1-1. No findings resulted from review of this calculation.
1 Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0, Revision 0, August 14, 1984, " Containment Shell j Analysis" was also reviewed. Dead, live, crane, accident pressure, soil pressure, tornado, wind, seismic and prestress loadings were found to have been applied to the finite element model of the shell, consistent with the requirements of the design criteria and the FSAR. Loadings considered were traceable and clearly referenced to either the design criteria or other project calculations. Seismic accelerations used as input were based on the SRSS of response to three directions of excitation.
All required loadings, with the exception of thermel loading (either uniform temperature or temperature gradient) were applied to the finite element model of the containment. Thermal loading was not considered in the overall shell analysis. Thermal gradient loading only was considered in Calculation
~
No. X2CJ2.10.1 on a local section basis. It is not clear that this method-ology will adequately account for the discontinuity forces generated by compatibility of displacements at structural discontinuities (i.e., mat / wall junction, dome / cylinder junction, mat / reactor cavity junction) when the containment structure is subjected to thermal loading, either operating or accident (Finding No. 2).
It was also noted that restrained thermal growth of the containment liner under accident conditions, and its consequent effect of increasing the effective accident pressure, was not included in the analysis. However, this was judged by the reviewer to be adequately covered by the margin provided between the containment design pressure of 52 psig and the peak calculated accident pressure of 39 psig. Conservatively, full restraint of the 1/4 in. liner under an accident temperature increase (260 F - 55 F) would require an approximate restraining pressure of 9.7 psig versus the existing margin of 13 psig (Finding No. 7).
~
l 1
0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-2
Use of a three-dimensional finite element mesh with two-dimensional plate S
bending and stretching elements to model the cylinder, dome, and mat is considered, with one exception, appropriate methodology to adequately represent the shell behavior. However, this model did not address, either by local thickening of the elements in the buttress area or local modelling of the buttress geometry, any stiffening effect in the hoop direction of the shell by the buttresses or any local discontinuity forces generated at the O buttress wall junction. In addition, there was no justification in the calculation that this effect was not significant and therefore need not be considered as required by CC-3000 (Finding No. 1).
Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1, Revision 2, October 24, 1984, " Containment Reinforcing Steel Design for Cylinder" which performs the design / checks of O critical cross-sections in the cylinder was reviewed. Load combinations used were found to be consistent with the requirements of DC-2101 and the FSAR. Internal member forces used in the load combinations were found to be properly referenced to the BSAP analysis performed in Calculation No.
X2CJ2.9,0. All loads and load combinations were found to have been con-sidered in detail or the basis why a particular load combination was not governing and need not be considered was explained and judged to be valid.
Seismic forces from three directions of excitation were found to be combined by the " Component Factor Method" which has been previously judged by the IDR team to be equivalent to the SRSS combination of design forces. Design for tangential shear forces was found to be in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 3.8.1.4.5 of the FSAR in which an equivalent membrane force is calculated and added to the hoop and meridional forces from axisym-
,Q metric loading. Containment shell cross-sections were found to have been
\s) checked for both the initial prestrer.s condition (just af ter anchoring) and at the end of plant lifetime (after all time dependent losses) in combi-nation with other loads. Allowable stresses for concrete and reinforcing steel were in accordance with those specified in CC-3000. As described in the review of Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0, thermal loading was considered only in Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1. In Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1, the BPC com-puter program OPTCON is used to calculate the required reinforcing steel and checks the concrete compressive stress at critical cross-sections under all combined loads except thermal loading. OPTCON then calculates the curvature that would result in an unrestrained member from the operating or accident gradient and combines this curvature with the curvature produced by the internal design forces from all other loads. Considering cracking of the cross-section, strain compatibility and equilibrium of the external forces, O it iterates to a stable solution of moment in the cross-section that is con-sistent with the total curvature. This moment is then taken as the final design moment, including thermal effects. This procedure is considered appropriate for design in the membrane zone, away from structural discontinuities, but as stated in the discussion under Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0 does not appear to adequately address the discontinuity forces
() generated by thermal loading at structural discontinuities.
Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.4, Revision 1, December 22, 1983, " Containment Reinforcing Steel Design for Buttresses" was reviewed to assess the adequacy of the anchorage reinforcing to resist tendon loading. Buttress reinforcing is designed in this calculation by examining the full scale buttress tendon testing reported in BC-TOP-7. In this report, even the lightest reinforcing
/ pattern (TYPE 1) of the report was able to sustain several cycles of 2100K 0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-3
of force versus the maximum jacking force of 1817K to be used on Vogtle.
Additional reinforcing was not found to significantly reduce strain and no spalling or concrete deterioration was noted in any of the reinforcement arrangements. The steel arrangement of Type 2 AH = 10.44 ina AV = 3.12 inz from these tests has been selected in this calculation for use on Vogtle, O
with AH = 15.15 in2 and AV = 3.12 inz actually being provided at each tendon anchor. Since the lightest reinforcing pattern was cycled to 2100K and one Type 2 tendon was jacked to 2260K versus the maximum Vogtle jacking force of 1817K, this design by test is considered adequate and deemed to satisfy the CC-3543(b) requirement for design by test to minimum ultimate (2272K), since Type 2 was jacked to 2260K and Type 1 with one-half the reinforcing was jacked to 2100K. Test structure concrete properties were all below 600 psi at tensioning versus the f'c design value of 6000 psi for Vogtle.
No observations or concerns resulted from review of this calculation.
1 7.4.2.3 Post-Tensioning System Test Data j In addition to the Bechtel calculations described above, VSL vendor proto-type test data on full scale tendon / anchor head tests, bearing plate tests, j wire relaxation tests, and concrete anchorage bearing stress calculations l were reviewed. The tendon and anchor head assemblies and bearing plates tested to 100 percent of GUTS were found to be consistent with the system to be used on Plant Vogtle. Wire relaxation test data were found to be for the correct type tendon material and relaxation properties (at 40 years) were I found to be enveloped by the project design criteria and calculated concrete bearing stresses under the tendon anchor bearing plate were within CC-3000 allowable stress limits. Review of this data resulted in no concerns or observations.
7.4.2.4 Reinforcing and Post-Tensioning Drawings BPC Drawings IX2D01K001-003, 005, and 008, " Containment Prestressing Re-quirements," were reviewed against the requirements of Calculation No.
X2CJ2.6.0. Ef fective prestress forces, creep and shrinkage strains, fric-tional (curvature and wobble) coefficients were found to be the same as used in Calculation No. X2CJ2.6.0. Vertica tendon duct azimuths and radii at the dome were identical to those used in .he calculations as was the verti-cal spacing of the cylinder and dome hoop tendon ducts. No findings resulted from review of these drawings.
VSL Corporation Drawing Nos. 121-015GA-PT-1-6 and PT-2-6 and Nos. 210015-PT32.1-2, PT32.2-3, and PT32.3-2 were reviewed for maximum jacking force and tendon force at anchoring. The maximum jacking force of 1817K and an anchoring force of 1590K is the same as used in BPC Calculation Nos. X2CJ2.6.0 and X2CJ2.9.0 to design the prestressing system and analyze the containment, respectively.
Tendon anchoring method and arrangement (i.e., anchor head type, size, thickness, and bearing pl te type, size, and geometry) were reviewed and 0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-4
found consistent with the prototype testing submitted by VSL. No findings resulted from review cf these drawings.
BPC Drawings IP01WO58 and 059 detailing the buttress reinforcing were reviewed against the required reinforcing shown in Calculation ,
No. X2CJ2.10.4. Size, spacing, arrangement, and quantity of reinforcing called for on the drawings was found to agree with that specified in the calculation. Also, BPC Drawings IP01W016, 71, 72, 74, 77 and IB01W366 were reviewed against the required meridional, hoop and radial shear reinforcing at the mat wall junction required in Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1 and the bar size, spacing, and location was found to be in agreement with that required by the calculation. No concerns or observations resulted from a review of these drawings.
7.4.3 Engineering Specification i
Review of Specification X2AF04 found that code dates were consistent with the FSAR commitments. Material traceability require;aents were found to have been properly specified (Section 4.5) and the requirements relative to an approved QA Program were contained in the Proposal Form for " Furnishing and Installing Conta:nment Post-Tensioning System" which is a part of Specifica-tion X2AF04. Tolerances for tendon duct location are clearly specified as well as tolerances for tendon jacking forces. Corrosion protection require-ments were found to have been specified as described in the FSAR However, certain areas of the specification were found to be unclear, in error or in conflict with the FSAR requirements or vendor drawings. It is O believed that these discrepancies are minor and can readily be corrected by changing the appropriate documents and that they do not have any effect on the adequacy of the hardware. The areas where discrepancies were noted are:
Conflicting material requirements were noted between the material list in the specification and on vendor drawings and the requirements of the FSAR and referenced ASTM standards. The FSAR lists tendon bearing plates as being ASTM A537, Class 1, while the specification lists plates as being ASTM A537, Class A or B; A537 has no Class A or B designations. The FSAR describes tendon anchor wedge material as AIS1 86L20 and makes no mention of DIN 17210 material which is listed as an alternate on the vendor drawings.
