IR 05000458/1980004
| ML19312E096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1980 |
| From: | Beach A, Crossman W, Oberg C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E093 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-80-04, 50-458-80-4, NUDOCS 8006030225 | |
| Download: ML19312E096 (5) | |
Text
i O
-
G
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIbSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT l
REGION IV
i Report No. 50-458/80-04 Docket No. 50-458 Category A2 Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities Post Office Box 2951 Beaumont, 7 exas 77704 Facility Name:
River Pend, Unit No. 1 Inspection at: River Bend Site Inspection conducted: March 31 - April 3, 1980 Inspector:
b 10CiL)
IM50 A. B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support
~Date Section Reviewed:
/f 8 O
.
,
,.-
C. R. Oberg, Reacgr Inspector, Projects Section Date 7-
$//n'//'d Approved:
-
<
W. A. Crossman, Chiff, Projects Section Date
'
Y /[73'
.
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section
/Dage Inspection Summary:
Inspection on March 31 - April 3, 1980 (Report 50-458/80-04)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of maintenance and storage of safety-related equipment, concrete placement activity, and installation activities regarding concrete reinforcing steel. The inspection involved twenty-eight inspector hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance' or deviations were identified.
80060302 M Q
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- T. C. Crouse, Director QA i
- J. R. Dungelberg, Assistant Superintendent
- P. D. Graham, QA Engineer
- K. C. Hodges, QA Engineer
- J. W. Leavines, Engineering
- R. B. Stafford, Supervisor-Quality Systems Other Personnel
- J. G. Borden, QA, Stone & Webster (S&W)
- G. M. Byrnes, FQC, S&W D. Castleberry, QC Engineer, S&W
- W. I. Clifford, Resident Manager, S&W J. Ellifritz, Materials Supervisor, S&W B. Fichtenkort, Senior Field Engineer, S&W B. Hall, QC Senior Engineer, S&W
- H. D. Laford, Construction, S&W
- A. J. Lossu, Superintendent of Engineering, S&W
- R. L. Spence, Superintendent FQC, S&W
- L. W. Worley, FQC, S&W 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 in attendance at the exit interview.
2.
Site Tour The IE inspector walked through the various construction areas to observe the general progress of construction activities.
Concreting formwork activities were observed, as well as installation and erection of the drywell and the weir wall liner plates.
During this tour, the licensee indicated that Dywidag Threadbar, as j
manufactured by Dyckerhoff and Widmann, had been received at the site for use in Category II and Category III structures. The lot of reinforcing steel threadbar currently at the site is less than 1000 bars. A September 18, 1979, letter from Gulf States Utilities to Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation informs all personnel performing procurement activities fc1 the River Bend Station that they should be aware that reinforcing steel shall only be purchased as Category I under Construction Specification 210.341 as delineated
.
'
.-
in Gulf States Utilities interim report to the NRC, dated November 29, 1977.
Further discussion with the licensee revealed that it was their intention to request a waiver to this interim report so that it would I
be permissable to use the Dywidag reinforcement system in Category II and Category III concrete structures.
Subsequently, the IE inspector j
reviewed procedures CSI 1.2-5.79, " Control Marking 'Non-QA' Category I l-Reinforcing Steel," and FRI-S10.61-02, " Controlled Non-Category I Reinforcing Steel." These were found to be in accordance with the requirements of Construction Specification 210.370, Revision 2, " Placing i
Concrete and Reinforcing Steel." The nonconforming reinforcing steel is being controlled in accordance with tbase procedural controls to preclude its use in Category I structures.
Pending review and approval of the intended change to the interim report committment noted above, ordering and receipt of the material is con-sidered an unresolved item.
In addition, during this tour, the licensee indicated that a Nonconformance Report had been written concerning certain weld areas not meeting the specification requirement for the rebar shear assemblies. These rebar shear assemblies will be used in the Drywell, the Weir Well, and the Reactor Pedestal areas.
