ML20091F205
| ML20091F205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1984 |
| From: | Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-06, CON-BOX-6, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8406020059 | |
| Download: ML20091F205 (20) | |
Text
~
~
e a
.' 3aa aze.
o'4 UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f
g FEB 1 4 1984 i
APPLICANT:
Consumers Power Company FACILITY:
Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 j
l
SUBJECT:
SUM 4ARY OF OCTOBER 4-7, 1983 AUDIT AND EETING ON THE MIDLAND HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS i'
On October 4-7, 1983 NRC staff members from NRR and Region III ' met with Consumers Power Company and Bechtel to audit and discuss the safety-related i
portions of the HVAC systems for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
l 1s a summary of the audit and meeting.
Yh a t-Darl Hood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page 8406020059 840517 PDR FOIA f
P.ICEB4-96 PDR
'j.
f
l l
{
MIDLAND Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 i
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief cc:
Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale P. O. Box 33035 l
Three First National Plaza, 4.ansing, Michigan 48909 Sist floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue James E. Brunner, Esq.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Consumers Power Company i
212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission
{
i Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspector's Office
~~~j i
Route 7 j
Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Sunnerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris i
5795 N. River i
f Stewart H. Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General i
State of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary l
Protection Division Consumers Power Company
{
I 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue j
Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Raute 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Mr. R. B. Borsum SIGMA IV Building Nuclear Power Generation Division Battelle Blvd.
Babcock & Wilcox Richland, Washington 99352 7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 220 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project l
Cherry & Flynn Argonne National Laboratory 1
Suite 3700 9700 South Cass Avenue l
Three First National Plaza Argonne, Illinois 60439 Chicago, Illinois 60602 James G. Keppler, Regional Admin.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 I
i t
's l
'f
Mr. J. W. Cook i' cc: Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue j
Argonne, Illinois 60439 i
ATTN: Clyde Herrick Franklin Research Center 20th & Race Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Mr. Patrick Bassett Energy Division Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A.
8th and Marguette Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479 i
i I
._3 i
y k
k w
3 7
g 4
-_.__t__
___m__
_m-._
.I
r --
L
^
Supplemental page to the Midland OM, OL Service List b
Mr. J. W. Cook -
e
?
l cc: Coninander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang S
i White Oak 3
^
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 7
Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager E
Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P. O. Box 1449 ir Canoga Park, California 91304 E
s i
Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue E
Detroit, Michigan 48226 E
L Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
i Atomic Safety & Licensing Board a
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan E
Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 m
Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board E
U.S. Nuclear P,egulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 E
Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Paulus n
1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 ATTN: Clyde Herrick Franklin Research Center
?
4 20th & Race Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 E
Mr. Patrick Bassett ii; Energy Division p
Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A.
1 8th and Marquette Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479 kn i
k g
g
Staff Desian. Review and Audit of the Midland HVAC System I
On October 4-7, 1983, staff representatives from Region III and NRR met with j
the applicant (Consumers Power Company) and its architect-engineer (Bechtel Power Corporation - Ann Arbor Office) to audit and discuss the design of the
+
Midland HVAC system. The staff reviewed the structural and systems design, and materials records. Meetir.;, attendees are list.ed by Attachmegt A.
I.
Structural Desian
?
The review of the structural design of the Midland HVAC system was divided i
into two parts. First, a review of the HVAC design specifications, design
~
criteria, procedures, ar.d HVAC duct work calculations was performed at the Bechtel (Ann Arbor, MI) office. Second, an audit of the HVAC component support calculations was nerformad at the Midland plant site.
The Bechtel organization is such that Bechtel resident engineering (Ann Arbor office) developed the HVAC design specifications, design criteria, and proced-ures. In addition, the calculations to qualify the HVAC duct work was performed by the Ann Arbor office. The Bechtel field engineering used the design proced-ures to qualify the HVAC component supports onsite as the design and installa-tion of tt.e HVAC system progressed. Details of the resident engineering i
review and the field engineering review are discussed in the following sections.
HVAC Review Performed at Bechtel (Ann Arbor) Office On October 4, 1983, the staff met in Ann Arbor, Michigan with~ Consumers Power and Bechtel to review and audit the Midland HVAC system design. The purpose of the meeting was to evaluate the potential significance of using materials which cannot be determined to conform to their specifications. From a struc-tural integrity standpoint, the staff's purpose was to assess the actual design margins that exist in the HVAC ducting, supports, bolts, and welds to determine if the strength variability of potential material substitutions could affect the ability of the HVAC system to perform its intended function.
