IR 05000458/1979006
| ML19305C665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1980 |
| From: | Beach A, Crossman W, Oberg C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305C659 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-79-06, 50-458-79-6, NUDOCS 8003310237 | |
| Download: ML19305C665 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:____.-____ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - , . U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMEh"I PIGION IV . Report No.
50-458/79-06 Docket No.
50-458 Category A2 Licensee: Gulf States Utilities Company Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Facility Name: River Bend Station, Unit No. 1 Inspection at: River Bend Site, St. Francisville, West Feliciana Parish Louisiana Inspection conducted: November 18-21 and December 4-7, 1979 Inspectors: /[3f[B0 z___ C. R. Oberg, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date ' (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4.a, 4.b, 4.e, 4.f, 4.g, 5, 6, 7, & 8) //S9lW0 -= - $ A. B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section (Paragraphs 4.c, 4.d) m - /!J9/80 Approved: [/ Arf W. A. Crossman,' Chief, Projects Section Date llL4h k % 2' g R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Datef I l ' . l l I l 8003810 2_S7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
- . Inspection Summary Inspection on November 18-21 and December 4-7, 1979 (Report No. 50-458/79-06) Areas Inspected: Special, unannounced inspection involving the licensee's activities on items identified in the Immediate Action Letter (IAL) issued by Region IV, dated November 6, 1979. The inspection involved sixty-six inspec-tor-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: Of the seven areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance were identified in five areas; two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in two areas (infraction - deletion of and failure to specify acceptance criteria paragraph 4.b; infraction - failure to identify un-satisfactory test results and follow construction specifications para-graph 4.c).
, i I ! -2-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . DETAILS __ 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- T.
L. Crouse, Director, Quality Assurance
- J.
E. Wimberly, Superintendent, Site Construction
- R.
Stafford, Supervisor, Quality Assurance
- C. Graham, QA Representative
- L.
Ballard, QA Representative
- G. T. Warner, QA Engineer
- K. Hodger, QA Engineer
- M.
E. Walton, Project Engineer
- J. Levines, Assistant Project Engineer
- J. Dunkelberg, Assistant Superintendent Site Construction Other Personnel (Stone & Webster)
- A. Kamdor,' Resident Engineer
- J.
E. Loomis, General Superintendent
- W.
I. Clifford, Resident Manager (Construction)
- T. M. Vears, Structural Engineer
- R. J. VanEpps, Consultant SWEC, Boston
- L. T. Rouen, QA Engineer
- R. L. Spence, FQC Superintendent
- C. D. Lundin, Project QA Manager The IE inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees and contractor personnel including members of the QA/QC and engineering staffs.
- denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Entrance Incerview The IE inspectors conducted an entrance interview with the licensee representatives.
The stated purpose of the inspection was to review the action taken by the licensee on the items identified in the Immediate Action Letter issued by Region IV on November 6, 1979.
In this regard, the review was based on the letters issued by Gulf States Utilities dated December 6 and December 11, 1979.
The letter of December 11, 1979, supplements the letter of December 6, 1979.
-3-
. - _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ 3.
Structural Concrete Requirements and References Applicable to River Bend Seismic Category 1 Structures a.
Seismic Category I Structures The following buildings have been designated as seismic Category I structures in the PSAR: Reactor Building (Shield Building) Auxiliary Building Fuel Building 'antrol Building Standby Service Water Pumphouse Standby Diesel Generator Building Radwaste Building (certain portions only) In addition, electrical tunnels and piping tunnels, which contain seismic Category I systems, are considered as Category I structures.
b.
Applicable Codes, Standards and Specifications The River Bend PSAR, Section 3.8.4.2 contains the specific codes, construction specifications, standards, and NRC regulatory guides that are used in establishing design methods, analytical techniques and material properties (underlining provided) for the seismic Category I structures listed above. Those that relate to the River Bend concrete operations are: a.
ACI 318-71, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Con-crete" (including all applicable codes and standards referenced therein) b.
Specifications (provided by Stone & Webster) (1) Mixing and Delivering Concrete (Specification No. 210.350) , (2) Concrete Testing Services (Specification Nc. 210.360) The above references, with their applicable standards, were used as the basis for the inspection of the implementation of the ~ Immediate Action Letter items.
