IR 05000458/1981006
| ML20009A593 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1981 |
| From: | Beach A, Crossman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009A591 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-81-06, 50-458-81-6, NUDOCS 8107130352 | |
| Download: ML20009A593 (10) | |
Text
r
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTIO;4 AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report:
50-458/81-06 Docket:
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:
April and May 1981 Inspector:
I 4/5///
/'
A. B. Beach,f esident Reactor Inspector
' Date L:
R Projects Section 3 Approved:
( [#
6/.$//'/
B
,t.9 W. A. Cross n, Chief, Projects Section 3
' / Date Insoection Summary:
Insoection During April and May 1981 (Report No. 50-458/81-06)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Inspector (RRI)
including follow up to previous inspection findings; follow up to licensee identified items; licensee's response to Bulletins; activities with regard to the reactor pressure vessel; site development work; and concrete placement activities.
The inspection involved 140 hours0.00162 days <br />0.0389 hours <br />2.314815e-4 weeks <br />5.327e-5 months <br /> by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the six major areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in five areas, one violation was identified with regard to site development work (violation - inadequate acceptance criteria for in place density testing of backfill, paragraph 7).
8107130352 810605 PDR ADOCK 05000458 G
-. - - - -
e
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Princioal Licensee Employees
- T. C. Crouse, Director, Quality Assurance
- P. D. Graham, Supervisor, Quality Msurance
- R. B. Stafford, Supervisor, Quality Assurance K. C. Hodges, QA Engineer R. R. Doggart, QA Engineer C.
L. Ballard, QA Engineer E. A. Troncelliti, QA Engineer
- J. R. Dunkelberg, Superintendent, Site Construction J. W. Leavins, Director, Site Engineering Stone and Webster Personnel
- C D. Lundin, Manager, Project Quality Assurar.ce
- R. L. Spence, Superintendent, Field Quality C;ntrol (FQC)
G. M. Byrnes, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
- J. D. Davis, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
- W. I. Clifford, Resident Manager E. A. Sweeny, Superintendent of Engineering P. D. Hanks, General Superintendent, Construction The RRI also interviewed other licensee and other Stone and Webster personnel during this inspection period.
- Denotes those persons with whom the RRI held on-site management meetings during the inspection period.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
,
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/78-01):
Vendor manuals for maintenance slow l
in arriving.
The current specification for storage and maintenance, 229.170
'
" Storage and Maintenance for Permanent Plant Equipment" now incorporates the appropriate vendor manual requirements within its text.
Thus, conflicts i
(
between vendor manual requirements and site specification requirements l
should be minimized.
This item is considered closed.
!
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/79-05):
Review of Subvendors.
The licensee in a letter dated April 3, 1981 (RBG-10057) requested that the requirement for increased frequency of the quality assurance review of subvendors by i
the contractor be relieved based on tne... number of deficiencies identified
'
i in the subvendor programs.
This increased frequency was the result of a commitment made in response to an NRC Immediate Action Letter dated
'
November 6, 1979 and a supplement to this letter dated December 13, 197 The licensee, in the request, states that additional requirements which have been incorporated into the subsupplier review program will provide and have provided the necessary quality assurance to evaluate the sub-vendors.
The RRI reviewed subvendor evaluations for Graver Energy Systems (Letter RBS-T-5836), Peele Company (Letter RBS-T-5823), Baily Meter (Letter RBS-T-5823), and Posi Seal International (Letter RBS-T-5823).
Stone and Webster letter RBS-T-5477, dated August 18, 1980, "S&W Procurement Quality Control (PQC) Audits / Schedules" was also reviewed.
The evaluations reviewed supported the licensee's request.
This item is considered closed.
3.
Licensee Identified Construction Deficiency Reports (Closed) Byron Jackson Pump Seal Leakage.
A deficiency involving a portion of the pump seal cooling water piping not tested to the pressure required by the ASME Sepcifications for five ECCS pumps as manufactured by Byron Jackson for River Bend was reported to the NRC by GSU in a letter dated December 2, 1977 (RBG-4757).