Bechtel first explained the division of responsibility between its resident and field engineering groups for the HVAC design.
In 1977, the HVAC suppcrt design was performed in Ann Arbor.
In 1978, Bechtel established a field engi-neerlag group to resolve non-conformance reports (NCRs) and other field-related items. Currently, all civil / structural work for HVAC design is performed at the site. Supporting work is performed in Ann Arbor. Bechtel noted that they do not have a separate HVAC design group. The mechanical engineers are u
1 responsible for the HVAC systems design and the civil / structural engineers are responsible for the structural design (restraint members, ducting, bolts, stiffeners,etc). The HVAC structural members are designed to the same design criteria as the building steel (AISC Code).
.l i
1 1
- 3 d
p
The staff requested the design specification, design criteria, and analytical procedures used for the design of HVAC ducting, supports, and bolts. Attach-j ment B to this report lists the documents reviewed by the staff.
The staff questioned why Bechtel was using an unapproved draft procedure for the design of HVAC supports and ducting. 8echtel stated that the procedure they have used was based on separate memoranda and individual procedures that j
were formally issued. The draft design guide was a compilation of the separate pncedures. Bechtel stated that they intend to formally issue the draft design guide for HVAC supports by October 31, 1983.
The staff asked if Bechtel follows the design rules of SMACNA standards.
Bechtel stated that they do not use SMACNA standards; rather, they use a generic design as shown in drawings C-842 through C-849.
Bechtei explained the seismic design approach for the HVAC system. The M-151A design specification stipulates that the ducting span between supports shall not exceed 8 feet (2 feet for a cantilever). This "8 ft" criterion is appli-cable for all HVAC rectangular duct sizes.
If the 8-ft criterion is exceeded, the M-151 specification requires that the exceedance be noted on the drawings.
A unique calculation would subsequently be petformed using the design guide to qualify the exceedance. Bichtel noted that in reviewing their HVAC drawing, there were approximately 170 spans that exceeded the 8-ft criterion (affecting l
340 supports). The largest span that exceeded the 8-ft criterion was approxi--
mately 11 feet.
The staff asked Bechtel for the basis of the 8-ft. span criterion. Bechtel stated that the 8-ft span was conservatively selected to limit all HVAC duct sizes to a rigid frequency range (greater than 33 hertz). The lowest frequency calculated for all the duct sizes was approximately 55 hertz. Thus, the HVAC ducting when limited to an 8-ft span would not be subjected to the resonant peak accelerations induced by the building response during a seismic event.
The staff reviewed the design specification for HVAC installation (M-151). The i
staff noted in Section 5.0 of the specification that several types of material are listed for sheet metal and structural members: However, the specification does not specify the particular application for which the various materials are to be used. Bechtel stated that no " exotic" caterials are specified. The staff noted that some of the structural steel materials do have minimum yield strengths greater than the typical A36 steel yield strength of 36 ksi; however, it was not clear where these materials were used. Bechtel replied that all materials are stated on their design drawings and that all'high-strength materials used (if any) are, thus, identifiable.
J The staff reviewed the calculation (Calc. No. SQ-180-Q) for the qualification of the ductwork and stiffeners for the maximum loading. The calculation was based on the 8-ft duct span length and assumed a duct yield strength of 30 ksi and a stiffener yield strength of 36 ksi. The calculation was performed for various duct sizes and was based on an empirical formula derived from testing performed for the Limerick plant.
In the calculation, the effects of seismic loads were translated into equivalent pressure loads. Sechtel provided the staff with a summary of the HVAC duct analysis results (Attachment C). The summary shows that for all duct sizes the average design margin to failure is l
l 2
i
,d N
L
~
. i,
~;
f.
approximately a factor of 4.
The most limiting duct is a 108" x 16" duct located in the Auxiliary Building which has a design margin of 1.40.
The
{
critical failure mode is stiffener buckling.
HVAC Review Performed at Midlard Site i
On October 5-6, 1983, the staff met with Consumers Power Company and Bechtel j
at the Midland site. The staff's review of structural aspects of the HVAC 1-system was divided into five major aspects:
I i
1) review of the design guide for HVAC supports, 2) review of the HVAC duct calculation for spans greater than 8 ft, i
3) review of the HVAC support calculations to determine design margins, 4
4) visual observation of the HVAC system installed in the plant, and 5) review of test report for HVAC duct seismic qualification.