Also, the specification (Section 4.2.1.2) requires strand to have a minimum _
yield strength of 0.85 times the minimum breaking strength. The FSAR states that strand conforms to ASTM A416. ASTM A416, Supplement. 1, requires that low-relaxation strand, which the specification allows have a minimum yield strength not less than 0.90 times the minimum breaking strength of the strand. The specification allows a less restrictive yield strength of strand than is required by ASTM A416 which the FSAR invoked (Finding No. 6).
O In Paragraphs 5.3.3.2 and 5.3.3.3 of the specification, hardness tests on anchorage components and deformation tests on tendon sheathing are respec-tively required on a representative sample / number of the items but the specification did not stipulate what representative sample / number was adequate. It is not clear therefore how the engineer assured himself that the testing was adequate (Finding No. 3).
O -
0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-5
l l
Paragraphs 5.3.3.4 and 5.3.3.5 of the specification stipulate low temper-ature and dynamic testing of the tendon and anchorage components, but do not give the number of tests required. Also, the criteria of acceptance and the method of conducting the test are unclear since it seems to require no loss of stress when the specified method of applying the loading cycles is by changing the stress levels in the tendon. In discussing these items with the responsible engineer, it was determined that the testing as described in the specification had not been performed. The vendor had actually performed cyclic testing in accordance with ASME III, Division 2, Section CC-2463 requirements (Finding No. 4).
T' AR Section 3.8.1.6.8G discusses certain " Physical Tests" which include
" Load Test," " Cyclic Test," and " Cold Environment Test." The specification does not address a requirement for " Load Test," but does discuss in Section 5.3.1 " System Prototype Tests." It is unclear whether the prototype testing is the same testing referred to as " Load Test" in the FSAR, nor is it clear how many of these tests are required. It was also not clear if the cyclic testing described in Section 5.3.3 " Production Verification Tests" was not really a prototype test (Finding No. 5).
7.4.4 In-Service Inspection of Tendons FSAR Section 1.9.3.5.2 commits to the requirements of R.G. 1.35, Revision 2, January 1976 for ISI requirements for containment tendons. At the time of the IDR, the plant technical specification detailing these requirements had not been finalized and was in draft form only. However, the draft version of Technical Specification, Section 4.6.1.6 was reviewed since it appeared to be complete, except for tabulation of the actual tendon numbers to be inspected and the tabulation of expected liftoff forces and elongations at the various inspection intervals.
Inspection intervals in this draft (i.e., 1, 3, 5 years and every 5 years thereafter) were found to be in accordance with R.G. 1.35 requirements. It was not possible to determine if the number of tendons and the representa-tive nature of the tendons to be inspected at each interval were in compli-ance with R.G. 1.35 requirements, since Table 4.6-1, which defines the tendons to be inspected, is presently blank. The procedure does require visual inspection of tendon anchorage and adjacent concrete during each Integrated Leak Rate Test and is consistent with the requirement of R.G. 1.35 to perform this inspection while the containment is pressurized.
Provision exists in the procedure, although the actual numerical values are presently blanks, for specifying maximum and minimum jacking forces, allow-able elongations and ~ tolerances as required by R.G. 1.35. Provisions for liftoff testing of additional tendons on either side of an unacceptable tendon were found to be in accord with R.G. 1.35 requirements. Visual and tensile test requirements for selected tendons were in agreement with the requirements of R.G. 1.35 although the number of tendons to be so tested could not be verified since these entries in Table 4.6-1 were also blank.
The Technical Specification requirements for maximum grease voids, water in the grease, grease coverage on the anchorage system, and chemical limits on the grease were judged to satisfy the requirements of R.G. 1.35.
No observations or concerns resulted from a review of this draft Technical Specification.
0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-6
7.4.5 Change Evaluation O A sampling of 22 Deviation Reports (DRs) related to the' post-tensioning i system were reviewed and found to be dispositioned in a technically sound manner with an appropriate engineering evaluation.
These deviation reports related to tendon duct mislocation, tendon ducts O failing to pass a specified diameter rabbit after concrete pouring, tendon duct trumpet mislocations and dented tendon ducts. Since tendon pulling and stressing had only progressed to a limited point at the time of the IDR, no closed out DR's relating to tendon stressing, tendon material, or anchorage component deviations were available for review. No concerns or observations resulted from the change evaluation review.
t f
i l
1 1
I O
i O
l 0423-1522401-B4T 7.4-7
l l
l 7.5 REVIEW FINDINGS During this review, the following findings were identified by the IDR Team. >
Immediately following each of the concerns is the response provided by the project to the issues raised and the IDR Team's assessment of that response.
Upon completion, the findings have been classified into levels of importance to the potential impact on plant safety. The following levels are used:
s I Violation of licensing commitments, proj ect procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety significance.
II Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concerns.
III Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns.
IV Non-finding based on additional information/ clarification supplied by the project.
O l
1 O 1 1
O l 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-1
Finding 1 - Containment Analysis -Lack of Consideration of Buttress Stiffening Effects (RRF 13C-1) -
g TSAR Section 3.8.1.2.1. commits to Sect. CC-3000 of ASME III, Div. 2, 1975, Winter '75 addenda for the Design of the Containment. Section CC-3310 (a) states: " Consideration shall be given...to the stiffening effect of Buttresses or other Integral Portions of the Containment." Section CC-3310 (c) states: "For Prestressed containments, the Analytical Methods Selected for Construction and Normal Category Load combination shall account for...-
the thick section geometry that is characteristic at ring girders and buttresses."
Calc. No. X2CJ2.9.0, Rev. O " Containment Shell Analysis" modelled the containment shell using the BSAP Computer Program with a single layer of dimensional finite elements throughout the circumference of the shell and a constant shell thickness of 3'-9". The increased wall thickness at the buttress was not considered in this analysis and there was no evidence in i the calculation that the stiffening effect of the buttress was insignificant I
or that any local forces in the shell at the buttress could be ignored.
l Project Response The prestressed concrete containment shell consists of a 158'-9" high vertical cylindrical wall and a hemispherical dome. The internal radius is 70 ft. The nominal thickness of shell is 3'-9" except for the haunch at the base. There are three 12 ft. wide buttresses equally spaced around the i circumference of the containment shell. The shell is 6'-0" thick at the locations of the buttresses. These buttresses have negligible effect on the structural behavior of the thin containment shell, as explained below:
ll Since the buttresses increase the area of cross-section of the wall only by 5 percent (from 1694 fta to 1775 ftz), they have insignificant effect on the behavior of shell under vertical loads. Similarly, the distribution of tangential shear stresses under lateral loads (such as those from wind and horizontal earthquake) will not be affected significantly by the buttresses.
The ability of the shell at and near the buttresses to carry the local
, stresses from the anchorage of post-tensioned hoop tendons has been demonstrated by the full scale texts (Reference A). Under internal pressure l load, the shell is under biaxial membrane tension. At a buttress, there can be a local hoop bending moment, afireting the thickened section, due to the change in stiffness and geometry. These discontinuity effects on the shell side of the buttress-shell junction are negligible due to the axisymmetric l nature of the structure and relatively small width of the buttress.
In the opinion of the reviewer, the discontinuity effect on the shell side of the buttress-shell junction may not be negligible. In order to reach an j acceptable resolution to the issue, a local analysis of the buttress area under internal pressure was pe r fo rmed . Civil Engineering Study No. 91 attached documents this analysis. This analysis shows conclusively that the stiffening effect of the buttresses on the design of the shell is negligible.
O 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-2
This finding has no impact on the safety of the plant and no hardware or design changes are required.
Associated Reports:
A) Topical Report, " Full Scale Buttress Test for Prestressed Nuclear Containment Structures," BC-TOP-7, Bechtel Corporation, September 1972
'O B) Civil Engineering Study # 91, dated November 25, 1985.
Root Cause of Finding:
None Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence:
None Future Commitments:
None IDR Assessment The IDR team has reviewed BPC Civil Engineering Study #91. This study modelled a 60' segment of the shell in the membrane zone, including a thickened portion at the buttress, with four finite elements through the q^ wall thickness and six through the buttress. The model, with axisymmetric boundary conditions, was subjected to an internal pressure loading of 52 psig. The resulting maximum bending moment in the wall section near the buttress was only 1.7K-FT/FT. The IDR Team therefore concurs with the proj ect response that the buttress effects on the shell are negligible and that BPC exercised proper engineering judgment in this regard. No further action is required.
Finding Level IV O
O O
0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-3 l
t
Finding 2 - Containment Analysis - Lack of Consideration of Discontinuity
~
Stresses from Thermal Loading (RRF 13C-2)
FSAR Section 3.8.1.2.1 commits to Sect. CC-3000 of ASME III, Div. 2, 1975, Winter '75 addenda for the Design of the Containment. Section CC-3320 (b) states: "Although shell analysis may be based on membrane theory, additional consideration is required for bending and shear forces at penetration, intersection with base mat, and for discontinuities and for stresses and strains caused by temperature variations."
In Calc. No. X2CJ2.9.0, Rev. O " Containment Shell Analysis" thermal loading (Uniform Temp. Increase and/or Gradient) is not one of the loadings applied to the finite element model of the containment shell and mat. Calc. No.
