ML20136F687

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 841203-07 Visit to Bechtel in Norwalk,Ca Re Structural Engineering Design Audit Based on Util 841031 Submittal of Design Rept.List of Attendees,Agenda & Addl Info Required for Satisfactory Question Response Encl
ML20136F687
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Vogtle
Issue date: 02/05/1985
From: Chan S
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Lear G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML082840446 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-84-663 NUDOCS 8502110044
Download: ML20136F687 (6)
v • d • e


Text

,

=

>R #Etta UNITED STATES o,i 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

aj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 lf**ST/

~

FEB 0 51985 Docket Nos. 50-424/425,_.

MEMORANDUM FOR: George Lear, Chief

~

Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch -

Division of Engineering David Jeng, Leader W h IM J THRU:

Structural Engineering Section A Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering FROM:

Sai P. Chan, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section A Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AUDIT On December 3 through 7, 1984, members of the NRC staff met with the applicants and their contractors and consultants at the office of Bechtel Power Corporation in Norwalk, California, to conduct the subject audit.

Attendees are given in Enclosure 1.

The audit agenda is given in Enclosure 2.

As may be seen from the agenda, the audit covered each of the major safety related structures at Vogtle plant Units 1 and 2.

The staff conducted the audit in order to accomplish the following objectives:

1.. To investigate in detail the manner in which the applicants have implemented the structural and seismic design criteria that they committed to use, prior to obtaining construction permits for the facility.

2.

To verify-that the key structural and seismic design and verification calculation have been conducted in an acceptable way.

3.

To identify and access the safety significance of those areas where the plant structure were designed and analyzed using methods other than those recommended by the NRC staff's Standard Review Plan (NURGEG-0800).

The audft was conducted on the basis of the Design Report submitted by the applicant as an enclosure to the letter dated October 31, 1984. The audit consisted of r,eviewing calculations, methods of analyses and drawings of randomly selected structural members. More specifically, results contained in the Design Report for different structures were taken as representative samples of the analyses for the str*ucture. The results were then analyzed, tracing back to the primary inputs such as the individual loads, computer input, verification of computer printout, etc.

Finally, the results of the analyses were followed up to verify if the proportioning of the members and

$=WIS.

l m

~

George Lear -

the information contained in the drawings correspond to the data,provided by the analyses. The a0dit described above encompassed all of the structures scheduled in the agenda (Enclosure 2). The audit team concluded that the designers were very well prepared for the audit, the pertinent information was readily available and the results of the analyses were traceable to their original elements.

i As a result of the audit,eight action items have been identified (Enclosure 3). Out of those.. items, infomation concerning Item 2 has been provided to the team during the audit. The remaining items and seven additional questions concerning responses to previous review questions (Enclosure 4) will be addressed and submitted by the applicant by January 31, 1985.

b

~

. Chan, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section A 4

Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch

Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated j

.cc: J.-Miller R. Lipinski i

4

-v

-. - ~

w--.

rw m

~

w,

PARTICIPANTS NRC Bechtel

~

M. Miller M. Malcom*

S.'Chan O. Gurbuz R. Lipinski D. Houghton D. Jagannathan

. Georgia Power Company N. Joonejo S. Cereghino*

D. Hudson R. Kosiba*

M. Perovich*

Southern Company Services R. Platoni*

L. Hersh*

J. Bailey J. Purucker K. Kopecky R. Schilling

  • M. Hutchinson*

Houston Lichtino & Power A. Palmquist*

M. Patterson*

R. Attar S. Jeng*

W. Hughes A. Lim

  • l S. Patel*

P. Roy*

G. Wozny*

M. Massman*

D. Berd*

M. Lock

  • M. Muska*

M. Miller

  • D. Falgren*

2 D. Haavik*

i I

l l

  • Attended on a part time basis l

4

EncTOsure Y

~

f VOCTLE ELECTRIC CENERATING PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND $0-425 AGENDA

~

i MRC SER AUDIT MEETING STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH Week of December 3, 1984 Presenter, Tuesday:

I.

INTRODUCTION II.

REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN -

REPORT AND AUDIT ITEMS A.

Brief Overview of Entire Plant Mike W rovich B.

Seismic Analysis Report

' Jagan C.

Containment Building Mike Hutchinson Wednesday:

D.

Containment Internal Structure All6n Palmquist E.

Auxiliary Building Martin Muska F.

Fuel Building Martin Muska C.

Control Building Subash Patel Thursday:

H.

Diesel Generator Building Martin Muskr

~

I.