A December 30, 1977 letter (RBG-4813) from GSU to the NRC concluded that, as a result of their evaluation, this deficiency was not reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Furthermore, a March 13, 1978 letter from Byron Jackson to the NRC stated that the evaluation revealed that the deficiency was not report-able under the requirements of 10 CFR 21 as it does not meet the criteria
for " Determination of Creation of a Substantial Safety Hazard." This letter further stated that all subject piping will be hydrostatically tested to the pressure required by the appropriate ASME specificatior,.
This item is considared closed.
(Closed) Second Pop Phenomenon.
In a November 4, 1977 letter (RBG-4688),
GSU notified the NRC Region IV Office of a 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable deficiency regarding the safety relief valve second pop phenomenon.
It was determined that more than one valve will reactuate after the initial pressure transient from a reactor i.soldtion instead of a single valve predicted for Mark III containment design.
General Electric has likewise reported this design deficiency in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 21.
A letter explaining that the final analysis of this reportable
-
deficiency will be included in the River Bend safety analysis report has been sent to the Region IV office (RBG-10.269).
GE's generic resolution will incorporate a modification to the SRV control system logic as well.
(0 pen) Miscellaneous Steel Provided by CIVES Steel.
The NRC Region IV Office was notified on December 6, 1979 of a potentially reportable
,
'
deficiency with regard to miscellaneous steel provided by CIVES Steel Company.
The problem involved CIVES procurement of steel from suppliers
who did not meet applicable quality assurance requirements.
In addi-tion, a small amount of the questionable material was inadvertantly installed.
.. -
. - - _
- -. _.
- -
. -
,-
._-
_
C
..
A review of Stone and Webster Specification 210.320, Revision 1, "Miscel-laneous Steel and Embedments, Category I," indicated four nonconformance and dispostion (N&D) reports were initiated indicating low yield strength readings or questionable material for plates from one of the suppliers for CIVES steel.
N&D 9209 documents that a test specimen obtained from the same heat as that used on the mat anchor ring exhibited a yield strength of 48.3 ksi versus the specified 50 ksi of ASTM 588-74.
These were confirmatory tests.
The manufacturer's test indicated 52 ksi and 52.5 ksi.
N&D 9220 documents a 47.3 ksi for this same test performed by the independent testing agency.
In addition, the element nickel composition test per-formed by the agency conflicted with the canufacturer's test results.
N&D 9225 and N&D V009 document other suspect material from this same manufacturer and supplier to CIVES steel.
These conditions were evaluated by the licensee and found not to constitute a reportable deficiency under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The RRI, however, requires assurance that the design calculations for the mat anchor ring reflect that the actual stresses are less than the maximum allowed and that the appropriate design criteria as defined in the safety analysis report has not been violated by the low yield strength readings obtained during tensile testing.
Additionally, the RRI requires assurance that none of the suspect material performs an actual structural function and has little or no structural significance.
This item will remain open.
(Closed) Incorrect input to the finite element model used to calculate l
the amplified floor response spectra of the Reactor Building structures due to the hydrodynamic forces in the suppression pool.
This subject was reported to the Region IV Office as a potentially reportable construction deficiency (10 CFR 50.55(e)) on August 14, 1980.
A Stone and Webster letter dated March 17, 1980 (RBS-4794) to the licensee revealed that the input used to generate the amplified response spectra for the safety relief valve loading resulted from misalignment of data on one computer card causing incorrect material properties to be used in the computer analysis.
Stone and Webster concluded that by correcting the discrepancy of the input in the calculations, there was no adverse impact on the design of the structures and had this problem remained uncorrected, it would not have affected the safety of the plant.
A letter from the licensee to the Region IV Office dated April 1, 1981 (RBG-10.034) concluded that this item is not a reportable deficiency under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This item is considered close. -.
_..
_.
.
4.
Licensee Actions In Resoonse to IE Bulletins The RRI reviewed the licensee's April 22, 1981 letter (RBG-10.167) in response to IE Bulletin 80-21. " Valve Yokes Supplied by Malcolm Foundry Company, Inc." which stated their investigation was not complete.
This Bulletin was discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-458/81-04.
Responses to Bulletins from the year 1977 to September 1980 were reviewed.