-4-
4.
Immediate Action Letter to Gulf States Utilities (GSU) dated November 6, 1979 - The items identified in the Immediate Action Letter and the action taken by the licensee are indicated below.
Immediately Halt Further Placement of Concrete in Safety-Related a.
Structures l The licensee issued a Stop-Work Order on November 2, 1979, to cease ' all Category I placements.
The IE inspector verified, through direct observation and review of records, that no Category I concrete place- ' ments were made from the effective time of the Stop-Work Order.
The Stop-Work Order was rescinded on December 17, 1979.
b.
Conducted an Engineering Analysis of Safety-Related Concrete That Has Been Previously Placed The licensee, through their AE, Stone & Webster, evaluated the acceptability of safety-related concrete previously placed on the River Bend Project. They considered that the concrete is acceptable based on the following: (1) The concrete was placed and consolidated prcperly.
(2) All compressive strength tests have been satisfactory.
(3) The concrete placed was not massive concrete requiring low heat of hydration cement.
(4) Examination of a moist cured representative concrete cylinder did not reveal any sign of disruptive alkali expansion.
The IE inspector determined that low alkali cement had been used in the concrete placed to date.
Approximately 1533 cubic yards of concrete had been placed for safety-related structures.
The IE inspector reviewed the following Category I placement (pour) packages which are representative of the concreting activities: Pour Number Date Placed Design Mix Design Strength RHS-77-77-1-3537 9-12-79 E&DCR PG-10A
(fill grout) RHS-77-77-2A-3541 9-13-79 "
RHS-77-77-3A-3542 9-14-79 "
CSH-75-75-1A-3543 9-19-79 "
-5-l
. CSL-76-76-1A-3544 9-17-79 "
AB-MM-60-1-3553 9-25-79 "A" (mud mat) 3000 psi (28 day) AB-MM-60-1-3554 9-25-79 " " AB-MM-60-1-3555 9-26-79 " " AB-MM-60-1-3556 9-26-79 " " . RHS-77-77-3B-3557 10-02-79 "H" (pump base) 4000 psi (28 day)
RHS-77-77-2B-3558 10-02-79 " " CSL-76-76-1B-3559 10-02-79 " " CSH-75-75-1B-3574 10-22-79 " "
- Design strength was not specified.
During the review of the pour packages, the IE inspector noted that the, design mix and use of a fill grout (backfill material) was specified by S&W on Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCR) No. P-G-10 and P-G-10A.
This backfill material was used in an annular space be-tween sleeves of certain safety-related pump sumps in the Auxiliary Building. However, the acceptance criteria for compression testing of the grout material was not given by S&W Engineering.
Inspection Report
IR59000859 reported the specimen cube strengths from 7,000 to 7,500 psi at 28 days. While it is understood that this strength is'in excess of other base mat material requirements, the lack of accartance criteria for the mortar cubes is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Apperdix B, Criterion V which requires that instructions, procedures and drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criterii for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished. It was further noted, during the review of the placement information, that the placement of safety-related concrete had taken place prior to receiving the ASTM C227 (Mortar Bar Test) 90 day test results. Stone & Webster Construction Specification No. 210.360, " Concrete Testing Services," requires that the course and fine aggregates be tested, prior to use on the site for compliance with specifications by performing certain tests. These tests include a test for " Potential Alkali Reactivity - ASTM C227 and ASTM C289." The portar bar length readings are to be taken initially after 24 hours and then at ages of 14 days, 28, 56, and-90 days, and at 6 and 12 months. Contrary to this requirement (which was subsequently identified in N&D 9163 and 9192, dated November 1, 1979), safety- related concrete was placed. (See the concrete pour listing above l -6- I _ . _ _ -. - _ - -. .-.
