IR 05000458/1980001
| ML19296D667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Randy Hall, Tapia J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296D665 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-80-01, 50-458-80-1, NUDOCS 8003120729 | |
| Download: ML19296D667 (10) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No.
50-458/80-01 Docket No.
50-458 Category A2 Licensee: Gulf States Utilities Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Facility Name: River Bend, Unit No. 1 Inspection at: River Bend Site Inspection conducted: January 9-11 and 14-18, 1980 Inspectors:
/ 8!Ao
/y/t.R.Oberg,ReactorInspector
~
Da'te O
Projects Section (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3.a, 3.h & 4) ~
\\, l.
' e ne r.
f !?O. I
~s A. B. Beach, Reactor Inspector Date
Engineering Support Section (Paragraphs 3.b, ~3.c & 3.d)
$b8/Ob J. I. Tapia," Reactor Inspector
' Date
'
Engineering Support Section (Paragraphs 3.e, 3.f & 3.g)
W
/h8
- n ~
d W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date
,
o
.
Approved:
__
/!L d
-
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date N 8l@
/
1. E. Hallf Chief, Engineering Support Section ' Dafe Inspection mmarv:
Inspection on January 9-11 and 14-18, 1980 (Report 50-458/80-01)
Areas Investigated: Routine, announced inspection of preparations for and placement of Reactor Building base mat; and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
The inspection involved one hundred fifty-six inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors and one supervisor on site during the monolithic placement.
Results: Of three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
/
o-2-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees Larry L. Humphreys, Executive Vice President, 'lver Bend Group Dr. J. G. Weigand, Vice President, River Bend Operations and Technical Systems J. E. Booker, Manager Technical Programs
- T.
L. Crouse, Director Quality Assurance
- J.
E. Wimberly, Superintendent, Site Construction B. Rickman, Civil Engineer
- M. E. Walton, Project Engineer
- J.
Dunkelberg, Assistant Superintendent Site Construction
- G.
T. Warner, QA Engineer
- J. Levines, Assistant Project Engineer
- R. Stafford, QA Engineer
- J. Hudson, QA Engineer Other Personnel (Stone & Webster)
- W.
I. Cliffe-d, Resident Manager (Construction)
- C. D. Lundin, Project QA Manager
- J. C. Carson, Structural Engineer (CHOC)
- L. T. Rouen, QA Engineer
- R. Hutchinson, Assistant Superintendent of Construction
- R.
L. Spence, Superintendent, FQC
- R. Van Eppes, Consultant (Concrete Specialist)
- A. Kamdar, Resident Engineer The IE inspectors 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.
Licensee Actien on Previous Inspection Findings
,
(CloseC. Unresolved Item (50-458/79-02):
Construction Deficiency -
Breakdown in Quality Assurance Program for Reinforcing Steel.
All nonconforming rebar has been marked or removed from the site.
This item is considered closed.
-3-
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/79-05): Potential Construction Deficiency Report - Grade 50 Reinforcing Steel Imperfections.
This event was reviewed by the Corporate Nuclear Review C_.cittee (CNRC) on November 8,1979.
They determined that the event was not reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e) based on the following:
a.
All twenty spectnens which were destructively tested met tensile strength requirements (greater than 50,000 psi).
b.
No visually rejectable rebar was used in any (safety-related)
structure.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/79-05):
Potential Construction Deficiency - Structural Fabrication of Primary Shield Wall.
CSU initially reported problems with the fabrication of the primary shield wall as a potential construction defic $ency to the NRC (Region IV) on November 5, 1979.
A written notification was made on December 3, 1979.
A final report to the NRC was issued on December 31, 1979, indicating that the event is not reportable under the conditions of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The IE inspector reviewed the evaluation made by the licensee as to the reportability of the event.
GSU QA Procedure No. 16, Revision 1, (October 15, 1979) requires the reporting of significant deficiencies to the NRC.
Through discussion with the licensee representatives, it was determined that this procedure is being modified to identify requirements for the reporting of potentially significant construction deficiencies.
The IE inspector confirmed that a review and evaluation of this event was made by the Corporate Nuclear Review Cammittee (CNRC) :as required by the licensee procedures on December 18, 1979.
This item is considered closed.
.
(Closed) Unresolved Item'(50-458/79-05): Potential Construction Deficiency - Cadweld RP-517B.
The IE inspector reviewed the evaluation made by GSU concerning the reportability of a " slugged" series B Cadweld, including N&D No. 9130 (Nonconf ormance and Disposition Report).
This item was reported verbally to the IE inspector on November 1, 1979.
The CNRC concluded that this item was not reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Their conclusion was based on the following:
a.
All previous Cadwelds performed by the suspected operator were reinspected. No discrepancies were found. <
b.