The procedure used by Bechtel to calculate HVAC support loads is in a draft design guide entitled, " Design Guide for HVAC Supports (DRAFT)," Calc. No.
34-71(Q).
In addition, for the qualification of HVAC duct spans greater than j
8 ft, Bechtel used the draft design guide entitled, " Design Guide for Nuclear i
l; Power Plant Seismic Category I Rectangular HVAC Ducts (DRAFT)." The HVAC
)
{
ducting within the 8ft-span criterion was qualified by testing peri.:rmed by i
Bechtel for the Limerick plant and analytically qualified for Midland in the Calc. No. SQ-180(Q), Rev. O.
The 8-ft criterion was established conservatively 1
for convenience, resulting in a generic HVAC support design based on maximum (8-ft) spans and maximum loadings.
I
- 1) Review of HVAC Support Design Guide The staff reviewed the Draft HVAC Support design guide (calc No. 34-71 Q).
Bechtel noted that the seismic response spectra used for the HVAC support design is conservative. The supports (welded structures) are designed using_a 4
damping value of 2% for both OBE and SSE loads. Damping values allowed by Regulatory Guide 1.61 for welded steel structures are 2% for OBE and 4% for SSE. Tne ratio of the maximum peak acceleration for the SSE at 2% to the maximum peak acceleration for the SSE at 4% is approximately 1.4.
Thus, at the maximum peak acceleration, the use of the 2% damping results in an addi-tional design margin of approximately 1.4 for welded steel structures.
The HVAC duct is more rigid than the HVAC supports be(Aust. of the 8-ft span criterion. Typically, the HVAC duct fundamental beam bercing frequency between support spans of 8 ft is approximately 150 hertz (with the lowest frequency approximately 55 hertz) whereas the fundamental frequency of HVAC supports are typically less than 33 hertz.
The welds for HVAC supports are governed by AWS D1.1-72. ' Weld tensile strength is assumed to be 60 ksi for E60 electrode. For a 3/16" fillet weld the allow-able weld strength is equal to:
(3/16)(0.707)(0.3)(60,000) = 2386 1bs/ inch 3
.f mc y
37 33 3
- 3
For accident conditions, a 50% increase in the design allowable is used, resulting in an allowable strength of 1.5 x 2386 = 3579 lbs/ inch. The design margin to tensile failure is, thus, 1/(0.3)(1.5) = 2.22 at the accident condi-l tion allowable weld strength.
The structural steel used for the HVAC support member is designed in accor-l dance with the AISC, " Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings."
f In Section 4.5.1 of the Design Guide for HVAC Supports, the allowable stresses for the' structural steel and tube sections were given as follows:
Allowable stress in accident gonditions:
bending and torsion = 0.9 Fy shear = 0.5 Fy where Fy is the material yield strength.
The applicant noted that with regard to Section 4.5.5 of the design guide, their internal design audit had identified that for expansion anchor bolts, I
the prying action of the baseplate was to be ignored. This item is considered i
to be open and is to be resolved by Bechtel.
In accordance with IE_ Bulletin 79-02, the effect of prying action of the baseplate on the anchor bolts needs to be considered for the anchor bolt loads.
The staff identified a second concern in the review of the HVAC duct flange bolting. The generic design detail shown on Dwg. No. C-844(Q) specifies a i
3/8-inch bolt with a 6-inch maximum spacing for the duct flanges. However, the design guide does not require a calculetion for the duct flange bolt loads. Consequently, it was not evident that the 3/8-inch bolts in the duct flanges were qualified for seismic loadings and, thus, the staff was not able to quantify the bolt design margin. At the meeting, Bechtel performed an informal calculation using the worst case loadings and found that the stresses.
In the flange bolts are acceptable.
For a 30 x 30 inch duct with an 8-ft span, the maximum loading resulted in a loading of the bolts _to 25% of its ultimate tensile strength. The shear load was shown to be le::s governing than the tensile load and is, thus, also acceptable. Bechtel stated that they will 3
document the calculation for the 3/8-inch bolts and provide them to the staff when completed.