. _. __-. . for specific placements.) This is contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and is therefore an item on noncompliance. Ic is noted that, subsequent to the placement of the safety-related concrete and as an outcome of the engineering evaluations conducted, it was determined that it is not a requirement to have results of the ASTM C227 test prior to use of the aggregate if low alkali cement is used. However, at that point in time (September - October 1979), those engineering judgements had not been established, nor had the Stone & Webster Construction Specifica- tion (210.360) been changed. Based on the evidence presented by the licensee, the IE inspector con- cluded that an engineering evaluation had been conducted by the licensee and that the results of their evaluation are acceptable. c. Conducted a Complete Review of Safety-Related Concrete Materials and Conducted Testing A review of safety-related concrete materials and testing were conducted in order to determine: (1) acceptability of cement; (2) the potential for alkali reactivity of aggregates (fine and coarse); and (3) acceptability of primary and standby water and ice sources. (1) Acceptability of Cement The IE inspector reviewed the Certified Mill Test Reports (CMTR) for Missouri Portland Cement attached to the following inspection reports: , Inspection Report Number Date 9000055 June 7, 1979 9000155 July 11, 1979 9000380 August 11, 1979 9000749 September 10, 1979 9000812 September 15, 1979 9001429 November 9, 1979 The CMTRs of cement -{7 viewed were indicative of approximately 2815 tons and as of December 4, 1979, approximately 2860 tons had been received on the River Bend site. All CMTRs reviewed p?r ~ 1/One CMTR for 1540 tons was reviewed and was being processed at the time of-the inspection. -7- l
. met the requirements of ASTM C150, " Standard Specification for Portland Cement." However, N&D 9194 and N&D 9195 identify failing , results for the heat of hydration tests performed at the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) for the Missouri Portland Cement. N&D 9217 and N&D 9218 identify further failures of the seven day results for heat of hydration tests performed at PIL. Per the disposition of the N&Ds, all of this cement has been placed in Category II and Category III structures and no longer remains at the site. At the time of this inspection, two barges of cement were being shipped to Missouri Portland's Union Louisiana facility. The licensee representative assured the IE inspector that cement used in massive placements for Category I structurcs would meet the seven day heat of hydration test requirements, or it would not be placed in these types of structures. " Therefore, the above item is considered to be unresolved, pending the heat of hydration test results from Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory. Stone & Webster Construction Specification 210.360, " Concrete Testing Services," was revised per E&CDR PS-8 to delete the requirement of ASTM C451, " Standard Test Method for Early Stiffening of Portland Cement (Paste Method)," to be used as an acceptance test for cement. The test will still be performed, but results will be utilized by the lead structural engineer "for information purposes" only. This is an optional physical requirement of ASTM C150, but it was observed that false set test results from PTL identified on N&D 9193 were consistently not meeting the ASTM C451 minimum requirement. Therefore, caution must be maintained when placing cement of this type to assure that consoli- dation is adequate, and that tempering water is not added to the mix. Stone & Webster Construction Specification 210.360 also requires that tests be performed on fine and coarse aggregates for measurement of potential alkali reactivity. ASTM C227, " Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement - Aggregate Combinations (Mortar Bar Method)," and ASTM C289, " Standard Test Method for Potential Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical Method)" are referenced in the PSAP as part of the principal plant structural specification for seismic Category I materials under " Concrete Testing Services" (Section 3.8.4.2). E&DCR PS-9 changed the specification so that these tests will be used for information only by the lead structural engineer. Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requires appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished. , This change deletes the accept / reject criteria as required, and is considered to be an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V. -8-
.__ _ _ _. _ _ __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ (2) Acceptability of Aggregates The IE inspector reviewed inspection reports for fine and coarse aggregates. During this review, the Fine Aggregate Reports observed in Inspection Report IR9001510 and Inspection Report IR9001595 indicated a value greater than 45% retention between two consecutive sieves for the fine aggregate sieve analysis. This violates the requirements of Section 4.3 of ASTM C33, " Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates." These values were not identified in the Inspection Reports j as not meeting the ASTM specification requirements. Criterion V of Appendix B requires that activities affecting quality be in accordance with prescribed instructions, pro- . cedures and drawings. This is considered to be an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V. A review of Inspection Report FQC-A-9128 revealed discrepancies in fine and coarse aggregate reports transmitted from the aggregate supplier. Further discussions with contractor and licensee personnel indicated that some gradation problems were being experienced; specifically, variations in the fineness modulus. Section 4.5 of ASTM C33 requires that if the value
for the fineness modulus varies by more than 0.20 from the value used in selecting the proportions for the concrete mix design, suitable adjustments must be made in the proportions " selected to compensate for the difference in grading. Licensee and contractor personnel stated that this had been identified, and at the time of this inspection, the gradations were not significant to adjust the proportions. Charts were prepared to
identify the gradation variations. (3) Acceptability of Water and Ice Sources The IE inspector reviewed records of qualification tests per- formed for water from sources Old Well #1, New Well #2, and for water used in Hernandez Ice. The first analysis performed with water from Old Well #1 failed the compressive strength requirements of ASTM C109, " Standard Test Method for Compres- sive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars." A retest-
was performed using water from the same sample, and the test results met the ASTM C109 requirements. A complete reanalysis , was performed, and all of the test results met the construction '; specification requirements. Test results reviewed for the samples taken from New Well #2 and from the water used in Hernandez' Ice were in'accordance with the construction specification requirements. . - -9- - - . ..- . .. .. .-. .-. . - .
