IR 05000424/1985064

Insp Rept 50-424/85-64 on 851216-19.Major Areas Reviewed: Chapter 7.0 of Readiness Review Module 8 Re Independent Design Review

ML20204J449
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/06/1986
From:	Imbro E, Parkhill R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204J436	List: IR 05000424/1985064 ML20204J431
References
50-424-85-64, NUDOCS 8608110093
Download: ML20204J449 (5)

Text

, ,

ENCLOSURE

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Report No.: 50-424/85-64R Decket No.: 50-424 Licensee: Georgia Power Company Facility Name: Plant Vogtle, Unit 1 Inspection At: Vogtle job site Waynesboro, GA Inspection Dates: December 16-19, 1985 Inspection Team:

Team Leader: R. Parkhill, Inspection Specialist, IE Civil / Structural: A. Unsal, Consultant, Harstead Engineering-

• V. Imbro, Sr. Inspection Specialist, IE MfYh R. W. Parkhill Y6 Team Leader

l Approved by: #eV M

' Eugene 'V. Imbro U/6

' '

G Acting Section Chief Quality Assurance Branch

• Attended exit meeting onl .

! G

!

_ _ __ _ _ __ . _

. .

.

.

PLANT V0GTLE, UNIT 1 READINESS REVIEW MODULE 8 CHAPTER INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW INSPECTION OF IDR RESULTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

_ 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 & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). The IDR for all non-civil / structural design aspects would be presented in a single review docu- .

I ment or module. The IDR associated with the civil / structural design would

,

remain in the specific modules #1, #8, #13A, #138, 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 sub-ject Module, an inspection to determine the thoroughness of the_IDR contractor's

'

,

. review, review of findings and review of GPC's associated corrective cction The module reviewed in this inspection report is Module #8 " Structural Steel."

j Purpose The purpose of this inspection, conducted at the Vogtle job site in Waynesboro,

'

Georgia, from December 16, 1985 to December 19, 1985, was to review Chapter of Readiness Review Module #8. 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 implementatio . Personnel Contacted j The following is a listing of the personnel contacted during the inspection:

Name Organization Position W. C. Ramsey GPC Readiness Review Manager G. F. Trudeau Bechtel Readiness Review Assist. Manager

S. L. Stamm SWEC IDR Manager

'

J. A. Curtain SWEC IDR Module #8 Team Leader M. Thakar Bechtel Readiness Review Team Leader W. Pananos SWEC IDR Module #8 Reviewer J. Steere SWEC IDR Module #8 Reviewer l General Conclusions The scope of review for Module 8 Chapter 7.0 was very broad and the review

'

resulted in SWEC identifying relevant findings. However, due to the broadness of the review scope in combination with the time constraints imposed, certain specific aspects of selected design calculations were not reviewed. The specific aspects of calculations reviewed by the NRC inspection team that appear to have i been overlooked by SWEC are identified- as Comments #1-#6 under Specific Comments.

f

'

. . . . . - - - - - - - . .-. - . - - -. -

. .

.

.

To assure that all relevant design considerations are covered by the review, GPC will have SWEC thoroughly review two calculations that form a part of the containment internal structural steel design. The calculations selected will cover the design of a vertical frame and the design of a floor framing below the operating deck. The design calculation review will include verification of input data, a detailed review of the calculation itself, and a comparison with the design drawing (0 pen item 85-64R-01) Specific Comments Comment 1 On sheet 10 of the Auxiliary Building structural steel calculation (Reference 1)

a fluid pressure of 15 psi was utilized. The source of this design input was not referenced nor did the SWEC reviewer question its origin. The NRC inspection team concludes that SWEC shculd have identified this item for resolution. GPC should justify the use of this fluid pressure as well as an explanation as to why no reference was provided within the calculation. (0 pen item 85-64R-02)

Comment 2 The NRC team reviewed two connection details from the same calculation as mentioned in comment #1 (Reference 1) to determine whether these details were transferred correctly to the drawings. Tha two details, 6 and 7, are located in Bechtel drawing, Reference 2. A review of these details showed that there were discrepancies between what the calculation and the drawing showed for the sizes of angles. Following are the comparison of these sizes

