IR 05000334/1979003
| ML19270H307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1979 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 50-334-79-03, 50-334-79-3, NUDOCS 7906260165 | |
| Download: ML19270H307 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-334/79-03 Docket No.
50-334 License No. DPR-66 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Duquesne Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
.
Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station Inspection at:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection conducted: February 8, 9, 12-16, 22, 23, 26-28; March 1, 2, 7-9, 19-23 and J6-27,1979 Inspectors:
0 b $nfa Aprlll?ni179 AVI."Vareia, Rea'ctor Inspector date signed date signed date signed
- !/4/v'1 Approved by:
[.
L S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Support Section date signed No. 2, RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 8, 9,12-16, 22, 23, 26-28; March 1, 2, 7-9,19-23, and 26-27,1979 Report No. 50-334/79-03 Areas Inspected: Special, announced inspection by a regional based inspector of a soil-boring and testing program undertaken at request of the USNRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to obtain additional information of the soils in the area of the station Turbine Building to demonstrate that safety margins with re-spect to foundation soil liquefaction and stability are acceptable.
The inspec-tion involved twenty-four inspector-days on site by one NRC regional based inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance were identified.
2314 356 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
7 00626 0 /8f Q
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
Duquesne Light Company (DLC)
- J. Bajuszik, Project Engineer J. J. Carey, Nuclear Technical Assistant
- R. Coupland, Director, Site Quality Control, Beaver Valley, Unit 2
- D. W. Denning, Quality Control Structural Engineer
- D. Hall, Quality Control Engineer Field Surveillance
- C. Hill, Quality Assurance Engineer
- J. R. Swiderski, Superintendent Construction
- R. Washabaugh, Manager, Quality Assurance Department
- J. A. Werling, Plant Superintendent Stone and Webster Geotechnical Division (S&W)
- D. S. Campbell, Lead Geotechnical Engineer
- F. P. Verock, Field Geotechnical Engineer S. P. Reynolds, Assistant Field Geotechnical Engineer Raymond International Builders Incorporated (RIB)
B. McKevett, Drilling Equipment Operator N. Eger, Drilling Equipment Operator
- denotes those present during exit meeting.
2.
Introduction As a result of a meeting held at Beaver Valley site on January 25 and 26,1979, between members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and representatives of Duquesne Light Company, the following action was undertaken. A core boring program was con-ducted by S&W Engineering Corporation to obtain additional samples of soils in the area of the station Turbine Building.
Based upon the analysis of the core borings, a liquefaction analysis is to be performed.
A stability analysis is also required if a potential for liquefaction exists.
Further agreed upon details are iden-tified in DLC letter to NRR dated February 12, 1979.
2314 c57
.
.
3.
Requirements Established for Soil Boring and Test Program The soil boring and testing program is prescribed by detailed technical requirements identified in S&W Engineering Services Scope of Work, ESS0W No. BVS-648, Contract No. BVC-1062 with Raymond International Builders, for test borings and subsurface explorations.
The original issue of above, dated January 30, 1979, was revised by Addendum No.1 of February 8,1979 to remove a " hold" imposed by licensee to provide full confonnance to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B for this nuclear safety related work.
Prior to commencement of soil drilling, the inspector discussed the technical requirements with S&W's Field Geotechnical Engineer, DLC's Director of Site QC, and Senior QC Structural Engineer.
Field drilling operations are the responsibility of the S&W Engineers whose field geotechnical representative was qualified and authorized to supervise the field operations, provide approval, inspect the work, maintain a detailed log of each boring, and make professional determinations as identified in the Technical Specifications.
DLC's site QC provides continuous surveillance of all field operations, and assures that the equipment used was properly calibrated and adequate to perform its function.
The evaluation of field boring logs, laboratory testing of soil samples, liquefaction and stability analyses and, if required, stabilization program are to be performed by DLC's consultant, S&W Geotechnical Division, Boston.
The site testing and evaluation criteria ciclegated by DLC to S&W Geotechnical Division were observed to satisfy the tellowing requirements:
a.
Identification of responsible QA/QC individuals.
b.
Identification of activities, process, and equipment and of quality requirements.
c.
Data collection by the consultant / contractor.
d.
Evaluation of results and conclusions by consultant.
2314 358
.
e.
Evaluation of results and conclusions by licensee, f.
Identification and evaluation of unusual conditions, g.
Preparation, filing, and retention of recorde.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Observation of Test Borings and Subsurface Exploration Work The inspector observed ten of twelve test borings and witnessed exploratory work to determine the physical properties, arrangement and thickness of the various soil strata as they exist in the ground. At each location the subsoils were tested and sampled for identification every two and one-half feet of depth employing the standard method to measure the resistance of the soil with the split-barrel sampler driven 18" into undisturbed soil and recording the number of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30" blows for each inch penetration.
Ten borings including one auxiliary boring, were completed outside and north of the turbine building to a depth of 80', or to rock.
In some of these borings 3" diameter undisturbed tube samples of clay and/or silt and sand were obtained.
Additionally, borings number AB-ll and AB-12 were performed within the turbine building to test the subsoils beneath the structure in accordance with Addendum No. 2 of March 15, 1979.
This work was observed conforming to criteria identified in ESS0W No. BVS-648.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
5.
Action Taken on Inspector's Concerns Regarding Apparent Inconsistencies Observed in Test Borings During progress of the test boring, the inspector observed apparent inconsistencies in test equipment, and use of equipment not recom-mended by the American Society for Testing and Materials in Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, ASTM D1586-74.
The following items were identified by the inspec-tor and discussed during progress of the work with the S&W field geotechnical engineer and licensee surveillance personnel.
2314 359
o
a.
Drilling equipment consisted of two heavy duty rotary drills of same take and model, howevct, one of the units emplyed A-rod and the other NW-rod for the standard penetration test.
The latter is 2 5/8" outside diameter and weighs 5.5 lbs. per foot while the former is 15/8" outside diameter and weighs 3.8 lbs. per foot.
This inconsistency perhaps could effect the comparison of blow-counts obtained in the standard pene-tration tests.
b.
The split-barrel sampler is identified in ASTM D-1586 as having 13/8" inside diameter of the driving shoe and the split barrel.
The sampler used had 1 3/8" inside diameter for the driving shoe and 1 1/2" 1.d. for the split-barrel.
c.
ASTM D1586 reconmends that the drill rod have a stiffness equal to or greater than the A-rod, which is 1 1/8" inside diameter and 15/8" outside diameter, and suggests that a stiffer rod be used for holes deeper than 50'.
In about half of the holes A-drill rod was used to the 80' depth, d.
No attempt was made to standardize the drill rods nor to compare the resistance to penetration in the same bore hole using the A-rod, and alternating with the NW rod, in the same substrata.
These concerns were formalized in memoranda by the licensee's site surveillance director and copies were forwarded to licensee and S&W geotechnical engineers.
S&W's lead geotechnical engineer replied to item (a) by stating that S&W experience indicated that use of different size rods has no measureable effect on the stan-dard penetration test blow count providing the minimum allowable size is the A-rod.
This was concurred in by the licensee.
The other items were replied to in a similar manner.
At the exit interview the inspector requested the above items be addressed in the final evaluation report as variables for their possible influence on the relationship between soil properties and the standard penetration resistance blow counts.
6.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee and S&W Geotech Division representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on fiarch 27, 1979.
The inspector summarized the results of the inssction as described in this report.
2314 360