|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams
| | #REDIRECT [[IR 05000424/1986042]] |
| | number = ML20205D389
| |
| | issue date = 06/20/1986
| |
| | title = Insp Rept 50-424/86-42 on 860505-07.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Independent Design Review for Readiness Review Module 13C,Chapter 7
| |
| | author name = Imbro E, Wang H
| |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
| |
| | addressee name =
| |
| | addressee affiliation =
| |
| | docket = 05000424
| |
| | license number =
| |
| | contact person =
| |
| | document report number = 50-424-86-42, NUDOCS 8608150347
| |
| | package number = ML20205D385
| |
| | document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| |
| | page count = 3
| |
| }}
| |
| See also: [[see also::IR 05000424/1986042]]
| |
| | |
| =Text=
| |
| {{#Wiki_filter:'~
| |
| - a
| |
| * * .
| |
| ,
| |
| ENCLOSURE
| |
| ,
| |
| i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| l OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
| |
| Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs
| |
| !
| |
| Report No.: 50-424/86-42
| |
| Docket No.: 50-424
| |
| Licensee: Georgia Power Company
| |
| Facility Name: Plant Vogtle, Unit 1
| |
| Inspection At: Vogtle Job Site
| |
| Waynesboro, Georgia
| |
| Inspection Dates: May 5-7, 1986
| |
| Inspection Team:
| |
| Team Leader: H.B. Wang, Inspection Specialist, IE
| |
| Civil / Structural: G. Harstead, Consultant, Harstead Engineering
| |
| *E.V. Imbro, Section Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, IE
| |
| Prepared By: ,
| |
| Hai-BToh Wa~ng
| |
| O bh'N
| |
| Date
| |
| T am Leader
| |
| .
| |
| + ,
| |
| ]_ a -$ $
| |
| Approved By: jg E.V. Imbro Date
| |
| Section Chief
| |
| Quality Assurance Branch
| |
| r
| |
| * Attended exit meeting only
| |
| .
| |
| t
| |
| G
| |
| ______________
| |
| | |
| .-
| |
| '
| |
| .'- \
| |
| 1
| |
| l
| |
| I
| |
| PLANT V0GTLE, UNIT 1
| |
| READINESS REVIEW MODULE 13C-CHAPTER 7.0
| |
| INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW (IDR)
| |
| INSPECTION OF IDR RESULTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
| |
| 1. Background
| |
| At a meeting with the NRC in Bethesda, Maryland on June 20, 1985, the Georgia
| |
| Power Company (GPC) presented a plan as part of their Readiness Review program
| |
| for an Independent Design Review (IDR) of Plant Vogtle Unit 1 (Vogtle) to be
| |
| performed by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). The IDR for all
| |
| non-civil / structural design aspects would be presented in a single review docu-
| |
| ment or module. The IDR associated with the civil / structural design would be
| |
| in modules #1, #8, #13A, #13B, and #13C. The NRC Office of Inspection and
| |
| Enforcement activities related to the Vogtle IDR for civil / structural modules
| |
| may include, in addition to a review of Chapter 7 of the module, an inspection
| |
| to determine the thoroughness of the IDR contractor's review, review of findings
| |
| and review of GPC's corrective actions.
| |
| 2. Purpose
| |
| The purpose of this inspection was to review Chapter 7.0 of Readiness Review
| |
| Module #13C " Post Tensioning Containment". Specifically, SWEC's depth of review
| |
| was evaluated by selecting certain calculations and independently reviewing them.
| |
| A review of the IDR findings and associated GPC corrective actions was performed
| |
| to verify their validity and implementation.
| |
| 3. Personnel Contacted
| |
| The following is a list of personnel contacted during the inspection.
| |
| Name Organization and Position
| |
| l
| |
| W.C. Ramsey GPC, Readiness Review Manager.
| |
| I
| |
| J.W. Curtin SWEC, IDR Module 13C Team Leader.
| |
| R.W. McManus GPC, Readiness Review Civil Discipline
| |
| Leader,
| |
| j G. Creighton GPC, Civil Readiness Review Team Member.
| |
| 4. General Conclusions
| |
| l
| |
| l
| |
| The IDR on Module 13C was performed competently and effectively. The review
| |
| of Specification X2CJ2.10.4 was particularly well done. There were four
| |
| findings on this specification relating to inconsistencies with calculations
| |
| i
| |
| and/or FSAR commitments; however, all of them were editorial in nature having
| |
| no technical significance. GPC had submitted an amendment to the FSAR to
| |
| correct these inconsistencies. The NRC team reviewed the corrective actions
| |
| and found that they satisfactorily resolved the findings, and considers these
| |
| I
| |
| four findings to be closed. Other findings concerning the calculations are
| |
| identified as Comments 1 and 2, under specific comments.
| |
| i
| |
| _ _ - _ . - _ - - - _ . _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| r
| |
| ~ g
| |
| f. *.
| |
| 1
| |
| I
| |
| 5. Specific Comments ;
| |
| Comment 1
| |
| Finding 1 of the SWEC IDR team was that the stiffening effect of the but-
| |
| tress was not considered in the containment analysis. The project response ;
| |
| only addressed the membrane portion of the containment cylindrical shell. l
| |
| The NRC team agrees with the finding, but considers the project response l
| |
| should be extended to include the non-membrane portion where the moment and
| |
| shear are affected significantly by the buttress due to the discontinuity
| |
| at the wall-mat interface. Civil Engineering Study No. 91, covering the
| |
| membrane portion, and all additional calculations should be incorporated
| |
| into the Vogtle calculation record (0 pen Item 86-42-01).
| |
| Comment 2
| |
| IDR Findings (2) and (7) pertain to Calculation X2CJ2.9.0 and deal with
| |
| thermal load on the containment wall and containment liner, respectively.
| |
| The analysis of the containment shell was performed using the computer pro-
| |
| gram BSAP for the required load combinations, except that the thermal
| |
| effects were not included. In determining reinforcing bar stresses on
| |
| each section, the computer program OPTCON was used with the thermal effects
| |
| in the membrane section introduced as a thermal gradient through the thick-
| |
| ness of the containment wall.
| |
| As the IDR report on Findings (2) and (7) pointed out, this procedure is
| |
| valid for membrane zones but cannot account for the thermal effects near
| |
| discontinuities. The IDR reviewer was given Civil Engineering Study No. 90,
| |
| which was performed by Bechtel for a plant similar to Vogtle. This study
| |
| addressed the question of thermal effects at the discontinuity at the wall
| |
| may interface by comparing results from computer programs BSAP and OPTCON
| |
| with the results of an analysis using the computer program FINEL. The /
| |
| method using FINEL accounts for the thermal effects at the discontinuity. ('
| |
| The FINEL results indicated the percentage changes in rebar stresses due
| |
| to thermal effects in both membrane and discontinuity regions. Due to the
| |
| similarity of Vogtle to the subject plant of Civil Engineering Study No. 90,
| |
| the IDR reviewer was able to extrapolate the results, using the percentage
| |
| , differences of Civil Engineering Study No. 90, to confirm that the rebar
| |
| stresses at the discontinuity of the Vogtle containment wall-mat interface
| |
| were within allowables.
| |
| The conclusion reached by the IDR reviewer is acceptable. Calculation
| |
| X2CJ2.9.0 should be revised to clearly indicate that the rebar stresses are
| |
| within allowables based on data from Civil Engineering Study No. 90. The
| |
| methodology used to justify that rebar stresses are within allowables should
| |
| be documented with all data from various sources clearly referenced (0 pen
| |
| Item 86-42-02).
| |
| I
| |
| i
| |
| ,
| |
| }}
| |