X2CJ2.10.1, Rev. 2 " Containment Reinforcing Steel Design for Cylinder" performs a design of required reinforcing steel for critical cross-sections of the containment shell using the BPC Computer Program "0PTCON" and the internal member forces from Calc. No. X2CJ2.9.0 with the curvature of an unrestrained member subjected to the design temperature gradients. By assuming strain compatibility across the section and equilibrium of external forces, it calculates the total design moment and stresses at the cross-section. Local treatment of thermal loading is appropriate in the membrane zone of the shell. However, there is no evidence in the project calcula-tions that this approach adequately accounts for the bending and shear forces induced at structural discontinuities (such as mat wall junction), if compatibility of displacements and rotations under thermal loading were imposed as required by CC-3320(b).
Project Response Thermal stresses in the containment pressure boundary can be determined using different methods. The methodology utilized in the Vogtle Project is a simplified, approximate procedure for calculating the thermal stresses.
This approach was based on the experience derived from the application of more comprehensive axisymmetric nonlinear analysis methods employed on earlier projects.
Since the adequacy of the simplified approach was questioned by the reviewer, a study was initiated to re-evaluate the thermal effects at wall-basemat junction. The thermal stresses thes calculated were combined with the other stresses in accordance with the project criteria. Results of this study showed that the combined stresses based on more detailed analysis were within the allowable limits (Civil Engineering Study No. 90, Revision 1).
This finding has no impact on the safety of the plant and no hardware or design changes are required.
Associated Reports:
Civil Engineering Study No. 90, Revision 1 dated December 12, 1985 0
0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-4
I
, i I
l i
I Root Cause of Finding: l
,O This is considered to be an isolated case of undocumented use of engineering l judgement in the design of containment pressure boundary. The use of a simplified approach was performed without the benefit of a study such as CES I l
No. 90, Revision 1 which has since been incorporated into the discipline generic study files. !
, O, 1 j ,
lV Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence: ,
l An interoffice memorandum (Bechtel Log BB47758) was issued to proj ect l l personnel reiterating and emphasizing the requirements of ANSI N45.2.11 l relating to design documentation. !
(N Future Commitments:
Not applicable IDR Assessment j The IDR Team has reviewed BPC Civil Engineering Study No. 90. This study compares the thermally induced concrete and reinforcing stresses in the containment shell and basemat, near the mat wall junction, produced by a l finite element analysis (FINEL) and an "0PTCON" analysis of a containment l with similar geometry, prestressing, thermal and pressure loading to the l Vogtle containment. This study analyzed the referenced containment using a detailed finite element model with multiple elements through the wall / mat
! thickness. The finite element modelling accounted for cracking through the l section thickness, compatibility of wall / mat displacements, and was subjected to both thermal gradient and uniform temperature increase loading.
FINEL analysis results (concrete and reinforcing stresses) were tablulated for I.) Dead + Prestress + Operating Temperature conditions and for II.)
l Dead + Prestress + Accident Pressure + Accident Temperature conditions. In ;
1 CES 90 the internal member force resultants (force / foot, moment / foot) resulting from the FINEL analysis were also tabulated for the conditions I.
and II. without thermal loading. These forces were then input to OPTCON i along with the thermal gradients, and cross sectional geometry of the I reference containment at the mat / wall junction. This study then compared the reinforcing and concrete stresses produced by the two methods (FINEL and l OPTCON) at the mat / wall junction.
Examination of these results by the IDR Team concluded that OPTCON does not l always conservatively predict the reinforcing and concrete stresses when l
compared to a finite element analysis that includes mat /shell compatibility effects.
i '~ However if the percentage difference, by which the OPTCON results of CES 90 ls vary from the FINEL results for the reference containment, is used to increase the thermal stresses predicted by OPTCON for the controlling Plant
! Vogtle load combinations the resulting total stresses are still within the allowable stress limits permitted by CC-3000. The IDR Team therefore concurs that for the specific conditions,of loading and section geometry of Plant Vngtle the approach used has resulted in a containment / mat design that O
- 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-5 l
l
satisfies the loading combinations and allowable stresses committed to in the FSAR and represents a structurally' sound design.
Finding Level III O
O l
O l
l
' O O
1 0 l 1
\ l 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-6 l l l 1
. . . .~ . _ . . _ .- - - _ .--. - .. -_
I f
Finding 3 - Test Sampling Ambiguity (RRF 13C-3)
Specification X2AF04 (Rev. 2, July 24, 1984), Section 5.3.3.2 " Anchorage Components" requires hardness tests on a representative sample taken from each batch' or lot of anchorage components. Section 5.3.3.3 " Tendon Sheathing" requires a deformation test on a representative number of sheathing lengths. l The specification does not specifically identify what constitutes a representative sample for hardness testing, or what a representative number would be for deformation testing of sheathing.
Project Response Specification No. X2AF04, Revision 2, Section 5.1, Item 2, requires that all testing procedures be detailed in the Contractor's Quality Assurance Program. The Quality Assurance Program submitted by VSL (Bechtel Power 2 l
Corporation [BPC) Log No. AX2AF04-81-10) specifies the following represen-tative samples:
- 1. Wedges Ia. Case Hardness: 2% per lot 2a. Case Depth: One per lot 3a. Core Hardness: One per lot
- 2. Tendon Sheathing O lb. Deformation Test: One per 100 A sample size is not specified in the Quality . Assurance Program for the anchor heads, but a hardness test was performed on 10 percent of each lot as I
documented in the VSL " Anchor Head Heat Treatment Certification," (BPC Log N0s. IX2AF04-123 and IX2AF04-124). In order to' remove any ambiguity, VSL l was directed to revise their Quality Assurance Program to include the sample size for the anchor heads.
VSL revised the Quality Assurance Program and submitted it to Drawing and Document Control on September 3, 1985. Bechtel accepted (Status 1) it on October 24, 1985.
l Associated Reports:
l Not applicable Root Cause of Finding:
Not applicalle ,
' Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence: ,
Not applicable 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-7
_ , , , . . ~ . . _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ . _ _ . . ._ . _ _ . ~ _ , _ _ .
Future Commitments:
Not applicable l
IDR Assessment The IDR Team concurs that Specification No. X2AF04, Revision 2, Section 5.1, Item 2 requires testing procedures be detailed in the Contractor's Quality Assurance Program. Since this program is submitted to BPC this is an acceptable method for the engineer to ensure a representative sample is I being utilized. The 10 percent sampling of each lot for hardness tests of anchor heads is in accordance with the requirements of ASME III, Division 2, ;
Section CC-2000 (to which the project is not committed) and is therefore judged to be adequate. Ilowever, since this should have been defined in the Vendors' Quality Assurance Program, revision to include this requirement satisfactorily resolves this finding.
Finding Level III O
O O
O 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-8
I !
i Finding 4 - Cyclic Tendon Testing Not in Accordance with Specification
FSAR Section 3.8.1.6.8G stipulates cyclic testing of the prestressing '
system. Specification X2AF04 (Rev. 2, July 24, 1984) Section 5.3.3
" Production Verification Tests" covers dynamic (cyclic) testing but is not clear on how the test is to be performed and its acceptance criteria.
Discussion with BPC (Norwalk) indicates that testing as described in the FSAR and specification was not performed. Rather, the vendor has conducted testing in accordance with ASME Section III, Division 2 CC-2463. I Project Response O The dynamic test results submitted by VSL consisted of high and low cycle dynamic tensile tests perfo rmed in accordance with the stress levels and number of stress reversal cycles specified in ASME Section III, Division 2, Section CC-2463. VSL performed the tests to the ASME criteria because they' ;
represented the current state-of-the-art of dynamic tensile testing and-in i addition, they had performed this . type of testing previously. The j Specification had been completed prior to the development of the referenced ;
Code Section. Since the FSAR was issued before VSL submitted the cyclic- i test results, FSAR Section 3.8.1.6.8.G contains the same cyclic test as Specification No.-X2AF04. The system performance tests, submitted to Bechtel Engineering for review, are not associated with the production verification tests of individual hardware components. The Quality Control organizations responsible for checking supplier hardware documentation would not, therefore, detect this discrepancy.
O Revision 3 to specification No. X2AF04 was issued on October 7, 1985. A corresponding FSAR change was incorporated in the FSAR by Amendment 20, dated December 1985.
Associated Reports:
Vendor document, Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) Log No. AX2AF04-115-1.
Root Cause of Finding:
The responsible Engineer for the specification failed to revise the specification and make the corresponding change to the FSAR.
Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence:
All Engineering Group Supervisors were instructed by Proj ect Quality Engineer, in the EGS meeting held on October 7, 1985, to emphasize to the responsible engineers under their supervision to keep all specifications and the FSAR current and consistent.
Future Commitments:
Not applicable l
0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-9 i
I l l 1
)
IDR Assessment Dynamic testing conducted in accordance with ASME III, Division 2, O
Section CC-2463 is technically acceptable to demonstrate suitability of the tendons for cyclic loading. Revision of the specification and the change to l the FSAR to describe the actual testing performed satisfactorily resolves ,
the finding.