All Series B Cadwelds co=pleted on the Reactor Building through October 22, 1979, were reinspected.
No discrepancies were found.
-4-
Interviews conducted by other personnel working with Cadwelds con-c.
firmed that this event was a single isolated occurrence.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/79-06): Use of Cement Which Failed Seven Day Heat of Hydration Tests in a Safety-Related Structure.
The use of the sum of the tricalcium silicate and tricalcium aluminate as an optional chemical test in lieu of the seven day heat of hydration optional physical test indicates the cement used for the Control Building is satisfactory for use.
This item is considered closed.
3.
Unit No. 1 Concrete Mat Placement a.
General Information The placement of the River Bend, Unit No. 1, Reactor Building founda-tion mat was observed by the IE inspectors during this inspection.
The placement began approximately 7:15 a.m. on January 15, 1980, and was completed approximately 9:00 p.m. on January 17, 1980.
The founda-tion mat was placed under a special Field Procedure 210.370-FP.1 (Revision 1), approved by Stone & Webster Engineering on January 14, 1950, and contained the methods for the monolithic placement of concrete in the base mat.
The placement of concrete involved three organizations.
Stone & Webster Construction Department (S&WCD) was responsible for placing the safety-related concrete. National Mobile Concrete Corporation (NMCC) was responsible for mixing and delivery of concrete to the placement site.
S&W Field Quality Control (FQC) performed all preplacement, concrete production and concrete placement inspections and was also responsible for all required testing.
T!c Reactor Building base mat contains approximately 6654 cubic yards of concrete.
Concrete was placed using a step technique from east to west across the Reactor Building mat.
Provisions were made for monitoring the temperature development of the mat during curing of the concrete.
Personnel involved in the base mat placement attended special training classes.
Results of the IE inspection around-the-clock observations during the placement are contained in the following paragraphs.
b.
Observation of Batch Plant Operation and Truck Certification The IE inspectors periodically observed activities with regard to batch plant operations during the placement of concrete for the base mat of the-5-
Reactor Building. Three batch plants on site could be used during the placement.
They were as follows:
Erie-Strayer Plant: Primary Plant APC0 Dry Batch Plant: Secondary Plant Rex Dry Batch Plant: Back-up Plant The primary and secondary plants were manned for the production of con-crete, whereas the back-up plant remained ready for operation in case of failure of one of the other plants. All plants had received the NRMCA certification.
A random selection of batch tickets indicated accuracy of material control with proper proportions established and adhered to in the mix design.
Adjustments to the mix design were being performed to compensate for changes in the moisture content of the aggregates.
Qualified inspec-tion personnel were monitoring the generation and control of batch records, and all activities observed were in accordance with the contract specifi-cations.
.
Storage facilities for cement (including temporary facilities on site),
aggregate facilities, and ice facilities were inspected and weru adequate to meet the production rate required by the base mat placement.
All scales observed were found to be current with respect to the cali-bration data at the site.
Concrete trucks were inspected for calibrated and approved water meters.
Qualified QC inspection personnel monitored the revolutions of the mixing and agitating drums, as well ts the maximum amount of mixing water that could be added to the mix, as indicated on the batch ticket. All trucks observed met NRMCA requirements, as well as the Construction Specification 210.350 requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
c.
Concrete Materials Used in the Base Mat Placement (1) Cement Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) reports for tests of cement, dated January 10, 1980, for the Missouri Portland Type II cement were reviewed. Test results obtained complied with the standard chemical and physical requirements of ASTM C-150, " Standard Specification for Portland Cement". However, the test results obtained for the optional physical seven day heat of hydration tests were not within the specification limits of 70 cal /g.
However, the sum of tricalcium silicate and tricalcium aluminate-6-
-
.
may be specified as an optional chemical requirement in lieu of the seven day heat of hydration test for moderate heat of hydration cement. Test results obtained using this method were well within the 58% maximum requirement.
T>-se test results were as follows:
Seven Date Heat of Sum of Tricalcium Silicate Report Number Hydration Results and Tricalcium Aluminate Results 803075 75 cal /g 49.3%
803077 82 cal /g 47.2%
803078 69 cal /g 46.5%
803080 72 cal /g 44.6%
803081 65 cal /g 43.2%
803083 74 cal /g 41.2%
A review of Cement Mill Test Reports (CMTR) indicated that the cement complied with all of the requirements of ASTM C-150, including the optional seven day heat of hydration test.
Construc-tion Specification 210.350, " Mixing and Delivering Concrete,"
subsequently was changed to require that the optional chemical requirement of the sum of the tricalcium silicate and tricalcium aluminate be specified as the test to be performed instead of the seven day heat of hydration test.
This will be reflected on future CMTRs from the supplier of the cement.