Timeliness of the licensee's response was in accordance with established NRC requirements.
5.
Site Tour The RRI toured the safety-related plant areas several times weekly during this inspection period to observe the progress of construction and the general practices involved.
One specific area reviewed by the RRI during these tours involved in place storage of piping.
The RRI noted several unsatisfactory conditions in the Diesel Generator Building, Control Building, and the Auxiliary Building relative to in-place storage of safety-related piping.
Most of these conditions were documented on Inspection Reports IR1000167 and IR10000154.
However, corrective action had not yet been completed.
The RRI discussed these conditions with licensee and contractor personnel and explained the importance of timely corrective actien.
These conditions were first documented at the end of March 1981 by S&W FQC and additional documenta-tion was provided on a copy of an interoffice memorandum indicating similar conditions around the end of April 1981.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Reactor Pressure Vessel The Reactor Pressure Vessel arrived by a barge shipment to River Bend during this reporting period.
Activities with regard to RPV head removal and storage were observed.
The RPV was safely unloaded May 13, 1981.
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Site Development Work The RRI initiated this portion of the inspection with the review of the Stone and Webster Specification 210.100, Revision 2, " Site Development Work."
The applicable portions of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) were also reviewed to ensure that the appropriate Category I activities were being performed in accordance with the licensee's commitments.
--
_
- _ - - _ - - -. -., - - - _ _ -,.
.
_ - -. ~. - _,.
. - _ _.
.
- -_
-
-
,
Specification 210.100 requires that tests for in place density and moisture content for Class I granular fill materials be performed in accordance with ASTM D2167-66 (Washington Densometer).
The test for moisture content, however, usually is determined in accordance with the " Quick Dry Method" as outlined under " Modifications to Test Procedure" within the referenced specification.
The RRI reviewed aporoximately ten in place density tests performed for Category I fill in various areas for the year 1979.
Ten more in place densities were reviewed for the year 1980.
Approximately thirty tests for in place density were reviewed for the first quarter of 1981.
All test reports reviewed were found to be in accordance with the applicable specification requirenients.
The RRI noted that the testing frequency usually exceeded the established minimum frequency requirement of the specification.
A sieve analysis in accordance with ASTM C136-71 (except for Section 5.3 as modified in the specification) is required to be performed both at the stockpile source and in place at the fill.
Maximum / minimum density tests are to be performed in accordance with ASTM D2049-69 using an electromagnetic vibratory table with material obtained from the vicinity of every fifth in place density test made on Class I fill.
The RRI reviewed ten sieve analyses and ten maximum / minimum density tests performed during the first quarter of 1981 and fotii them to be in accordance with the soils testing requirements of Spe:ification 210.100, Revision 2.
Testing frequencies met the specit;ea require-ments.
Specification 210.100 requires that a reference curve correlating relative density to in place density be established.
The curve is to be updated on the basis of current maximum / minimum density test results.
The acceptable criteria will be a minimum acceptable in place unit weight derived for compaction control from the maximum / minimum density tests.
In addition, work shall be performed such that a high percentage of the fill is placed in excess of seventy percent relative density.
Occasional test results between sixty and seventy percent may be accepted on a case-by-case basis.
A review of the minimum acceptable unit weights as established on the test reports reviewed indicated that the highest velue of density corresponding to sixty percent relative density was nosen as the minimum acceptable in place density.
This is contrary to the -"
- y percent minimum acceptable unit weight procedure as defined ir...
specification and the SAR.
This is considered to be a violation to
,
-a
-
,
. - _, - -,,.,.
. - - -. -
.,--,----.-,-,.-.,,.y
.n
., -,, -
.
-n
- -,
.
c
.
-
Criterion XI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, i.e., specifically, inappro-priate qualitative acceptance limits for the minimum unit weight for compaction control contrary to specification requirements.
The RRI additionally requested that the licensee, in response to this violation, address the affects of this calculation on the average relative density as defined in the SAR.
In addition, the statement that a "High Percentage" of the fill is to be placed in excess of seventy percent relative density, represents a qualita-tive rather than quantitative value and as such does not satisfy the requirement that test procedures incorporate acceptance limits.