Finding Level II O
l i
1 O:
1 I
O O
O 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-10
Finding 5 - Prestressing System - Test Reg'uirement Ambiguities (RRF 13C-5)
O2 FSAR Section 3.8.1.6.8G stipulates certain testing of the prestressing system. Among these tests are a group identified as " Physical Tests" which include " Load Test," " Cyclic Test," and " Cold Environment Test."
Specification X2AF04 (Rev. 2, July 24, 1984) was reviewed and the following i was noted: 1.) There was no " Load Test" identified. However, Section 5.3.1 l " System Prototype Tests" called for load test reports. It is not clear l
/ whether the prototype testing is the same testing referred to as " Load Test" in the FSAR, nor is it clear how many of these tests are required. 2.)
Section 5.3.3 " Production Verification Tests" covers requirements for dynamic and cold temperature tests (cyclic and cold environment per FSAR).
i It is not clear how many tests are required.
(
(/ Project Response The load test specified in Section 5.3.1 of Specification No. X2AF04, Revision 2, is the same load test referred to in Section 3.8.1.6.8.G.4 of the FSAR. This static tensile test must demonstrate that each anchorage system utilized on the VEGP performs in accordance with the specification.
l Since only one post-tensioning anchorage system exists on the VEGP, only one test is required.
In addition to the test described above, two other system performance tests l (a dynamic test and a low temperature test) are required. The dynamic test
- consists of two parts (high and low cycle dynamic tensile tests) as I discussed in the response to Finding No. 13C-4. The low temperature test l
must demonstrate that the anchorage assembly, including the bearing plate, l
is capable of transmitting the ultimate load of the tendon into the j structure without brittle fracture. Since only one anchorage system exists on the VEGP, only one test is required. Although all of these tests are outlined in Specification No. X2AF04 and are being correctly implemented, the specification will be revised to eliminate any ambiguity. Section 5.3.1 of the specification will be retitled " System Performance Tests ," and will be subdivided to include " Static Tensile Tests," " Dynamic Tensile Tests,"
and " Low Temperature Tests." The number of tests required for each perfo rmance test will be delineated. The reference to the dynamic and low temperature tests will be deleted from Section 5.3.3, Production
! Verification Tests.
Associated Reports:
( Vendor Document, Bechtel Power Corporation (EPC), Log No. AX2AF04-115-1.
Root Cause of Finding:
Not applicable Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence:
Revision 3 to Specification No. X2AF04 was issued on October 7, 1985. A corresponding FSAR change was incorporated in the FSAR by Amendment 20, dated December 1985.
O 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-11 l
i i
1 Future Commitments:
Not applicable 9.
DR Assessment The IDR Team agrees that all of these tests (Load Test, Cyclic Test and Cold Environment Test) are system performance tests which only need to be performed once, as recognized by Regulatory Guide 1.103 and ASME III, i
Division 2, Section CC-2463 (not a project commitment), unless any essential l system variables change. The finding resulted from the misleading title of Section 5.3.3 of Specification No. X2AF04, Revision 2. Deletion of the cyclic and low temperature tests from Section 5.3.3 of Specification No. X2AF04, and including them in Section 5.3.1 with more appropriate titles eliminates any confusion. The IDR Team therefore considers this finding resolved.
Finding Level IV O
l 1
l l
O O
i I
0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-12 i
l l
l i
l l
[ Finding 6 - Prestressing System Materials Not Consistent with FSAR (RRF 13C-6) -
v
- 1. FSAR Section 3.8.1.6.3 "Prestressing System" lists material specifications for system components. Among the materials listed are bearing plates (ASTM A537, Class 1), wedges (AISI 86L20), and strand
, (ASTM A416). Specification X2AF04 (Rev. 2, July 24, 1984) together with the vendor (VSL) drawings stipulate the material specifications for the prestressing system components. In contrast to the description of materials in the FSAR, the specification requires the following:
1.) Bearing plates shall conform to ASTM A537, Class A or B. There are no Class A or B designations within ASTM A537. The specification does not address material requirements for wedges. The vendor drawings list
( wedges as complying to AISI 86L20 or DIN 17210. The FSAR does not
\ discuss use of wedges which comply to DIN 17210.
- 2. The FSAR states that strand conforms to ASTM A416 for stress relieved l or low relaxation type. The specification requires strand to comply I
with ASTM A416 for stress relieved or low relaxation type and have a minimum yield strength not less than 0.85 times the minimum breaking strength. The specification makes no distinction between stress i relieved and low relaxation strand with regard to the requirement for
! yield strength. However, ASTM A416 does make a distinction for low relaxation strand in Supplement I which requires the yield strength to be 0.90 times the minimum breaking strength. The specification allows the yield strength for low relaxation strand to be less than that lp required by ASTM A416 which is required by FSAR.
Project Response
- 1. Bearing plates for the post-tensioning system are made of ASIM A537, Class 1 material, as noted on vendor (VSL) drawing nos. PT 1-6 and PT 2-6, which corresponds to the FSAR. The specification stipulates ASTM A537 material, but incorrectly calls out Grade A or B (which is an obsolete designation). Revision 3 to Specification No. X2AF04 was issued on October 7, 1985 to correct this ambiguity.
- 2. The specification did not specify the wedge material, because the post-tensioning system is designed by the vendor based on the criteria and load conditions stipulated in the specification. This provides the
- (~ vendor the flexibility to select the wedge material to optimize the t
performance of their system.
The wedge material initially selected by VSL for VEGP (reference VSL drawings PT 1-5 and PT-2-5 was AISI 86L20, which is the same as the material of the wedges used in the post-tensioning system performance A tests. Subsequently, VSL requested permission to use, as an alternate
() material, DIN 17210. Based on the comparison of hardness properties and chemical analyses of the above two materials provided by VSL, Bechtel accepted this substitution (Bechtel Log No. AX2AF04-114-1).
Accordingly, VSL revised their drawings (PT 1-6 and PT 2-6) to specify acceptability of both of the above materials. However, this change was not followed up with an associated FSAR change.
0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-13
1 I
In response to this obse rva tion , VSL drawings (PT 1-7 and PT 2-7) and FSAR (Amendment 20) were revised to specify use of DIN 17210 material instead of AISI 86L20. Subsequent evaluation, based on the input from jobsite, revealed that before the substitution of DIN 17210 material was implemented, one shipment of wedges for Unit I had been made. The material of the wedges contained in this shipment is AISI 8620. As j stated in the AIS1 specifications, the AISI 8620 material is identical I
to the AISI 86L20 material except that AISI 8620 has no lead. Absence of lead (L) makes a difference only in machinability but does not have any influence in the performance of the wedges.
In summary, both AISI 8620 and DIN 17210 are technically acceptable and are commonly used in the industry. In order to reflect the VEGP design, a change to the FSAR has been initiated through FSAR change notice No. 297. VSL revised their drawing for Unit 1 (Drawing No. PT 1-8) to include AISI 8620 in addition to DIN 17210. Bechtel acceptance of this drawing is documented in Bechtel Log No. 1X2AF04-36-8.
- 3. The specification permits either stress-relieved or low relaxation type strands. The specification is ambiguous with respect to the minimum yield strength. The 0.85 fpu value is only applicable to stress-relieved strands. Low relaxation stands are required to have a value of 0.90 fpu as specified in the supplement to ASTM A416. Although the specification contains this ambiguity, the requirements of ASTM A416 are being correctly implemented and there is no design impact.
Revision 3 to Specification No. X2AF04 was issued on October 7, 1985 to list only the strand in use (low relaxation type) and to correct the required minimum yield strength. A corresponding FSAR Change was incorporated in the FSAR by Amendment 20, dated December 1985.
Associated Reports:
VSL Ieawing No. PT 1-8 (BPC Log No. IX2AF04-36-8).
VSL Drawing No. PT 1-7 (BPC Log No. IX2AF04-36-7).
VSL Drawing No. PT 2-7 (BPC Log No. 2X2AF04-37-7).
VSL Drawing No. PT 1-6 (BPC Log No. 1X2AF04-36-6).
VSL Drawing No. PT 2-6 (BPC Log No. 2X2AF04-37-6).
VSL Drawing No. PT 1-5 (BPC Log No. IX2AF04-36-3).
VSL Drawing No. PT 2-5 (BPC Log No. 2X2AF04-37-3).
Root Cause of Finding:
The FSAR was written based on information available at the time. The responsible Engineer for the specification failed to change the FSAR when the alternate wedge material was approved and when low relaxation strand was selected.
The Quality Control organizations responsible for checking hardware documentation release material for shipment and jobsite use, based primarily on reviewing the documentation against engineering accepted vendor drawings.
O 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-14
i r
On the first shipment for Unit I received in the jobsite, the receiving VSL
'*~ " o^ " ' * "' " " " " '" "*" ' " " '" " '" " -
CJ material designation AISI 8620 in the material certification docmment and AISI 86L20 required per VSL drawings. In this case, further, the Georgia Power Company Quality Control based their review on the comparison of the material properties provided in the material certification document accompanying the shipment with those given in vendor document, Bechtel Log AX2AF04-114-1, for AISI 86L20 material. The material properties b provided in this vendor document did not include the lead contents, since it was considered not pertinent. Since the AISI 8620 and AISI 86L20 have identical material properties with the exception of lead content, Georgia Power Company Quality Control review did not detect this discrepancy.
