IR 05000412/1981001
| ML20004B749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1981 |
| From: | Ebneter S, Varela A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004B748 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-412-81-01, 50-412-81-1, NUDOCS 8105290471 | |
| Download: ML20004B749 (6) | |
Text
.
.
m, kJ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION I
Report No.
50-412/81-01 Docket No.
50-412 License No. CPPR-105 Priority Category A
--
Licensee:
Duquense Light Company 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Facility Name:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Inspection At:
Shippingport, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted:
February 2-5, 1981 b
jM/
Inspectors:
4/- e,#
f.A.Varela,ReactorInspector
' d' ate date
~
date Approved by:
c.4 [4 h k}
f/
p.D.Ebneter," Chief,EngineeringSupport
' dat'e Section, No.2, RC&ES Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on February 2-5, 1981 (Report No. 50-410/81-01)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by one regional based inspector of concrete placement activities, follow-up discussions on settlement monitoring program and status of reanalysis / check on seismic calculations for category I structures, review of items observed during site tour and review of outstanding items. The inspection involved 25 inspector hours onsite by one regional based inspector.
Result:
No items of noncompliance were identified.
Region I Form 12 l
(Rev. April 1977)
g J O5 2'90 f74
-
- _.
.
-
_, --
.
.
-
-
- - - - - - -
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Duquesne Light Company (DLC)
- R. Coupland, Director of Quality Control
,
H. N. Crooks, Assistant Director of Quality Control
- C. R. Davis, Quality Assurance Supervisor
- D. W. Denning, Assistant Director of Quality Control
- W. H. Glidden, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer R. Hill, Concrete Batch Plant Inspector D. Morgan, Quality Control Engineer G. Martin, Quality Control Engineer
- R. J. Swiderski, Super 1ntendent of Construction
- R. W'ashabaugh, Manager of Quality Assurance Department L. Williamson, Quality Control Engineer Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
,
,
S. Bose, Area Engineer
- R. Faust, Structural Engineer C. McIntyre, Head, Site Engineering Office J. Novack, Area Superintendent i
- J. Purcell, Lead Site Engineer
- J. E. Williams, Resident Manager Dick Corporation (Dick)
A. Cafardi, Quality Control Engineer
'
J. Long, Quality Control Consultant
.
l
.
Schneider, Inc.
'
C. Kraus, Piping Supervisor G. Sessler, Chief Site Engineer J. Sekely, Quality Control
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the course of the inspection, including construction crafts.
2.
Construction Site Walk-Through Inspection A tour of the construction was made to observe work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas of the construction site during the course of the inspection.
The presence of quality control inspectors, quality control records and equipment preservation was observed.
,
The inspector examined work items for any obvious defects or noncompliances, and for evidence of quality control of the work.
Certain activities observed by the inspector were noted for follow-up of inspector concerns.
Two instances of such involved:
a) storage, maintenance and protection of the installed personnel air lock and b) safety injection system stainless steel 12" pipe weld number 2-SIS-070-F02 which required repeated repairs as a result of radiography.Pesolution was obtained for the inspector's concerns of above items by interviews with supervisory quality control and nondestructive test personnel, and review of quality control procedures and records.
l l
No items of noncompliance were identifie.
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Items (Closed) Unresolved Item 80-10-01:
Ravise procedure to provide mechanism to control drawings when used in FCPs.
SWEC has revised FCP-1, Preparation, Issue and Control of Field Construction Procedures, in change #5 to provide control as identified under new section 8.0 drawing control. The inspector evaluated this as satisfactory.
4.
Review of Nonroutine Events a.
The licensee's 10 CFR 50.55(e) significant deficiency interim report of January 2,1981 regarding deficiencies in seismic calculations of six category I buildings was discussed. The inspector was informed that four of these buildings have been found satisfactory on reanalysis but final review by SWEC management is pending. The licensee committed to notifying the NRC prior to dates identified in their Janaury 2 report should the original design of any of the six buildings, presently in various stages of construction, prove to be deficient.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
b.
The Settlement Monitoring Program on static settlements of all structures was discussed and information was given the inspector that SWEC Boston Geotech will issue an addenda to the July 1980 report to include surveys throurt, 1980. The addenda is expected to be available in May 1981.
c.
The DLC and SWEC responsibility for repairs to the Neutron Shield Tank, reported in Inspection Report No. 80-10, work being performed at Babcox and Wilcox's, Mt. Vernon, Indiana facility, was discussed.
The inspector was informed that repairs are proceeding under surveillance of a licensee resident inspector and two S&W vendor inspectors.
The inspector had no further questions at this time.
.
- - -. -
-
-
,
,
i,.p.
- - -
,,.p-
,.-7-p.
-,
-,
-
.
.
5.
Observation of Concrete Activities in Cold Weather
.
a.
The inspector observed preparations for concrete placement of the Safeguards Building elevation 736 slab.
Installed rebar was observed to conform to requirements of SWEC engineerng drawings, Bethlehem Steel fabrication drawings and approved field changes.
Heated enclosure was observed to provide wind protection and maintain interior at above 50 F.
The outside temperature of slightly abo'e zero at start of the work day was reduced by the wind-chf1'
actor.
Since concrete placement was planned to utilize truck mounted pump and boom crane, the fear of concrete pump-line freeze resulted in a delay of three days.
The placement, however, was undertaken when the temperature was in range of zero to +5 F and the wind presented no prablem on February 5, 1981.
The inspector observed concrete truck delivery, testing pump placement and consolidation of concrete for the Safeguards Building Pour #42 for the elevation 736 slab.
He observed that tests performed on slump temperature and air met specification requirements.
The inspector visited the batch plant and observed / discussed controls of heated water and steam heated aggregates to provide adequate mix temperature as required by codes and specifications for Cold Weather Concreting.
No items of noncompliance were identified in the first two 10 cubic yard truck loads of concrete.
The inspector was informed on his return to the placement site from visiting the batch plant that in process testing found one 10 cubic yard load to have unsatisfactory air content after the concrete was pumped into place, therefore a noncomformance report was written for placing this out-of-spec concrete in the forms.
The inspector observed that consistent with QC procedure requirement, the.
unintentional placement of concrete, with low air ccntent of 2.3%
(specification requires 3.5 to 6.5 %) had cylinders cast from it for compression strength testing. A second air test confirmed the
-.
_.
.
-._
-
_,
-
__.
. _ _ -.
.
-
.
. _.,
_
.
-..
_
.
.
.
concrete placed did not meet specification.
Pending disposition of nonconforming concrete, the inspector stated at the exit interview that this would be carried as an unresolved item to emphasize an apparent need for finding / correcting the cause of inconsistency in concrete characteristics, to provide confidence in untested batches and assure conformance to ACI codes and engineering specifications.
(Unresolved item #81-01-01.)
6.
Unresolved Items
,
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. An unresolved item discussed during the inspection is detailed in Paragraph 5.b.
7.
Exit
-"iew The inspectvi met at the site with licensee and engineering representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 4, 1981.
The inspector summarized findings of the inspection.
Tha licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments.
l l
!
,
I
!
~
-_
._
..