The RRI also reviewed several inspection reports and the associated attributes relative to soils testing.
Qualifications of soils testing inspection personnel were found to be in accordance with the May 1981 FQC Matrix, which defines those tasks which an inspector is qualified or may perform.
Technical manuals for compaction equipment were reviewed.
The on going program for settlement monitoring as well as the location of exten-someters and settlement markers were discussed with the geotechnical engineers.
These manuals and programs were found to be in accordance with the specification requirements.
8.
Concrete Placement Activities A.
Reinforcing Steel The requirements for the reinforcing steel used in Category I concrete placements at River Bend are established in Stone and Webster Specifica-tion 210.341, Revision 2, " Specification for Reinforcing Steel."
Eight receipt inspection packages and their associated documentation for certification were reviewed as follows:
Material Receiving Reoort Insoection Report Heat Numbers 79-1237 59100016 29-1562 29-1563 29-1588 29-1589 29-1590 29-1591
r
~
l
Material Receiving Report
Inspection Report
79-1237
59100019
29-1554
29-1555
29-1563
29-1564
29-1565
29-1573
29-1574
29-1573
29-1576
29-1577
79-1561
59100049
29-1581
29-1577
29-1583
79-5894
$9100515
29-1712
29-1714
80-2330
S0100271
T0-2151
T0-2152
T0-2153
T0-2154
80-11328
S0101359
A219K262
80-11431
50101359
8217K189
80-11329
S0101359
C218K258
These packages included documentation for reinforcing steel used
in the reactor base mat, the Control Building, and the shield
wall.
All documentation reviewed met the requirements of ASTM A615
and Specification 210.341, Revision 2.
Chemical requirements
l
- - _ _. _.
.,. - _,.. _... -. _ _., _ _
., -.
...
__
. - _.. _ _ _ -... -, _
_ _ - _, _ -..
. - _ -, _
r
. _ -
.
.
-
and testing requirements were within the applicable specifi-
cation limits as well as NRC Regulctory Guide 1.15, Revision 1,
" Testing of Reinforcing Bars for Category I Concrete Structures."
The RRI reviewed Engineering and Design Coordination Report P-1283,
which requests that the specification be revised to allow the use of
Grade 60 material on a one bar-to-one bar basis in place of Grade 40
material or Grade 50 material.
The RRI, however, needs additional
information to ensure that the concrete will not crush prior to the
yielding of the steel in a seismic event.
Until this information
is obtained this item is considered to be unresolved.
B.
Concrete Placement Activities
The following concrete placements were reviewed by the RRI in this
inspection period:
PLACEMENT
POUR CARD
PT-5-W92D4
5825
l
PT-5-W91E3
5557
j
PT-5-W91D3
5829
AB-7-M95B5
5642
CB-16-W131A2
5682
CB-17-S135A3
5749
CB-17-513501
5752
CB-16-W131
5766
Work was found to be performed in accordance with Specification 210.370,
Revision 6, " Placing Concrete and Reinforcing Steel." However, the
RRI needs additional information indicating that concrete was placed
and consolidated before initial set.
Specification 210.370, Revision 6, requires that concrete shall be
placed and consolidated before initial set has occurred and before
i
<.-.
_ _. _ - _, _ _ _
_. _ _,
.
..
.
..
_
..
.c
'
it has contained its water content for more than 90 minutes.
Agitation of the concrete mix in the truck mixer shall not exceed
300 revolutions.
However, these limitations may be waived in accordance with ASTM C94
provided the concrete can be placed without the addition of water
to the batch.
Based on observation of the times at which
cylinders were made and tira of placement versus times batched,
the RRI could not determine if adequate controls were being
maintained.
Thus, this item is considered to be unresolved.
9.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations
or deviations.
Two such items are discussed in paragraph 8 and will
be entitled " Substitution of Grade 60 Reinforcing Steel for Grades 40
and 50" and " Time Limits for Category I Concrete Placements," respec-
tively, in future discussions.
10.
Management Interviews
The RRI met with one or more of the persons identified in paragraph 1
at various times during the inspection period.
An exit meeting was
held on May 13, 1981 to discuss various findings.
m