Calculation Drawing Detail 6 7 x 7 x 1/2 6 x 4 x 1/2 Detail 7 8x6x1 8 x 6 x 1/2

The team concludes that the SWEC reviewer should have identified these discrep-ancies for resolution. An explanation for these discrepancies and assessment of any generic implications should be provided. (0 pen item 85-64R-03)

Comment 3 The NRC review team noted that in reviewing the calculation for the internal structural steel sizing (Reference 3), Bechtel used only 25 percent of the design live load when combined with earthquake loads. The same decreased design live load was also used in the calculation for the Auxiliary Building (Reference 1).

There was no justification provided in the calculations by Bechtel as to why only 25 percent of the design live load was used instead of the full valu SWEC failed to question this even though it is an apparent violation of a licensing con.mitmen When the NRC inspection team raised this question, a document was provided by

Bechtel showing that a similar question was raised by NRC NRR Structural Branch at an audit held during December 3-6, 1984. NRC IE has identified this issue to NRR as a possible deviation from a licensing commitment.

-2-

_ __

- -. -

_-

. .

.

.

Comment 4 The NRC inspection team reviewed the calculations for the internal structural sizing (Reference 3). These calculations are preliminary sizing calculations which Bechtel, the original design organization, performed mostly by han Later, a calculation using a computer model for the internal structural steel was developed by Bachtel using these preliminary sizes. This computer analysis (Reference 4) calculates the member forces and moments for the beams and column Then, each member is checked against these computer calculated capacities. This is accomplished in Bechtel calculations X2CJ4.1.4.3 through X2CJ4.1.1.10. These latter calculations were not reviewed by SWEC. Since these are the most recent calculations, e conclusion on the adequacy of the design of internal structural steel cannot be reached without reviewing them. As resolution to the general

open item, GPC het been requested to review thoroughly two of the aforementioned calculations, from verification of design inputs to comparison with the design drawing Comment 5

'

The NRC team also reviewed the calculations for the polar crane ring girder (Reference 5). These calculations contain various inputs that are provided by the crane manufacturer, Whiting Corporation (Reference 6). The SWEC reviewer did not check whether these design inputs were correctly interpreted and trans-ferred by the Bechtel designer. This review is necessary since the design adequacy of the polar crane ring girder is dependent on correct interpretation of these input values. GPC should verify the correctness of all input data associated with the polar crane ring girder calculation. (0 pen item 85-64R-04)

Comment 6 The NRC inspection team raised two questions regarding GPC's reanalysis of the turbine building (reference findings 8-73 and 8-79 of Readiness Review Module

1. 8) relating to consequences on adjacent Category I structures.

4 GPC should justify why two turbine building cranes were not modelled in the calculations associated with Seismic Analysis of Turbine Building and Turbine Building Space Frame Analysis, since there appears to be no physi-cal or procedural restrictions preventing both cranes from being in one turbine building. (0 pen item 85-64R-05) GPC should address the consequences of interaction between the turbine pedestal and turbine building structural steel on the main steam piping analysis, including an assessment of its impact upon the design adequacy of piping anchors separating the turbine building from Category I structure (0 pen item 85-64R-06) References BechtelCalculationX2CK4.9.6,AuxiliaryBuildingMiscSteelPlItforms, Wal kways-LVL "1". Bechtel Drawing AX2008G029, Auxiliary Building Misc Steel. Platforms, Rev 3, 9/20/8 . . _

. . . - -

. . . -

.

O Bechtel Calculation X2CJ4.1.4.1, Internal Structural Steel Sizing, 5/11/8 . Bechtel Calculation X2CJ4.1.4.2, Internal Structural Steel Column Load Seismic Anal, Rev 1, 4/29/8 . Bachtel Calculations X2CJ4.5 Rev 1 for the Polar Crane Ring Girde . Whitiig Corporation Calculation (Bechtel log no. AX4AL01-46-2), Polar Crane Seismic Repor :

i

<

d i

f l

l

i L

l

,

-4-i

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