2)
Review of the Calculation for Exceedance of 8-ft Span The staff reviewed the calculation performed by the Bechtel site engineering when the duct span between supports exceeded the 8-ft maximum criterion provided 1
in the M-151 specification (Calc. No.34-293(Q) Revision 0). The span of the duct audited was 11.08 ft. The calculation did not calculate the frequency of the duct, but rather used the maximum peak acceleration of the building seismic response spectra to calculate the support loads. The maximum peak accelera-tions were multiplied by a factor of 1.5,to account for higher mode response contribution. The duct stresses met the allowable of 0.9 Sy for SSE (27,500 psi) and 0.6 Sy for 08E (18,000 psi). Buckling was checked and found acceptable.
I The shear stress was checked and found to be 6226 psi with an allowable of l
0.5 Sy (15,000 psi).
l l
1 4
1
. & 2 s3, a D:
y mygg
3)
Review of Design Margins The staff reviewed several calculations selected at random for safety-related HVAC supports. The calculated stresses for the structural steel, welds, and j
expansion anchor bolts are tabulated in Attachment D to this report. The j
calculated stresses are shown as a percentage of the allowable value (i.e.,
for an allowable stress of 30,000 psi, a calcualated stress value of 15,000 psi will be tabulated as 0.50).
It should be noted that in Calc. No. 648-S 1.26 (Rev. 0) for a structural tube steel member purchased to a yield strength l
of 46 ksi, the calculation conservatively used a yield strength of 36 ksi.
Other conservatisms noted in the calculation included grouping similar member sizes and using the largest loading in each direction (axial, bending, and torsion) for the interaction equation.
Similarly, weld sizes were grouped to determine the maximum stress.
In reviewing the ratio of the calculated stress to allowable stress, it can be seen that the anchor bolt and welds tend to be the controlling component in HVAC support design. The structural steel members are generally frequency-controlled. Thus, the stresses in the structural steel members are typically small compared to the allowable stress (10-20 percent of the allowable stress) whereas the stresses in the anchor bolt are typically large relative to the i
structural steel stiess (greater than 50% of the allowable stress).
It should be noted that expansion anchor bolts are designed with a margin of safety of four to its tensile capacity (i.e., the allowable stress is equal to one-fourth of its tensile strength). The factor of safety provided in IE Bulletin 79-02 accounts for ancho:' failure due to bolt slippage, not tensile failure. Thus, the use of substitute material for expansion anchor bolts does not appear to a
be a significant concern when bolt slippage is more likely to be the mode of failure rather than bolt tensile failure..
- 4) Visual Observation of HVAC Systems,
The staff inspected several areas of the Midland plant where safety-related HVAC systems are installed. The purpose of the visual tour was to gain a better understanding of the installed HVAC structural design and to observe i
j and identify any potentially critical areas.
l The staff noted that extensive use of room coolers is made at Midland, and thus the amount of HVAC ducting actually used in the Midland plant is small compared to other nuclear plants. Approximately 8000 lineal feet of safety-related ductwork is used at Midland.
The areas of the plant viewed by the staff were:
a)
Diesel Generator Building, b)
ESF Pump Room (B),
c)
Fuel Handling Area, d)
Inside Containment, e)
Switch Gear Room, f)
Lower Cable Spreading Room, g)
Upper Cable Spreading Room, h)
HVAC Equipment Room, and i)
Control Room i
l 5
e t
?-
.. u - -
l
Staff comments and observations during the tour follow for each area inspected.
a)
Diesel Generator Building I
The B-ft-span criterion appears to be met and appears very conservative i
I for the large ducting in this butiding. The duct looks very rigid. The supports and duct appear overdesigned. The welds and bolts appear to be i
the critical component for the HVAC structural integrity.
I b)
ESF pump Room B 1
The 8-ft span criterion appears to be met.
Room coolers have been used in all ESF Pump Rooms. The only ducting.in the room is a round 10-inch (10 gauge) duct used for cooler exhaust.
t c)
Fuel Handling Area i
The 8-ft span criterion appears to be met. The supports and duct look similar to those in the diesel generator building, d)
Inside Containment Reactor building fan coolers have been used inside containtent. There is very little ducting, except for two long vertical round ducting (approxi-mately 3 feet 0.D.) along containment wall. The containment epray lines l
are routed in front of the vertical ducting. The ducting is not safety related but is seismically supported.
In two locations the duct spans appear to exceed the 8-ft criterion.