Therefore, this is considered to be an isolated incident. The VSL Field QA lC l \/
manager has confirmed that the other shipments of wedges received to date are of material DIN 17210.
Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence:
l All engineering group supe rvisors were instructed by the proj ect quality engineer, in the EGS meeting held on October 7, 1985, to emphasize to the responsible engineers under their supervision to keep all specifications and the FSAR current and consistent.
1 Based on the evaluation under " Root Cause," the quality control oversight of I the material discrepancy was an isolated incident.
Future Commitments:
O Not applicable IDR Assessment 1
The bearing plate material and strand material (essential variables in j accordance with ASME Section III, Division 2, CC-2466) were in accordance i l with the FSAR. The alternate wedge material DIN 17210 (not an essential I variable), was properly approved and there is no safety concern regarding the material used. The IDR Team therefore concludes that only an administrative failure occurred. A subsequent determination was made that wedge material conforming to AISI 8620 was received onsite. This material is comparable to AISI 86L20 except for the lead which is added for p machinability. Use of either AISI 8620 or 86L20 will not alter the V performance of the wedges. Revision of the specification and FSAR to clearly delineate the materials used will remove the present ambiguity. The project response therefore satisfactorily resolves the finding.
Finding Level II
!O 1L) l 0407-1522401-B41 7.5-15 ,
l I
Finding 7 - Liner Thermal Expansion Effects (RRF 13C-16)
FSAR Section 3.8.1.2.1 commits to Section CC-3000 of ASME III, Div. 2, 1975, Winter '75 Addenda for the Design of the Containment, Section CC-3222.3,
" Abnormal Loads" defines loading T "= thermal effects and loads generated by the DBA including T '
O During review of Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0, Rev. O, " Containment Shell Analysis," it was noted that restrained thermal growth of the liner under accident conditions, and its consequent effect of increasing the effective accident pressure, was not included in this analysis. Although this was judged by the reviewer to be adequately covered by the margin provided between the containment design pressure of 52 psig and the peak calculated accident pressure of 39 psig, calculation X2CJ2.9.0 should address why this was not or need not be explicitly included in the analysis so that the containment design calculations accurately describe the available containment margin, which is less than the full difference between design pressure and peak calculated accident pressure.
Project Response The effects of restrained thermal growth of the liner plate on the design of containment shell are accounted for by utilizing the hot liner feature of the OPTCON computer program. Since OPTCON was used during the design phase, and not during the analysis phase, it was not discussed in cal-culation X2CJ2.9.0, Revision 0, " Containment Shell Analysis" which is the basis of this finding.
Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1, revision 2, " Containment - Reinforcing Steel O
Design for Cylinder" and X2CJ2.10.2, revision 0, " Reinforcing Steel Design for Dome" cover the design of the containment shell and address the effects of restrained thermal growth of the liner plate. Values corresponding to the difference between the liner plate temperature during accident conditions and the liner plate temperature during construction conditions were used as input for the OPTCON program. Liner plate temperatures for accident and construction conditions are 250 F and 55 F, respectively.
Thus, the effects of restrained thermal growth of the liner plate under accident conditions have been fully addressed and consequently, the existing containment design calculations accurately represent the available containment margin.
This item has no impact on the safety of the plant and no design changes are required.
Associated Reports:
None 1
0 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-16
1 Root Cause of Finding:
b' V Not applicable Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence:
Not applicable lO lU Future Commitments:
l Not applicable 1
IDR Assessment:
As a result of the above proj ect response, the IDR Team examined OPTCON computer runs associated with Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1, Revision 2. The i l IDR team has verified that the hot liner option of OPTCON was used in these runs and that the primary effect of restrained liner growth, an increase in membrane tension in the reinforced concrete is adequately accounted for. A j secondary effect of restrained thermal growth of the liner, not addressed by j this approach, is discontinuity forces at the mat / wall junction produced by ,
the increase in effective pressure on the concrete. The IDR team, therefore l considers the finding valid, however, this effect has been addressed in the ,
response to Finding 2 (RRF 13C-2) since the FINEL analysis of the reference I containment included a liner subjected to accident temperature. This effect l therefore has already been evaluated in the comparison provided in response l
, to Finding 2 (RRF 13C-2). The IDR Team therefore considers that the l response to Finding 2 (RRF 13C-2) together with the response to Finding 7 (RRF 13C-16) demonstrates that the effects of restrained thermal growth of l
the liner under accident conditions have been adequately addressed. The IDR i Team considers this finding resolved and no further action is required. I Finding Level III O
O 0407-1522401-B4T 7.5-17
7.6 CONCLUSION
S The independent design review, conducted by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, evaluated the technical content of the design documents relating to the structural design of the containment structure and post-tensioning system on a sample basis. The documents reviewed included calculations, test reports, design criteria, specifications, drawings, and deviation reports.
The review team was composed of two members having a cumulative experience of 30 years in power plant design.
g The review team initially identified a total of 7 findings. Upon the presentation of additional information to the review team, two of the seven were classified as nonfindings. Two of the remaining five findings were classified as Level II and three were classified Level III.
l The Level II findings (RRF 13C-4 and RRF 13C-6) involved discrepancies between the FSAR commitments and corresponding specification / vendor drawing requirements, and submitted qualification test data for cyclic testing of tendons. Review of the project responses indicates that FSAR materials were used, or substituted with engineering approval, and acceptable cyclic test methods were used. Engineering personnel, however, had failed to make the corresponding updates to the FSAR or specification to maintain consistency.
Finding (RRF 13C-2) resulted from the lack of documention that the method l
l
- used to consider thermal loading on the containment shell adequately covered l the discontinuity forces at the mat / wall junction produced by the compatibility of displacements under thermal loading. The review team has
- reviewed a study performed in response to RRF 13C-2. The study compares the results of a detailed finite element model subject to thermal loading with the results from the approximate method used for Plant Vogtle. Comparing these results to the maximum stresses predicted for Plant Vogtle the review team has concluded that there is sufficient margin in the Plant Vogtle predicted stresses to account for the approximate nature of the methodology and that the containment design of Plant Vogtle is technically adequate and structurally sound.
The remaining findings are considered minor documentation deficiencies.
In summary, all of the IDR findings have been satisfactorily resolved.
l O
O G407-1522401-B4T 7.6-1 l
l
whm eg3mai.r_T_- ga ge. J. mw.- % ..-->wmma.m... a.,a. ee m #p:,.rng 4am ,s 2w.;,.as g,. 4,..m. _a,2au .,eaasu., u4_ __w,, u.w mya _ - -- ,g,.---_--.- .___- a -
APPENDIX 7A INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PLAN O
l l l-9 ;
4 l
4 1
1 i l 0406-1522401-B4T 7A-1 1
1 .
i :
'r X7BD102-IDRP 13-2 Revision 0 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Boston, Massachusetts J.0.NO. 15224 O INDEPENDENT DESI;GN REVIEW PLAN V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT MODULE NO. 13 POST TENSIONING AND COATINGS .
O TEAM LEADER / .s f DATE: 6 //#[
IDRG MANAGER L DATE: ( 7/ P[
O l
0144-1522401-B4T .
...-._._-----..__-_I
i G TABLE OF CONTENTS O
1.0 OBJECTIVE 2.0 SCOPE 3.0 REVIEW METHOD 4.0 SCHEDULE ,
9 O
l l
l Ol O
O O
0144-1522401-B4T
l 1.0 OBJECTIVE
/~N This portion of the Independent Design Review (IDR) addresses the technical adequacy of the engineering of the containment shell, containment post tensicning system, and coating systems inside the containment.
The purpose of this review plan is to define the scope, the review method, and the engineering activities to be reviewed to make an assessment of the i
engineering.
SCOPE l 2.0 The effort will consist of a review of selected portions of:
O 1. The design of the containment wall, dome and mat structure and post-tensioning system
- 2. Engineering specifications for procuring, fabricating, and instal-ling the containment post-tensioning system
- 3. The completeness and technical adequacy of the in-service inspection program for the containment post tensioning system
- 4. The coating requirements for steel and concrete surfaces
- 5. Procedures for coating application w 6. Design Basis Accident (DBA) testing and acceptance for coatings inside the containment *
(
l
- 7. Project procedures to inventory, evaluate and accept coatings inside the containment that have not been qualified for the DBA environment.
- 8. Change evaluation for dispositioning of Deviation Reports for post tensioning and coatings
' The review will be conducted to ascertain whether the Plant Vogtle licensing commitments have been incorporated into the engineering and design of the ;
O containment structure post-tensioning system and coating systems. The
,h review will include licensing commitments, design criteria, codes and standards, and calculations.
3.0 REVIEW METHOD
( The Independent Design Review (IDR) for this module will evaluate project design criteria, calculations, drawings, specifications, coating application and test procedures and design change documentation. This review will encompass the documents listed in Attachment 1. Independent verification
! calculations will not be prepared during this review.
l 0144-1522401-B4T . 1 l
Containment Structure / Post-Tensioning 3.1.1 O
3.1.1.1 Design Calculations and Drawings The reviewer will use the FSAR as a basis to understand the project licens-ing commitments. The design criteria will be evaluated to ascertain whether the commitments have been correctly translated into the document through codes and standards, design loads, analysis methods, and load combinations.