(2) Water and Ice The IE inspectors reviewed test results from the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) for "Carthage" water for ice to be used mainly for the concrete mix out of the APC0 Dry Batch Plant. This ice was also used as a back-up to the on-site ice plant.
All test results reviewed for the "Carthage" water met the construction specification requirements. Water from "Old Well #1", "New Well
- 2, and water for the Hernandez Ice test results were reviewed in previous inspections, and were found to be within the acceptable limits of the specification requirements.
(3) Aggregates
-
Locumentation was reviewed for the daily performance of gradation tests during concrete prof 9 tion. Documentation reviewed met the requirements of ASTM C-33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates". Moisture content tests for the fine and coarse aggre-gates were also performed regularly, approximately twice per shift, and the mix design was adjusted appropriately to compensate for the changes in moisture content in the aggregates.
-7-
-
.
Prequalification data of the coarse and fine aggregates were reviewed in previous inspections, and results of those inspections are addressed in the applicable reports (50-458/79-02 and 50-458/79-06).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
d.
Concrete Testing The IE inspectors observed concrete testing procedures during the base mat placement. A concrete testing area was established away from the aain placement area to assist in concrete testing and slump adjustment, and to co-ordinate trucks to the placement area.
At the placement area, measurements for slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature were performed each 50 cubic yards of placement, with concrete test cylinders being molded every 100 cubic yards.
A trailer was set up near the test area for storage of these cylinders during the initial twenty hours, when they would be progressively moved to the moist cure room in the concrete test laboratory.
All concrete testing activities observed were in compliance with field construction procedures and the construction specification.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
e.
Preplacement Inspection The IE inspectors attended the preplacement meeting held for construction and Quality Control personnel the day before the Reactor Building base mat placement. The meeting was the last in a series of meetings held throughout the preceding month to delineate the responsibilities and logistics to be used for the base mat placeme.:t.
The " Concrete Pour Card / Checklist, Pour No. RSI-M-70-1" was reviewed for certification of adherence to the procedural and design requirements by the construction, engineering and Quality Control departments.
Additionally, the Stone & Webster Quality Assurance " Pre-Placement Inspection Report No. S0000164" and " Concrete Pre-Placement Inspection Plan" were also reviewed. The IE inspectors also toured the base mat area prior to the placement and observed the condition of the embedments, reinforcing steel and cleanliness.
'
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-8-
.
f.
Concrete Placement The IE inspectors monitored the 6657 cubic yard Reactor Building base mat placement which occurred over a 62 hour7.175926e-4 days <br />0.0172 hours <br />1.025132e-4 weeks <br />2.3591e-5 months <br /> period on an around-the-clock basis.
The observations specifically addressed the placement of the concrete in a continuous and uninterrupted canner and proper consolidation to assure a monolithic structure.
The concrete was placed using the step technique in accordance with ACI 304-73, " Recommended Practice for Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and Placing Concrete" and ACI-309-72,
" Recommended Practice for Consolidation of Concrete." A concrete lift thickness of 20 inches and a 5 feet wide bench was used in order to assure that the exposed face of the concrete moved evenly across the base mat.
The observed activities were observed to conform to the requirements of S&W Field Procedure No. 210.370, Revision 1, " Reactor Building Foundation Mat Concrete Placement," and S&W Specification No. 210.370, Revision 1, " Placing Concrete and Reinforcing Steel."
The IE inspectors also accompanied the GSU QA Engineers in their imple-mentation of GSU Surveillance Plan, " Monolithic Reactor Base Mat Place-ment."
This GSU surveillance program provided additional verification of adherence to requirements.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
g.
Concrete Mix Design The IE inspector conducted a review of the selection of proportions of ingredients for the concrete mix B-2 used in the Reactor Building base The Compressive Strength Test Reports of the laboratory trial mat.
batches used to develop the curve showing the relationship between water-cement ratio and compressive strength were specifically reviewed.
The selection of proportions and the development of the curve were found to conform to the requirements of ACI 318-71, " Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," and ACI 211.1-74, " Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal and Heavyweight Concrete." The S&W QA " Concrete Mix Prequalifications Report" was also reviewed.
This report presented the result of the QA inspection conducted during the qualification of the selected mix using the main batch plant.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
h.
Post Placement Observations
-
The IE inspector observed initial curing of the base mat concrete on the day following placement.
All exposed surfaces were covered with damp burlap.
Craft personnel were observed cleaning surfaces removing excess
_g_
.
..
concrete to provide a bonding surface for erection of containment walls.
Labor personnel were also observed wetting the burlap to maintain curing.
Curing operations began as soon as the concrete surface could be covered without damage. Water curing is to be conducted for seven days with an additional curing period of seven to twelve days curing by covering with plastic sheeting.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Exit Interview The IE inspectors met with the licensee representatives (deaoted in para-graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 18, 1980. The IE inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
'
.-
e-10-