If the ducting fails, the contain-mant spray lines could be impacted. *The ducting was not installed by Zack.
e)
Switch Gear Room An HVAC support was found severed. An attached tag identified that a material sample was taken by MPQA0 (RIII sample for testing by Franklin Institute).
f)
Lower Cable Spreading Room No significant observations.
g)
Upper Cable Spreading Room.
- No significant observations.
h)
HVAC Equipment Room
~
The seismic building response in 'the horizontal direction could be amplified significantly in the top floor of the control tower. A Targe quantity of heavy HVAC equipment and large size ducting is suspended from the ceiling.
I r
-[
6 t-j-
i s
L
,a -
./*
" q /, :f g f
^
,+-
- h
1)
Control Room A large quantity of HVAC ducting is suspended from the ceiling. The ducting is very tightly packed, and it was difficult to see supports above the ducting. The Independent De. sign and Construction Verification Program being performed by the TERA Corporation provides for third party i
assessment of the control room HVAC system.
- 5) Review of HVAC Ductwork Test Report On October 6,1983, the staff reviewed a report on testing of HVAC ductwork specimens performed by Bechtel for the Limerick Generating Station. The test resalts were used to develop the empirical formula utilized in the design guide, " Design Guide for Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Category I Rectangular HVAC Ducts."
1 The testing was performed by Hales Testing Laboratories of Oakland, California.
j The testing was based on A526 and A527 ductwork material with a minimum yield strength of 36 ksi. The significant conclusions of the testing included the following results.
Failure modes of the ducts were not catastrophic and there was a j
great reserve strength after failure.
l Pressure loading was the most important loading.
Live load and j
seismic loads were less important.
j Effects of seismic loads can be simulated by pressure loads.
The primary failure modes of rectangular ducts were by corner crippling of sheet and by stiffener buckling.
Live load stresses in the sheet and stiffeners were low.
The staff's review of the test report,'and of the design guide for HVAC ductwork which was developed from the test results, resulted in the following concern:
The design specification (M-151) requires that HVAC duct material A526 and A527 be provided with a minimum yield strength of 30 ksi.
(Note:
the ASTM Specification for A526 and A527 does not require a minimum yield strength).
Zack purchase orders were reviewed and found to have specified a 30 ksi minimum yield stress. Several invoices were also reviewed and the A526 and A527 material for safety-related ducting was found to have met the 30 ksi minimum yield strength. However, the design guide for HVAC ductwork states that the minimum yield strength should be 36 ksi. The empirical formula in the design guide is not based on a specific minimum yield strength but includes a term, Fy, for the applicable material minimum yield strength. However, the design tables which were generated using the empirical formula and provided in the design r
guide are based on a 36 ksi minimum yield strength. Thus, it is not clear to the staff that the design guide (which was apparently developed for Limerick) has been properly used for the Midland HVAC duct calculations where the duct spans exceed 8 ft. The design guide does appear to have been prcperly used for the qualification of the 8-ft span as reviewed in Calc. No. SQ-180(Q),
Rev. O.
However, the staff has not seen evidence that the design guide was j -
used in the duct stress calculation for the approximately 170 duct spans which exceeded the 8-ft criterion. The staff requested that the applicant provide l
these additional calculations which used the design guide for HVAC duct calcu-l lations where the 8-ft span criterion was exceeded.
l l
l 7
-l
.: l 5
- ' b V:
i;%-
- y;
~
n m
s Summary of Unresolved Audit Findinas The following is a summary of the unresolved concerns identified by the staff in the structural aspects of the HVAC design audit performed for the Midland plant. These need to be resolved before a final determination of the design margin can be established.
1)
It is not evident that Bechtel is properly using the design guide for i
HVAC ductwork to qualify the ductwork when the span between supports i
exceeds 8 feet. The applicant will provide a clarification of the design guido procedure.
2)
The two seismically supported HVAC ductyorks which are not safety related are routed vertically along the containment wall appear to have duct spans exceeding the 8-ft criterion. The applicant will provide the basis i
for assuring that the duct has been properly qualified for seismic loads.
3)
The expansion anchor bolts in the HVAC support baseplates appear to be the most limiting component in the HVAC structural design.
Prying action of the baseplate on the bolts have been ignored according to the design guide for HVAC supports.
The applicant will provide the effect of the i
prying action on the bolts in order to establish its impact on the bolt Lb design margin.