. d. Conducted a Review of Mix Design Qualifications to Ascertain that all Requirements Have Been Met The IE inspector reviewed the mix design qualifications and noted that the licensee is conducting new trial mixes and prequalification mixes for safety-related concrete placements. The major change in the mix design was the elimination of the water-reducing admixture for easier workability. At the time of this inspection, the licensee and contractor personnel are awaiting 14 day cylinder breaks to determine that the new mixes meet the strength requirements. The IE inspector concluded that the design mixes had been reviewed by the licensee and all requirements have been met. e. Reviewed the Adequacy of Your Quality Assurance Program for Verify- ing Satisfactory Quality of Safety-Related Materials and Services with Particular Emphasis on those Programs Provided by Subcontractors GSU conducted a review of their Quality Assurance program, This was documented in a letter to Region IV (RBG 7003) of December 11, 1979. This review included an assessment of personnel resources and the S&W and GSU program for verification of the quality of safety-related materials and services. Specific attention was given to the process of subvendor/ subcontractor review. As a result of the review, GSU is instituting the following steps: (1) S&W has been directed to evaluate and approve all major sub- vendors on new contracts. (2) GSU has directed S&W to evaluate subvendors on existing con- tracts to insure that quality requirements are being met. (3) GSU QA will be more heavily involved in subsupplier's audits. The IE inspector concluded that an adequate review of the Quality Assurance Program has been conducted. f. Conducted an Audit of Delta Testing and Inspection, Inc., and Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories (PTL) to Verify Implementation of their QA Programs The IE inspector reviewed a report of a special inspection on the capabilities and qualifications of the Pittsburgh Testing Labo- ratories (PTL) to conduct concrete materials testing for the River Bend Project. Thisspgpialinspection/surveywasconducted on October 15, 1979, by S&W.yf A previous audit of PTL had been conducted on April 23, 1979.- During the survey of October 15, 1979, specific attention was given to the types of problems identified at 2/ Verified by a telephone call to PTL (McKay) on January 3, 1980 l -10- ! l
" the Southwestern L 13,1979,goratories. Another similar audit was made on November in response to the commitment made by GSU to Region IV. The results of the audits and surviellances were satisfactory and indicated that PTL was a well equipped, well staffed testing laboratory capable of performing the required ' tests. As of October 5, 1979, no further work was performed for River Bend by Delta Testing Laboratories. Concrete materials testing is now being performed by PTL or by S&W's Field Quality Control laboratory on site. Therefore, no audit was considered necessary to fulfill the requirements of this item. The IE inspector concluded that the required audit had been con- ducted by the licensee's agent, S&W. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. g. Provided Written Information to Region IV on Your Findings and Described Those Measures Considered Necessary for the Correction of the Matters Discussed Above Prior to resuming the placement of concrete in safety-related structures, the licensee provided information for review that verified that corrective measures have been properly implemented. The documents listed below provided written information to Region IV on the findings and corrective measures taken by GSU on the IAL matters discussed above: (1) GSU letter RBG-6879 December 6, 1979, to RIV (2) GSU letter RBG-7003 December 11, 1979, to RIV (3) RIV letter December 13, 1979, to GSU After review of the above documents and discussions with the GSU Director of Quality Assurance, the IE inspector concluded that the implementation of corrective measures have been and will be adequately monitored during concrete placement activities. The IE inspector also concluded that, with the implementation of conditions identified in (3) above, there is reasonable assurance that placement of concrete in safety-related structures will con- form to applicable codes and standards. 