Category I Tanks Mark Massman i

l J.

Other Category I structures Mark Massman l

George Wozny III.

REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS IV.

SUMMARY

M. Perovich Jagan D. Houghton e

b y

e

y m

f STRUCTURAL AUDIT MEETING FOR V0GTLE ACTION ITEMS Include as part of the FSAR, Appendix. 3D, all items of thh November 13, 1.

1978 GPC letter.to the NRC (confirmatory study, sensitivity study, and methodology to account'for torsion caused by the seismic wave propagation effects).

In addition, include therein a comparison of the VEGP design in-structure response spectra (e.g., envelope of N-S and E-W response spectra considered applicable for any two mutually orthogonal horizontal directions) with the response spectra provided in the confirmatory study, and the resulting conclusions.

2.

Provide justification for using'the component factor method (1.0, 0.4, 0.4) in_ lieu of the. square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method for consideratio.n of three compo,nent earthquake effects.

- 3.

Provide the basis for the equation used in determining the rotational mass moment of inertia in the containment model.

4 Provide the basis for concluding that, for the containment basemat design,

~

the combination including 100 percent of the vertical seismic loads in the component factor method does not control over the other combinations includ-ing 100 percent of the seismic loads in either horizontal direction.

5.

Provide jus' tification for the use of 25 percent of the design live load in the containment internal structure design for the load combination involving earthquake load effects.

Provide similar justification for the control building basemat.

6.

Select the worst case for the contaiment internal structure steel beam-to-column connections and demonstrate the adequacy of the connection and column design considering the moment resistance introduced by the connecting gussets.

7.

Provide the basis for the conclusion that the OBE load'ing combination governs the design of slabs in the auxiliary building, rather than the SSE condition.

i 8.

Check the effect of tornado dep,ressurization on the Category I tank wall together with hydrostatic pressure.

1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. REQUIRED FOR SATISFACTORY QUESTION RESPONSE Q220.5 Revise response concerning properly prepared construction joints ensuring leaktightness to include supporting reference data.

Q220.8 Revise response (Table 220.8-1) so that for flexure, slabs with two-way reinforcing, the Vogtle design criteria is identical to ACI 349, Appendix C, as modified by RG 1.142.

Q220.9 Provide justification for the formula in Table 220.9-1 Footnote a.-

0220.15 Revise response to ind.icate that the fixed-base natural frequencies for mtjor Category I structures are provided in the design reports.

0220.21 Revise response to indicate that the seismic instrumention inservice surveillance program is in agreement with the provisions in the standard Technical Specifications.

Q220.2R Revise response to include reference to the appropriate FSAR section.

Q220.26/ Revise response to address the 12 positions listed in RG I.142.

Q220.27 M

i i

2 e

e-,

n,--,,, --

,,w

,p 1, _

/ pn ME2n%,

UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

$g

({4 n

u WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

/

C..C

)

y JAN I 1 1985 g.7 ) f Docket No. 50-424 MEMORANDUM FOR: Elinor Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing FROM:

Vincent S. Noonan, Chief Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY AND SAFETY-RELATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Plant Name: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Docket No.: 50-424 Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 4

~ ~ '

Project Manager:

M. Miller Review Status: Additional Information Required The Equipment Qualification Branch, Division of Engineering has reviewed FSAR Section 3.11.

Based on this review, the additional infor-mation identified in the attachment must be provided before a detailed review can take place.

A Vine S. Noonan, Chief Equipment Qualification Branch Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

J. P. Knight T. Novak M. Miller R. LaGrange EQ,Section

Contact:

H. Garg Ext. 28206 pF"

?

} }()f O'l V //l h-

.=

4.,

270.1 Prior to the completion of cur review of your license application, it is necessary that we establish that you comply with the Commission's requirements applicable to environmental qualification contained in 10 CFR 50.49 for electrical equipment important to safety; GDC 4,' Appendix A, 10 CFR 50; and Appendix B, 10 CFR 50, l

Sections III, XI, XVII.

As a result of the issuance of Section 50.49 of 10 CFR Part 50, some of the information requested in SRP3.11 and R.'G. 1.70, Section 3.11, is no longer required for staff review. Other i

new information is required, however, and is defined in this guidance.

Byutilizingtheseguidelinestodemonstrate l

compliance with the Commission s regulations, applicants can dgnificantly reduce the need for requests for additional information from the NRC staff.

The infomation required may i

be submitted in Section 3.11 of the FSAR or in a separate submittal. If the latter approach is chosen, Section 3.11 should reference the information in the environmental qualifi-cation program submittal.