4)
The qualification of HVAC duct flange bolts (3/8") has not been properly
]
documented fur the applicable loadings.
The applicant will provide a
-Q)4 j
documented calculation to qualify the 3/8" duct flange bolts in order to e
establish the bolt design margin.
A follow up meeting will be scheduled to discuss these unresolved findings.
II. Systems Desian The NRC's systems review of the Midland HVAC design was performed to assess functional design requirements of these systems and to verify whether or not the conclusions stated in Section 9.4 of the Midland SER (NUREG-0793, May 1982) are still valid for the actual HVAC system design at Midland.
On October 4, 1983 in Ann Arbor, the staff reviewed the latest drawing revisions of the Midland HVAC systems and compared them with the earlier drawing revisions upon which the staff's FSAR review had been based. A particular focus of this review was on transition points and isolation capabilities between safety-related and non safety-related portions of the systems as described in the FSAR in order to assure that any changes had been appropriately considered in the design of the structural supports.
I The systems design reviewer also participated in the HVAC tour at the Midland site on October 5, 1983.
!!I. Materials Review Material aspects of the Midland HVAC systems were audited October 6-7, 1983 at the Midland site. The purpose of the review and audit was to verify that the materials incorporated into the construction met the requirements called out in the design and procurement documents.
8 f
k
____.__.__.______.____A__--__
.~
- 3
~
4
'\\
7s y
S
~T
\\'
\\
j\\
s s,
}e, s
s The identification of ma)erials for use in the Midland HVAC systems is contained in Bechtel Technical Specification 7220-4-NliM Q), " Seismic Class 1 Heating i
Ventilation and Airs Conditionin) Eqttpunciend' Ductwork Installation for the Consumers Power Company, MidiatiliffanCOnits1 %nd 2, Midland, Michigan.",
1 Revisions to this Specificatic'n het he'en made during construction toNncor-porate into the Specification thos's deviations that were ccnsidered to t:e' i
i acceptable. These deviations were "cHginally accepted by QC dscupitsisuct' as
. j Supplier Deviation Deficiency Requests (SDDRs), Specificattoa Chiange tutices j
(SCNs), and Field Ch'ange Requests (FCRs). Revision 16 to the Specificatiott i
was in effect during this audit.
nt packages for HVAC materials fte also reviewed du, ring;the audit..
Procure
..s IV. Staff Conclusicns' A
y l
,\\
\\
s i
Staff conclusions resulting from this audit will, be pr'oviced by separate unresolved items from the structural review.,,y,dij;uss resolution of the report in early 1984, after a further meet.ing t i
.4 i
[
\\
i t
t K
s
~
s
's
/
\\ t
. -~'s s
s 4 >
, v
,[ ].
~
's lj
.i I'
[
i l
i
\\
}
r
'l s
n y
f s
f t
\\
l k
i
< i 1
\\
s i
/
.f
~
9 l
1 r
j
/
.=
\\
\\,
\\*s y
j,.., 4:
-2
?
p i
i Wh t
i
.i Attachment A l
NRC HVAC Audit l
Attendance
(
I.
Ann Arbor Meetina 1
Name Company / Discipline
' Bechtel/ Asst. Proj. Engr.
D. F. Lewis G. R. Tree Civil Resident, BPC0 Jon Rysdon Bechtel Civil, AA0 D. R. Anderson Bechtel Resident Project Engineer F. Hawkins NRC-RIII Dennis England CPC Nuc. Lic.
J. N. Leech CPCo Licensing V. P. Provenzano CPCo Licensing / Legal D. Terso NRC/MEB W. T. LeFave 1 NRC/DSI/ASB Darl S. Hood NRC/DL/LB4 1,
Frank Hand s
CPCo/ Civil Consultant p
G. D. Eichenberger CPCo/ Material S. S. Petel
,1,'
Bechtel/AL
/
John Gunning Bechtel/Lic.
J Rob Burg Bechtel/ Licensing Arun Amin Bechtel/ Mech.
- W. H.' Nielson Bechtel Construction (AZ)
G. L. Richardson Bechtel/Proj. Mgt.
Glen E. Crosby Bechtel/QA F. H. Lentz CPCo/QA James E. Baiers Clark, Klein P. V. Regupathy Bechtel/ Civil (i
00:.:g!::.". Ld!tt TERA y'
E. M. Hughes Project Engineer R. C. Hollar Bechtel PQE G. Borsteins Bechtel-Mech. Staff R. Nicolaus Bechtel-Mech.
l B. Heiberger CP MPQAD-H0ACA l
D. Scribner Bechtel/ Civil Staff i-k.
R. L. Tenteberg CPCo/ Mechanical Proj. Eng.
1 Terry Postlewait CPCo/ Mech. Proj. Engrg.
LS l : }..