At the time of this inspection, the first rebar assembly was in the pricess of being installed in the Reactor Pedestal area.
l The IE inspector reviewed N&D 9484, and subsequently discussed its disposition with the site Stone and Webster Engineer. A discussion of the Nonconformance Report was likewise conducted with the Stone and Webster FQC Inspector who identified the shear bar to reinforcing steel weld defects that do not meet the visual acceptance criteria of AWS D12.1.
As a result of the identification of these weld defects, which included lack of fusion, undercut, overlap, and insufficent welds, the contractor personnel made a trip to Pittsburgh Bridge and Iron, the fabricator, to make an inspection of production weld tensile test specimens tested to represent the shear bar assembly welds made at the vendor's shop.
These production tests revealed that all tensile test fracture values occurred in the shear bar or reinforcing steel, well above the required minimum test values, with no failures observed within the weld areas.
Inspection Report IRS 0200002 was written to document the correlation between the test specimens and the actual welds on the assembly in accordance with QAD 7.11, Revision 0, " Sampling Inspection." As a result of these discussions and this review, the fact that the disposition was in accordance with the intent of the specification requirement was substantiated.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
. -
. _.
..
.
._.
'
.
3.
Equipment Maintenance and Storage The IE inspector reviewed contract procedures CMP 1.3, Revision 0,
" Material / Equipment Storage," and CMP 1.12, " Material Equipment /
Maintenance." After this review, the IE inspector toured the warehouse storage areas and reviewed the applicable records to assure that the requirements of these procedures were being met.
The storage requirements for the High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) pump motor were noted and its Equipment Storage History Card (ESHC) reviewed.
The pump motor, pump S/N DNJ 406003, was observed to meet the proper storage requirements as defined in CMP 1.3, Revision O.
The ESHC, ESHC No. 21, Revision D, was observed to be in accordance with CSI 20.1-3.78,
" Equipment Storage History Card."
Records indicated that the last quarterly inspection was performed on March 8, 1980, and the last annual inspection, performed in the presence of the manufacturer's representative, was completed on October 16, 1979.
All records reviewed and all activities observed were found to be in compliance with Contract Specification 229.170, Revision 2, " Storage and Maintenance of Equipment and Materials."
During the warehouse tour, the IE inspector noted that the heaters for the 13.8KV Metal Clad Switchgear were not energized.
A review of Equipment Specification 242.510 revealed these heaters were to remain continuously energized. Further record review indicated this had been
identified by S&W FQC on Inspection Report X0000006.
A review of ESHC No. 286 for the switchgear revealed maintenance was not being performed as required by Engineering Discrepancy Report (E&DCR) 298.
Discussion with contractor personnel indicated that maintenance was not being performed as required due to an " access problem." Although this equipment is not considered to be safety-related, the IE inspector expressed his concern as to the fact that the maintenance was not being performed as required by contract procedures and the possible future impact on safety-related items.
This matter will be continued to be reviewed in subc quent inspections.
,
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Concrete Placement The IE inspector attended a meeting with the contractor and other personnel concerning the concrete placement problem currently being experienced at the River Bend site. The meeting, held on April 2,
'
1980, basically identified the fact that there was a problem with l
early stiffening of the cement. To try and solve this problem, it was determined that the grind (consistency) of the cement should be changed to try to preclude this early stiffening.
During a previous inspection p,erformed on November 18-21 and December 4-7, 1979, the IE inspector identified the consistent failure of the cement to meet the minimum requirement of ASTM C451, " Standard
'
t l
'
-
_
_. _, _, _.
, _ _
- - _--
-
-
,.
Test Method for Early Stiffening of Portland Cement (Paste Method)."
This fact and the subsequent specification change were discussed in Inspection Report 50-458/79-06.
Until resolution of this problem by the contractor, this matter will continue to be reviewed in subsequent inspec-tions to ensure that the safety of Category I structures is not compromised.
The IE inspector also toured the concrete testing laboratory facility.
Discussion with contractor personnel indicated that the inspection and test forms for ASTM C127, " Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption for Coarse Aggregate," and ASTM C128," Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption for Fine Aggregate," were revised to reflect all of the necessary calculations.
Other inspection and test forms were in the process of being revised.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Snresolved 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 disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 2.
6.
Exit Interview The IE inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 3, 1980.
The IE inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
I l
I I
)