The following guidelines summarize the information to be furnished to the staff:

1 i

The applicable criteria should be identified and shown a.

to have been incorporated into the environmental quali-4 fication program.

l i

b.

The systems and components selected for harsh environment qualification should be identified and demonstrated to be complete.

Correlation with Table 3.2.1 of the FSAR should be provided for identification of safety-related equipment.

l Safety-related equipment exempted from harsh environment qualification requirements should be justified.

The scope of safety related electrical equipment that should be identified is defined in 50.49(b)(1).

~

To demonstrate compliance with 50.49 (b) (2) concerning nonsafety-related electrical equipment whose failure could prevent the satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions, and 50.49 (b)'(3), post-accident monitoring equipment, the following information should be provided:

4 (1) a list of all nonsafety-related electrical equipment, located in a harsh environment, whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could prevent the satisfactory accomplishment of safety functions by the safety-related equipment. A description of the method 4

l used to identify this equipment must also be included.

The nonsafety-related equipment identified must be included in the environmental qualification program.

(

(2)' a list of all post-accident monitoring equipment currently installed, or that will be installed before plant operation, that is specified as Category 1 and 2 in R.G. 1.97 and is ' -

located in a harsh environment. The equpiment identified '

must be included in the environmental qualification program, unless adequate justification for not requiring environmental qualification of the equipment is provided.

j.

The normal, abnormal, and accident environments should be c.

provided for each plant zone.

References should be made to other FSAR sections, where appropriate, for methodologies used to determine accident environments. The requirement for calculation of the radiation doses to equipment in.close i

i

. proximity to recirculating fluid systems inside and outside containment for LOCA events in which the primary system _ does not depressurize should be incorporated into the program

.(II.B.2 of TMI Action Plan, NUREG-0737). The time dependent environments should be defined for accident conditions.

d.

.The qualification methodology should be summarized by reference to appropriate criteria (Reg. Guides, industry standards, etc.)

and should address the following areas:

(1) Margin (2) ' Aging 1

(3) Dose rate and synergistic effects i

1

~

(4) Use of analysis for qualification (5) The maintenance / surveillance program, in particular its conformance with R.G.1.33 and the industry standard it endorses, and its use in the aging program for equip-ment qualification.

All equipment located in a harsh environment should be identified e.

by its tag number, and its 1c:ation and operability time provided.

Mild environment equipment need not be included in this list.

For i

electrical equipment, the information requrested in Appendix E of i

NUREG-0588, and SRP 3.11 concerning test results should be submitted.

An acceptable format for this information was provided with IE Bulletin 79-01B in.the form of "SCEW sheets." Other formats i

(

providing the same information may be submitted however.

i l

The information requested in item 4 of Appendix E, NUREG-0588 need not be submitted but ::hould be available for audit by the staff.

s f.

For mechanical equipment, the staff review will concentrate on materials which are sensitive to environmental effects, for example, seals, gaskets, lubricants, fluids for hydraulic systems, diaphragms, etc.

A review and, evaluation should be performed that includes the following:

(1) Identification of safety-related mechanical equipment located in harsh environment areas, included required l

operating time.

I (2)' this equipment.

Identification of 'non-metallic subcomponents of l

(3) Identification of the environmental conditions this equipment must be qualified for. The environments defined in the electrical equipment program are..also l

applicable to mechanical equipment.

(4) Identification of non-metallic material capabilities.

(5) Evaluation of environmental effects.,

The list of equipm'ent identified should be submitted.

From this list the staff will select approximately three items of mechanical equipment for which documentation of their environmental qualification should be provided for review.

Also, the results of the review should be provided for all mechanical equipment in harsh environment areas and corrective actions identified. Justification for interim operation must be submitted prior to-fuel load for any mechanical equipment whose qualification cannot be established.

Upon receipt of the above information, we will review your environmental qualification program for compliance with 10 CFR 50.49, and Appendix B, ~

1 l

10 CFR 50, and fequest any additional information needed to establish its acceptability. We will then perform an audit review of your

~

electrical equipment environmental qualification files and associated installed equipment.

Following.this audit, an SER supplement will be Prior prepared documenting the results of our review and evaluation.

to granting of an operating license, we must be able to conclude that you are in compliance with-10 CFR 50.49 and Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.

4 m

o I

e t

. -, _ _ _, - -.,. ~. - +

,,...---,,.---w,,,-,,-,.,,_.-----e,..~,-..-m

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

me-~. _. ~. _ - - - - -.,. ~, - -

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136F687&oldid=4217593"