Design calculations will be evaluated for the proper input from the design criteria, correct design conditions, the proper use of design codes and allowable design stresses, consideration of creep, shrinkage, loss of prestress, and deflections.
The design drawings will be reviewed to ascertain whether the information from design calculations is correctly shown on the design drawings. The tendon size, material, location, and end anchorage details shown on the drawings will be reviewed for a representative sample of the tendons and compared to the requirements shown in the calculation.
3.1.1.2 Engineering Specifications A review of the specifications for furnishing, fabricating, and installing the containment post-tensioning system will be performed.
The reviewer will use the FSAR as a basis to understand the project li-C<;
censing commitments. The specification will be reviewed for proper material specifications, traceability requirements, sequence of tensioning, tendon h
location tclerance, tendon force tolerance, tendon qualifications, and anchorage qualification, inspection procedures and specification of coating material.
3.1.1.3 Change Evaluation A sample of Deviation Reports (DR) associated with post-tensioning will be selected for review. The reviewer will evaluate the engineering basis of the disposition for completeness and technical adequacy.
3.1.1.4 In-Service Inspection / Surveillance Program The in-service inspection program and procedure for the post-tensioning
~
O for system will be reviewed during the IDR. Procedure requirements frequency of inspection, tendon sample selection, tendon lif toff (prestress level) tests , material tests , and inspection requirements for filler grease reviewed technical adequacy and compliance with FSAR will be requirements.
for h
3.1.2 Containment Structure Coating Systems 3.1.2.1 Surface Preparation Proj ect specificati.ons and construction procedures will be reviewed to
- determine the adequacy of surface preparation methods (abrasive blasting, 0144-1522401-B4T 2
i i ,
i l l
j power tool cleaning, etc) and the adequacy of construction procedures used ;
to verify surface cleanliness prior to coating application.
j 3.1.2.2 Coating Application 1
) Coating application requirements in the specifications and procedures will
! be reviewed for qualification of applicators, adequate monitoring of ambient conditions during application and curing, use of proper methods to determine coating film thickness and .the use of proper thinning and cleaning
- materials.
I DBA Coating Qualification j
- 3.1.2.3 l Project specification will ~ be reviewed to assess the adequacy of the j requirements of coatings to be qualified to the DBA environment, including l
' proper specification of containment environmental conditions for l
. prequalification testing and/or specification of proper acceptance criteria.
5 j 3.1.2.4 Unqualified Coatings 4 The adequacy and completeness of project requirements for monitoring i unqualified coatings inside the containment will be reviewed. Means to inventory and assess the unqualified coatings will be evaluated for technical adequacy.
! The adequacy and completeness of project procedures for maintaining j, accountability of zine coatings used inside the containment' will be reviewed. Means to inventory their hydrogen generation during a LOCA will l
be evaluated. -
4 1 3.1.2.5 Site Walkdown i
Coatings on steel and concrete in selected portions of the containment i structure will be visually examined for overall quality of appearance and 3
indication of proper application. Where the project work schedule permits,
- in process surface preparation and coating application will be observed for j consistency with project specification and procedure requirements.
3.1.2.6 Change Evaluation
'O A sample of Deviation Reports (DRs) associated with coating application will The reviewer will evaluate the engineering basis of l be selected for review.
the disposition for completeness and technical adequacy, l 4.0 SCHEDULE y
Activity Location Date I.
Review Preparation SWEC 6/10 to 6/14 4 Boston, Mass.
Review of Project Bechtel Offices 6/17 to 6/21
' Engineering Design Norwalk, Calif.
- Documents-Post Tensioning Only 0144-1522401-B4T 3
. , l Activity Location Date Reviewer Reports: SWEC 7/12/85 91 Project Engineering Boston, Mass.
Review _
1 Findings of Froject SWEC 7/10/85 Engineering Design Boston, Mass Review Submitted i i
Review of Specifications, Plant Vogtle 6/24 - 6/28 Procedures, DR's & Site Walkdown Reviewer Reports: SWEC 7/12/85 Specifications, DR's Boston, Mass. -
and Site Walkdown Findings of Specifications SWEC 7/10/85 DR's and Site Walkdown Boston, Mass.
Review Submitted Draft Module Report 7/26/85 for SWEC Review Module Report for 8/7/85 Review Board _
O O
O e
0144-1522401-B4T 4
X7BD102-IDRP 13-2 Attachment No. 1 Page 1 1
l Documents A. Readiness Review Task Force Module No. 13 - Licensing Commitment Matrix B. FSAR (Chapters 1.9, 3.8, 6.1, and 6.2)
C. Design Criteria General Design Criteria DC-1000-C.
Containment Structure DC-2148 D. Containment Structure Design Report E. Containment Structure Design Calculations F. Containment Structure Reinforcing Drawings G. Containment Structure Post-Tensioning System Drawings H. In-Service Inspection / Surveillance Procedures for the Containment Post-Tensionint System I. Specifications for:
Furnishing, Fabricating, and Installing Containment Post-Tensioning L System
- Field Applied Coatings l
O O
O F
0144A-1522401-B4T
- 7BD102-IDRP 13-2 Atachment No. 2 REVIEWERS' ASSIGNMENTS Reviewer Area of Review J.A. Curtin Containment Structure Post-Tensioning Design In-service Inspection Program P. McHale Post-Tensioning Specification Change Evaluation M. Schneider Coating-Surface Preparation Coating-Application DBA Testing of Coatings Unqualified Coatings /Zine Accountability
- Site Walkdown -
e i
O O
0 0144B-1522401-B4T
-a. m..e_r,4, a. .m.. 4.aam_ai,-a_a.mau.u-m.p-.-_A. as-4a.iis. m--mi-a-m.w> e ,A.a. ma+eas-.-ma4.44h-4a.ww--- A., Is -a..,A>--see, 4A.44e- A *- J_ s4,,
i 4
l l
APPENDIX 7B
- REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS i
.)
I G
0406-1522401-B4T 7.B-1
- aa-1'r* . . .w-we- t-t--w- __mewmenemeew e mi"v 'e uenr emme ewhw+w ww erws-e w www emww u
IDR REVIEW TEAM O
Review Area Name Organization l 1
2 Team Leader J. Curtin SWEC Containment Structure and J. Curtin SWEC i Post-Tensioning Design In-Service Inspection Program J. Curtin SWEC Post-Tensioning Specification P. McHale SWEC 5
I Change Evaluation P. McHale SWEC N
i l
O 9
9 0
0406-1522401-B4T 7.B-2
i I
O ,
APPENDIX 7C DOCUMENTS REVIEWED G
l l
l l
)
, I f I l !
l l
\
i 1
i l 0 i
i 0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-1 i
g -
7.C.1 General O
- 1. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Final Safety Analysis Report, (FSAR).
O
- 2. General Design Criteria (Civil-Structural) for Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, DC-1000-C, Revision 3, September 30, 1983 up to Design Manual Change Notice DMCN 1000-C-6.
- 3. Containment Building Design Criteria, DC-2101, Rev. 2, August 16, 1983 up to DMCN 2101-1.
- 4. Containment Building Design Report, prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation, I.os Angeles, California, October 1984
- 5. Topical Report, BC-TOP-7, " Full Scale Buttress Test for Pre-stressed Nuclear Containment Structures," September 1972, Bechtel Power Corporation.
- 6. Topical Report, BC-TOP-8, " Tendon Anchor Reinforcement Test,"
Bechtel Corporation.
- 7. Topical Report, BC-TOP-5A, Revision 3, " Prestressed Concrete Nuclear Reactor Containment Structures," February, 1975, Bechtel Power Corporation.
I O
0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-2 l
l 1
- 8. " Optimum Design of Reinforced Concrete for Nuclear Containments, including Thermal Effect," by Thomas D. Kohli and Orhan Gurbuz, Bechtel Power Corporation, Los Angeles.
O 9. Bechtel Structural Analysis Program (BSAP) - Computer Program Post Processor (POST) Users Manual CE201.
i O 7.C.2 Calculations i
- 1. Calculation No. X2CJ2.6.0, Revision 3, June 12, 1985, " Containment Prestressing Design."
s
- 2. Calculation No. X2CJ2.9.0, Revision 0, August 14, 1984 "Contain-ment Shell Analysis."
- 3. Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.1, Revision 2, October 24, 1984,
" Containment Steel Design for Cylinder." ,
i
- 4. Calculation No. X2CJ2.10.4, Revision 1, December 22, 1983, " Con- l l
tainment-Reinforcing Steel Design for Buttresses."
O 7.C.3 Vendor and Test Data i
- 1. Bechtel Log No. 9510-AX2AN14-4-1, Long Term Testing of Concrete Properties (Final Report), " Studies of Concrete for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Containment Structures," ES7744, University of California, Berkeley, California.
O-0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-3 l
! l l
l l
i 2. Bechtel Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-101-2, " Strand Relaxation Data for j l
FWC Material Conforming to ASTM A416," Florida Wire & Cable Company.