F46 iO i,
A p y?
1
-l
}.,
M 4<wa--
.%w, a
m.
- O ai
s t
Attachment A (Continued)
II. Midland Site Meeting I
l Name Organization
~
J. G. Balaye.-
CPCo, SMO i
Gary Tree BPC0 Civil Resident i
Carl Miller BPCO Resident QE David Terao
.NRC/NRR/MEB Darl Hood NRC/NRR/DL/LB4 F. Hawkins NRC/RIII W. T. LeFave NRC/NRR/ASB Frank Hand CPCo Civil James Baiers Clark, Klein D. T. Scribner Bechtel/ Civil Staff B. J. Boulton CPCo, Proj. Engr. - Jackson
~
B. Heiberger-MPQAO-HVACA O. England CPCo Legal / Licensing V. P. Provenzano CPCo Legal / Licensing j
Sol Esperanzh Bechtel RE HVAC i
A. Amin Bechtel/Hechanical i
Andrew Fok Bechtel/ Civil 1
Tom Supplee Bechtel R. E. Plant Design HVAC C. D. Selle es NRC/NRR/MTEB b
3 e
+
4 2
,f c
I-1, c ~:? '
' i ~C l -
, f);
1 Attachment B List of Documents feviewed Documents Reviewed at 10/4/83 Meeting 1.
Design Specification " Technical Specification for Seismic Class I Heating,
?
i Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment and Ductwork Installation,"
{
Revision 15 (including SCN 32-36). Specification No. 7220-M-151A(Q).
2.
Design Criteria " Civil and Structural Design Criteria for the Midland Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2," Revision,12, Specification No. C-501(Q).
l 3.
Desica Procedures " Design Guide for Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Category l
I r.0ctangular HVAC Ducts (DRAFT)," dated April 15, 1978.
4.
Calculations for ductwork/ stiffeners, Calculation No. SQ-180(Q), dated 5/16/83, Rev. O.
5.
Drawings C-842 thru C-849 (generic duct construction details); C-850 thru C-999 (duct support details); C-1200 (duct support details); C-1300 (duct support details) 6.
HVAC Hanger Log (computer listing) - uncontrolled document Documents Reviewed at 10/5/83 Meeting 1.
Calculations " Design Guide for HVAC Supports (DRAFT')," Calc.No. 3471(Q) 2.
Calc.No. 34-62 (Q) dated 8-25-82 3.
Calc.No. 34-39 (Q) dated 11/5/81L>
4.
Calc.No. 21G (4.4 i3)(Q) Rev. 0 5.
Calc.No. 21G (4.146)(Q) Rev. 0 6.
Calc.No. 290.276 (Q) Rev. 0 7.
Calc.No. 648-S 1.26 (Q) Rev. 0 8.
Calc.No. 21F (3.136)(Q) Rev. 0 9.
Calc.No. 211 (6.95 (Q)
- 10. Calc.No.34-292 (Q) Rev. 0 l
Design Specifications 4
il
- 11. Design Specification Q-7 (Containment Building Response Spectra)
- 12.. " Report on Testing of Class 1 Seismic HVAC Duct Specimens for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2," April 1976.
/
-1 j'
I
-1
.l
.~.