5. Immediate Action Letter to GSU dated December 13, 1979 A letter was issued to GSU on December 13, 1979, relating to the use of potentially reactive aggregates for Category I concrete at the River I b 3_/ Verified by a telephone call to PTL (McKay) on January 3, 1980 l -11- l
. Bend Station. The conditions in tFia letter were imposed by the licensee as a prerequisite for the ' :umption of placing Category I concrete. The implementation of these requirements is considered an unresolved item and will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection. 6. River Bend Reorganization On November 7, 1979, GSU announced the formation of the " River Bend Nuclear Group." An organization chart is shown in Figure I. The purpose of the nuclear group is to provide for the managing and controlling of all engineering, construction, operational and adminis- trative functions of River Bend Nuclear Generating Station ~. This reorganization was effective January 1, 1980. The following personnel appointments were made: L. L. Humphreys Executive Vice President, River Bend Nuclear Group Dr. J. G. Weigand Vice President, River Bend Operations and Technical l Systems ) J. H. Curless Controller W. F. Cummings Manager, Administrative Services J. E. Booker Manager, Technical Programs J. M. Glazar Project Engineer T. C. Crouse Director, Quality Assurance l A. C. Baker Director Materials Management G. D. Purdon Director, Industrial Engineering ) Two positions, Manager of Operations and Manager of Construction, are currently unfilled. 7. 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. Unresolved items disclosed during.the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 4.c and 5. . , -12-
_ _ . 8. Exit Interview The IE inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in para- graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on December 7, 1979. The IE inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The items of noncompliance were acknowledged by the licensee representative. . J
-13- _ _ _. - _. _
. . > .' . . m M U c
cm2 W U c o c- -oE u _z a o a n z E c.3 o o g m. < z,
== , E -oe - > m >- w o:"o' zu C MM m s >w aw >* u. o c; o oo o m u og 2o N us < =,g, u os a u_ z- wo a" =c aE um
y u E z= - 'o - - C 2 c c.c o m qu D < ~m c . c %oum - w am sC z oco be q b U H .e e .e % b E ] EEo =._ c_ $ Nc 'N d o am O -Em e Tu'c =E o = w Eu <= = z <g > -o Me z
c - 5>c w w a c<mo we a < ~2 E t c ~5 E b< c c og mR45= <E E P 12 5 =5 <= E twa8 E< " gm E Euw-c E o ..... < i t ! I
m Ea =8 m E cc5 $ e > . E,. t= 2"c - a = tc -x LS ESE 'C - LO PE
- < -
.n m> a.: m 8: c ro u ng w e. to a . - < u ,.: g a <g m w o u u ew u- u< u -E W 8 u> c o - C: . - - wm _ < e o at =~ o ze xm _. DC - "' =o z we Ats m% Kg_gggt Z "u E omwwwm ~ cc uo < = a ma g = e. u. ...... mL. oc > w I I
Y- co z ~ z z e: n Z" m w "Wo a o E= www a - C - m >.=:
- c;
>- u w _ = m > < m o - _ <a <- s= < *o** o
- w
e - m >su cz A J -M , U EM" du O &E gEI
n- w zw b s ow E
CE ogt a tw Em N 3 *r: s z5 "4 *
E
Wu a e c e e <- b r.: .: s z m w e o e s o h E b-- ah N bN OE ~" =.: g G m
E3 5 E3 2 m 3w m a os= m ms:c m mm5 > Omo -g ...... < t I i c: aseen EE _E
- =
oE
=e = mz z > c. z o- E o Eu - ow oc - so o -z >- <Z e ',
- z
- -
< - z m c, m u u s= C o- m c e s: m 3w m =. -S p c: =* >= w > E_ u g u g g =;; c
- = =
Cm mg w= m m_ m fu < o me mo z ou a , um zw zz -
== a3== - u' w o ow w c m e c o o m u o - g oe s- m < um c. c ou .... g y j g i I l l l I . }}