- 3. Bechtel Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-39-0 and Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-40-0,
" Design Calculations & Certified Load Tests, Tendon Bearing l
Plates," Rev. O, September 26, 1978, VSL Corporation.
O l
- 4. Bechtel Log No. 9510-AX2AF04-6, " Performance Test Results" l
7.C.4 Specifications
- 1. Specification No. X2AF04, Revision 2, July 24, 1984, "Specifi-cation for Containment Post-Tensioning System for the Georgia Power Company, Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant."
7.C.5 ISI Procedures
- 1. Draft Technical Specification Section 4.6.1.6 " Surveillance j
Requirements" _ Draft Requirements for In-Service Inspection of Containment Post-Tensioning Tendons.
l l 7.C.6 Field Procedures O
- 1. Field Procedure CD-T-20, Installation and Inspection of Trumpets, l Rigid Extensions, and Duct Sheathing, Revision 6, September 10, 1984.
0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-4
- 2. Field Procedure CD-T-28, Surveillance of Post-Tensioning Quality b
V Control Inspection, Revision 0, January 28, 1985.
7.C.7 Drawings Bechtel Power Corporation Drawings:
O No. 1X2D01K001, Revision 5, " Containment Prestressing Requirements -
Key Plan."
No. IX2D01K002, Revision 4, " Containment Prestressing Requirements, Dome Plan."
No. 1X2D01K003, Revisian 5, " Containment Prestressing Requirements, O Wall Developed Elevation."
- m. 1X2D01K005, Revision 5, " Containment Prestressing Requirements, Wall & Dome Cross-Section."
No. 1X2D01K008, Revision 6, " Containment Prestressing Requirements, Sections and Details, Sht. 1."
No. IP01WO58, Revision 3, " Containment Structure - Unit No.1 Buttress el 169 ft-0 in. to el 327 ft-9 in."
O l l
No. IP01WO59, Revision 3, " Containment Structure - Unit No. 1 Buttress Plan and Section el 169 ft-0 in to el 327 ft-9 in."
0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-5
^
No. IP01WO71, Revision 2, " Containment Structure - Unit No. 1, Exterior Shell - Buttress 1 to 2 Inside Face - Vert. and Horiz. Reinf."
No. IP01WO74, Revision 2, " Containment Structure - Unit No. 1, Exterior Shell - Buttress 1 to 2, I.F. Horiz. and Vert. Add'1. Reinf., el 169 ft-0 in. to el 241 ft-2 in. and I.F. Haunch bars."
No. 1P01WO77, Revision 4, " Containment Structure - Unit No. 1 Exterior
~
Shell - Buttress 1 to 2, Outside Face Vert. e.r
- Horiz. Reinf."
No. IP010016, Revision 7, " Containment Structure Unit No. 1, Base Mat Reinf., Layers 1, 8, 9, 14 and Dowels, Pour Nos. 1-010-001 and 1-010-002."
No. IP01WO72, Revision 4, " Containment Structure - Unit 1 Exterior Shell - Buttress 1 to 2, Inside Face - Vert. and Horiz. Reinf. at Equip. Hatch."
No. IB01W366, Revision 2, "Bar List" VSL Corporation Drawings:
No. 121-015GA-PT-1-6, " Anchorage Details" No. 121-015GA-PT-2-6, " Anchorage Details" No. 210015-PT-32.1-2, " Vert. Tendon Stressing Data" No. 210015-PT-32.2-3, "Horiz. Tendon Stressing Data" No. 210015-PT-32.3-2, "Horiz. Tendon Stressing Data" 0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-6
- - _ . ~ _ . . - . - _ - . . - . . - . - . _ - .- = - . . . - -.-- - - - .___ - __ _ _ _
J i
i 7.C.8 Deviation Reports 4
CD-380 CD-4984 j
l CD-1485 CD-5378 ;
CD-1535 CD-5380 i
l CD-1988 CD-5714
- CD-2174 CD-5767 J
I a
CD-2392 CD-6305 l -
j CD-2982 CD-6361 1
1 CD-3077 CD-6444 i
CD-3726 CD-6450 l
1
~
CD-3865 CD-6489 CD-4931 CD-6535 d
l@ i i
i l i
i l
l@
i l i
I i i i l-@
1 i <
I I 0406-1522401-B4T 7.C-7 1
1 J
-. .-.---= -.-- --. -_- .- - . . - . - - - _ _ - - - - - . . . - - - - -- - - .. ---
l APPENDIX 7D l l
PERSONNEL CONTACTS 1 Q
I 0
0406-1522401-B4T
--=***=====v.--. v-.---,,.-..m,,,,,,,_...
I i 1 l
l i
7.D.1 Project Management / Supervisory Contacts The following individuals were the principal Bechtel contacts in this area:
O M. Malcolm Deputy Project Engineering Manager - BPC l
D. Houghton Civil / Structural EGS - BPC D. Jagannathan Licensing Coordinator - BPC
([
l
^
T. Bennett Review Coordinator - BPC 1 I
7.D.2 Technical Review Contacts - - BPC - Los Angeles Offices l l !
- i l \
M. Hutchinson Civil / Structural Group Leader -
BPC A. Palmquist Civil / Structural Engineer - BPC
- 0. Gurburz Civil / Structural Staff Engineer - BPC 7.D.3 Technical Review Contacts - Plant Vogtle Site R. Malin Resident Civil Engineer - BPC M. Stone Civil Engineer - GPC I D. Innes Civil Supervisor - GPC l D. Jagannathan* Licensing Coordinator -
BPC (Los Angeles)
A. Palmquist* Civil / Structural -
BPC (Los Angeles)
Engineer H.A. Jaynes Maintenance Engineering
%)
Supervisor - GPC R.M. Grant Maintenance Engineer - GPC O
- Contacted by telephone.
0406-1522401-B4T 7.D-1 e w - + w
-m- w -- .wp. - w- c- y e e pie. = q r- +c-- ---
8.0 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT / CONCLUSION 8.1
SUMMARY
OF OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION The following action items have been identified in the project responses and have been listed for the future followup for t)
V completion of actions.
8.1.1 SECTION 6.1 DESIGN PROGRAM VERIFICATION o FINDING 13C-7 l
. Action:
- 1. Bechtel HOE will have FSAR Change Notice 297 issued and approved by project licensing.
- 2. GPC field engineering will issue and have a Deviation Report approved by Bechtel engineering for the wedge material (AISI 8620) previously not ;
approved.
Completion Date: 1. April 30, 1986 ,
- 2. March 31, 1986 l
8.1.2 SECTION 6.2 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM VEEIFICATION There are no open corrective actions.
I O
i O
f%
\
0182m/059-6
{
i I
.- , ,= - , . - ~
l
- 8.2 QA STATEMENT The process for the development of Module 13C was monitored by
! the Readiness Review Quality Assurance (QA) staff for general adequacy.
The primary focus of the monitoring effort was the l
identification, documentation, analysis, and resolution of Readiness Review Findings. The finding reports issued by the ;
I Readiness Review Team and their responses were reviewed both l individually and collectively for root causes and generic l issues; i.e., trends. Based upon review of the responses and commitments to individual finding reports and generic concerns, l /"' the resolutions were determined to be adequate. All findings i
\ were initially distributed to project QA for review for reportability [10 CFR 21, 10 CFR 50.55(e)] in accordance with existing QA procedures. In addition, findings were screened by Readiness Review to determine whether any required additional evaluation by the Project for reportability. None were identified.
l l Other monitoring activities consisted of reviewing personnel l
qualification and training records for the team members, l reviewing the verification plan, and reviewing completed l checklists to assure adequate identification of findings.
Additionally, an independent reverification was performed on a sampling basis under Readiness Review QA overview to determine i
the adequacy of the Commitment / Implementation Matrixes and the Design / Construction verification effort.
Based upon these monitoring efforts, Module 13C and the Readiness Review Team conclusions are judged to be acceptable.
1 l
O 6f
$0-
/ John H. Draggs
%L J a c kkt. Tay fbr Readiness Review Team Readiness Review Team O Quality Assurance Representative Quality Assurance Representative 0185m/062-6 l . . - . . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . , . . . - - . _ _ _
7 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. qs l
g
[ CONSU TING AND PESE A A> ENL'NE E AS 6 ,s 33; MIN 3 STEN ROAD
- NOUH9AOOr ILE}x? e 1312 272 74x
) a , en v.= u.s c
i f
f D
0 TECHNICAL CONSULTANT'S CERTIFICATION j i
On the basis of review of this Module 13C Report on Post-Tensioned
! Containment and my review of field operations, the Project Engineering Organization and appropriate project documents such as, construction specifications, and vendor instruction manual, I 1 certify that to the best of my belief and knowledge the information I and conclusions contained herein are factually and technically correct. Under the program described in Section 4 of this report g and on the basis of corrective action described in Sections 6 and 7
( it is concluded that the post-tensioning system meets its intended function and complies with the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Report commitments.
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
VA L.