I' 4
[g Y
.i i
l Attachment C Summary of HVAC Duct Analysis Results(3) l l
Sheet Allowable Governing Calculated Dust Size Metal Stiffener Pressure (psi)
Allowable Worst Loading Design Sheet (inches)(1) Gauge Metal Stiffener Pressure (psi) (osi)(2)
Margin Control Room (Aux Bldg) 60x26 18 L2x2x3/16 0.86 0.69
- 0.69 0.294 2.35
}
36x26 16 L1 x1 x1/8 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.301 4.65 i
Diesel Generator Bldg 60x60 16 L2x2x3/16 1.082 0.691 0.69 0.253 2.73 30x40 16 L1 x1 x1/8 1.322 1.40 1.32 0.253 5.22 Service Water Pump Structure 72x44 16 L3x3x3/16 1.064 1.102 1.102 0.230 4.79 72x24 18 L3x3x3/16 0.865 1.102 0.865 0.223 3.88 l
52x44 16 L2x2x1/16 1.237 0.98 0.98 0.230 4.26 42x26 18 Ll\\x1 x1/8 1.111 0.94 0.94 0.223 4.22 28x26 18 Ll\\x1 x1/8 1.408 1.04 1.04 0.223 4.66 l
Auxiliary Building 108x16 14 C 3x5.0 1.14 0.47 0.47 0.335 1.40 j
108x16 14 C 5x6.7 1.14 1.25 1.14 0.628 1.75 60x32 18 L2x2x3/16 1.15 0.69, 0.69 0.326 2.12 38x38 16 Ll\\x1\\x3/16 1.44 1.22 1.22 0.330 3.70 76x40 16 L3x3x3/16 1.04 0.97 0.97 0.254 3.82 50x40 16 L2x2x3/16 1.25 1.08 1.08 0.259 4.17 54x36 18 L2x2x3/16 0.98 0.89 0.89 0.320 2.78 28x14 18 L1x1x1/8 1.41 1.05 1.05 0.234 4.49 24x24 18 L1x1x1/8 1.56 1.59 1.56' O.223 7.00 12x6 18 L1x1x1/8 2.59 11.10 2.59 0.234 11.07 60x36 16 L3x3x3/16 1.15 1.70 1.15 0.593 1.94 (1) Largest duct size for the same gauge sheet metal and stiffener.
(2) Worse case loading is Dead Load + P + W,where P = operating pressure, W = wind load. The worst case loading bounds seismic load combinations.-
e (3) Summary of results from Bechtel Calc. No. SQ-180(Q) dated 5/16/83.,
Stresses due to dead load, seismic load, wind and internal pressures a e I
converted to equivalent internal pressure loads for comparison.
j 1
y :' ' #W 3i; M " *s?_ p ?c
-; M N m & hk
-~
Ratio of Calculated to Allowable Stresses for HVAC Ducts and Supports I
Calculated Stress 7
Location Calc. No.
Description Allowable Stress Control Room 21 G (4.4143) W 6 x 12 0.23 L3x3xk' 0.19 L2x2x O.13 i
L 2 x 2.x h
<0.13 L3 x3 x 0.05 weld 0.76 weld 0.10 weld 0.61 weld 0.51 Contrcl Room 21 G (4.f46) all structural members 0.48
~
weld 0.03 anchor bolt 0.50 l
Control Room 29 0 276 L3x3x (all) 0.33 i
W 6 x 12 0.04
)
TS 2 x 2 *. k 0.04 weld 0.42 0.73 weld weld 0.57 Service Water Bldg 648-S126 TS 3 x 3 x %
0.15 TS 2 x 2 x k 0.09 L2x2x 0.13 weld 0.03 weld 0.12 weld 0.68 weld 0.06 weld 0.35 anchor bolt 0.40 anchor bolt 0.88 anchor bolt 0.64 anchor bolt 0.80 Auxiliary Bldg 21 F (3.136)
L2x2x%
0.13 TS 2 x 2 x %
0.14 weld 0.04
.x; weld 0.20 weld 0.15 weld 0.04 anchor bolt 0.58 anchor bolt 0.34 I
1
_ -7
}l 4 1;.%
,g-
,e
~,
a
i I
Attachment D (Continued)
I i
Calculated Stress >
Location Calc. No.
Description Allowable Stress
{
i Auxiliary Bldg 21 I (6.95)
TS 4 x 4 x %
0.32
?
.~
TS 2 x 2 x 4 0.48 i
L2x2xk 0.36 i
PL % x 18
~
0.13 weld 0.40 I
weld 0.35 I
weld 0.15 j
weld 0.25 weld 0.10 weld 0.23 I
weld 0.32 L4x4x 0.44 (shear controlling) 4 1
i i
.J t
l 2
W 2
..7..._..
6.
y
...,< s. ;" y ( :
,'[ *j*. '.
.k. N i 2 '.ff -,
3,,y~.. j
[
'5
(
-v
.g.
c
8 8
e i
I 9
1 i';
4 I.
I REFERENCE b 4
9 t
i p
i
,4
's, f
. G
'O L
- s.*
.mmmm-o-smm -
n.
s
--e l
,,w-
,,