Ted M. Brown, PE/SE
/O lG i
O l
l l 0 lV l
l i
X t-GO SAN FRANC!SCO PRINCETON HONOLULU DENVER DALLAS
._.m2 ._.. _ ._.s .;m _ _ .- _. __ , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____
Post-Tensioned Containment - Module 13C Readiness Review Board Acceptance- ,
The Readiness Review Board has been apprised of the scope and content of Module 13C, Post-Tensioned Containment.
The Board has reviewed the program verification, as well as corrective actions, both proposed and implemented by the Vogtle ,
Project. Based upon this review and based upon the collective experience and professional judgement of the members, the j Readiness Review Board is of the opinion that the corrective O actions' proposed are acceptable, and that the containment post-tensioning system at Plant Vogtle is sound and complies with commitments set forth in the FSAR and acceptable practices.
i Wr W J -. { . ff
()
APPROVED: DATE:
Doug Duttoni Chairman, Readiness Review Board Vogtle Electric Generating Plant O
O Ol80m/049-6 O .
O my --..w-,--w.r.-w., ._..c --,-.,~._._.c , - _ - _ . , . - - , , , , , _ , , , ..m, ,
Georgia Power Company Project Management Post Office Box 282 Waynesboro. Georgia 30830 Telephone 404 724-8114 404 554-9961 Soutnern Company Services. Inc.
O Post Office Box 2625 O"nt"2sD""11 52 Vogtie Project O
Date: February 27, 1986 O Re: Plant Vogtle - Units 1 & 2 Readiness Review Module 13C File: X7BD102 Log: SS-5479 From: 0. Batum To: W. C. Ramsey Engineering has reviewed Module 13C, Post-Tensioned Containment, for !
general accuracy and completeness. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the module is a complete and accurate representation of the Post-Tensioned Containment, and the engineering process and commitments related thereto.
O !
l l
l
\
l LU41 -
Ozen Batum O Deputy to Vice President Project Engineering l
xc Project File i
o-
= .- . - - .-. --- _ . - .- .. . - - - .
i Intarof fico Correspondence GeorgiaPower A
, February 27, 1986 MEM0 T0: W. C. Ramsey
SUBJECT:
Plant-Vogtle - Units 1 & 2 Readiness Review Module 13C FILE N0: X7BD102 CORRESPONDENCE N0: TSG - 024 NC .
O SECURITY CODE:
Nuclear construction has reviewed Module 13C. To the best of our knowledge and l belief, the Module is a complete and accurate representation of the site Post-Tensioned Containment program and commitments related thereto.
- i. #
l M. H. G00GE
! Project Construction Manager MHG/GB/rp O
O O
O e w
8.6 RESUMES The resumes which follow present a brief professional listing of those people instrumental to the development of Module 13C.
JOSEPH ARBAIZA, Senior Quality Engineer, Team Member Mr. Arbaiza has been employed by Bechtel Power Corporation since 1973.
Mr. Arbaiza has held the positions of project quality engineer (PQE) on Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS), Unit 2, and deputy T PQE on GGNS, Unit 1. His duties included reviewing project engineering and vendor documents for compliance with engineering and quality program requirements, preparing and revising project engineering procedures, and representing the project engineer on matters related to quality (audits, training, etc.).
Education:
Finlay College B.S., Mechanical Engineering P.E., State of California
() GIVEN A. BREWER, Consultant. Team Member Mr. Brewer has been employed by Teledyne Engineering Services since 1950. He has been a consulting engineer specializing in experimental stress analyses since 1946. Previously, he was employed by Consolidated Vuitee Aircraft Corporation where he held the position of structure project engineer. Prior to this position, Mr. Brewer was an assistant chief of structures at the Ford Motor Company. He also worked for the Lockheed Aircraft ,
Corporation as a structures research engineer. He holds several patents and inventions and has authored numerous published technical papers.
Education:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology B.S., Engineering P.E., Commonwealth of Massachusetts O GEORGE M. CREIGHTON, Civil Quality Control Inspector, Team Member Mr. Creighton has been employed by Georgia Power Company since 1980.
1 i
i
He holds several level II insper; tion certifications, has over eight years of QC and inspection experience, and ha s participated in the inspection of reinforcements, cadwells, modular insert plate assemblies, Unistrut, pipe sleeves, anchor bolts, core drilling weldings, and expansion anchors.
JOSEPH V. DAWSEY, Senior Design Engineer, Team Member Mr. Dawsey began his employment with Georgia Power Company in 1982.
His 13 years of engineering experience have involved structural seismic design, analysis, and evaluations; material handling system design; feasibility and developmental studies for offshore facilities; and various hydro, fossil and nuclear generating plant assignments.
Mr. Dawsey has over 7 years of nuclear experience.
Education:
Mississippi State University B.S., Civil Engineering P.E., State of Louisiana RAMON F. DINSDALE, Senior Field Engineer Team Member Mr. Dinsdale has been employed by Bechtel Power Corporation since 1969.
Eight of his 16 years of generating plant construction experience were in the nuclear field. He has held the positions of field engineer, area engineer, lead civil engineer and scheduler. Mr. Dinsdale has extensive computer assisted engineering experience.
Education:
Utah State University B.S., Civil Engineering M.S., Civil Engineering DERNICE L. DOHERTY, Senior Quality Engineer, Design Team Member Ms. Doherty has been associated with the nuclear power industry for 13 years, 12 of which were in Quality Assurance and Quality Engineering. Her most recent assignment has been to develop, implement, and coordinate the Quality Assurance and Quality Engineering programs on the San Onofre Nuclear Generating 8.6-2
Station Unit 1 retrofit project to satisfy the requirements of O 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and ANSI N45.2.
Education:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Nuclear Physics ,
O- l l
W. RODGER DUNCAN, Construction Engineer, Team Member l Mr. Duncan began his employment with Georgia Power Company in l 1979.
O Mr. Duncan has held positions in civil and mechanical engineering departments in the fields of soils, steel and concrete structures, and HVAC.
i Education:
l Georgia Institute of Technology Bachelor of Civil Engineering l ROBERT W. McMANUS, Assistant Project Construction Manager, Construction Discipline Manager i Mr. McManus has been with Georgia Power Company for over 11 years, 5 of them on direct assignment at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. He was most recently responsible for the quality acceptance of Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical portions of VEGP. Responsibilities other than management of personnel included reviewing Field Change Notices to design drawings for acceptance, contact with Engineering Quality Assurance on acceptability of the site quality program, construction contact for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for their quality audits, and performing departmental audits of site construction activities for design compliance.
Education:
Southern Technical Institute ;
B.S., Civil Engineering Technology -l JOE E. SEAGRAVES, Quality Control Section Supervisor, Team Leader O- Mr. Seagraves began employment with Georgia Power Company as a co-op student in 1969. Since receiving his degree, he has held the positions of civil and mechanical shift engineer, I instrumentation section supervisor, and mechanical surveillance
! section supervisor. ,
l 8.6-3
. _ . . _ _ - . ~ . . _ . - - - . _ , _ _ , ~
l l All of Mr. Seagraves' 12 years of experience with Georgia Power l Company has been nuclear related. lh Education:
Tennessee Technological University l B.S., Civil Engineering VEERABHADRA R. TAD 1KONDA, Engineering Supervisor, Team Member Mr. Tadikonda began his employment with Bechtel Power Corporation in 1973 and has 12 years experience in the civil / structural design of nuclear power plants. h l He is currently assigned to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station where he assists the civil / structural design team.
Prior to this assignment, he worked at the site office of the Korea Nuclear Power Plant Units 5 and 6, where his duties included evaluating and resolving design conflicts and construction deviations. Mr. Tadikonda also has experience at the Kuosheng Nuclear Power Plant and was responsible for assisting in the design of the auxiliary and fuel handling building. Prior to joining Bechtel Power Corporation, he worked in several industrial plants.
Education:
Andhra University B.S., Civil Engineering I.I.T., Kharagpur, India M.S., Civil Engineering M. R. THAKAR, Project Engineer, Team Leader Mr. Thakar has been employed by Bechtel Power Corporation since 1965.
He has over 15 years of nuclear power construction experience and has held supervisory and engineering management positions at San Ononfre Nuclear Generating Station, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, and the South Texas Nuclear Project.
Other engineering experience involves fossil fuel electric generating plants and various industrial construction projects. lll Education:
Sardar Vallabhbhai University (Gujarat State, India)
B.S., Civil Engineering 8.6-4
. University of Iowa l M.S., Civil Engineering i Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, California J l Master of Business Administration L
- P.E., State of California .
P.E., State of Georgia l -
PETER R. THOMAS, Supervising Construction Engineer, Team Member i
2 Mr. Thomas has been employed by Bechtel Energy Corporation since 1961.
4 His 24 years of generating plant construction experience include l
! the positions of field cost engineer, civil superintendent, i senior civil field engineer, project field engineer, chief field j
- construction engineer, assistant project manager, and project t superintendent.
j !
Previous nuclear experience includes 14 months as project field '
- engineer San Onofee Nuclear Generating Station and 2 1/2 years a as project services superintendent at South Texas Project. ;
l !
Education:
Stanford University .
Master of Science - Civil Engineering - Construction !
Bachelor of Science - Civil Engineering l
l O
O l i
~
O 0190m/065-6 8.6-5
!