IR 05000458/1981007
| ML20030D479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Beach A, Crossman W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20030D473 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-81-07, 50-458-81-7, NUDOCS 8109010438 | |
| Download: ML20030D479 (13) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report:
50-458/81-07 Category A2 Docket:
50-458 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:
June through July 15, 1981
,
Inspector: G @Mw[
T//p/r/
4 1. B. Beach, Resident Reactor Inspector Date A
/
Projects Section 3
<
Approyed: M 9.7, N </ m d T//?/7/
pH.A.Crossman, Chief,ProjectsSection3 Date Inspection Summary:
Inspection Conducted June and July 1981 (Report No. 50-458/81-07)
_ Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Inspector (RRI) including follow-up to presious inspection findings; follow-up to licensee identified items; activities with regard to the reactor pressure vessel; primary shield wall; concrete placement activities, and Class IE electric equipment qualification.
The inspection involved 132 inspect;,r-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
i i
G
.
- -.
-
_
-.
. - _..
- _ -
.. _. _ _, - _. _. _ _. - - _. _ - _,. -
..
_ _ _.. _ - _ _ _ _.
_
m
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
P. D. Graham, Director, Quality Assurance R. B. Stafford, Supervisor, Quality Assurance G. V. King, Supervisor, Quality Assurance C. L. Ballard, QA Engineer K. C. Hodges, QA Engineer I. M. Malik, QA Engineer
R. E. Oprea, QA Engineer W. S. Stuart, QA Engineer
.
T. C. Crouse, Superintendent, Site Construction M. A. Walton, Director (Acting), Site Engineering i
Stone and Webster Persontj C. D. Lundin, Manager, Project Quality Assurance
i R. L. Spence, Superintendent, Field Quality Control (FQC)
j G. M. Byrnes, Assistant Superintendent, FQC I
J. D. Davis, Assistant Superintendent, FQC R. L. Whitley, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
W. I. Clifford, Resident Manager E. A. Sweeny, Superintendent of Site Engineering P. D. Hanks, General Superintendent, Construction The RRI also interviewed adoitional licensee, Stone and Webster, and other contractor personnel during this inspection period.
,
'
- Denctes those persons with whom the RRI held on-site management meetings during this inspection period.
2.
Licensee Actio.J Taken in Response to Previous NRC Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction (50-458/80-02):
Failure to perform and failure to identify inadequate aggregate tests.
The RRI reviewed a selected sample of aggregate test reports (reference paragraph 8 of this report)
for errors and incomplete entries.
Minimum sample sizes as required by the appropriate test specifications were reviewed as well.
All aggregate test reports reviewed were found to be accurate, complete, and in accordance with the imposed requirements.
C
--
,.,,
- -,., -, -,
-,,. -
,,,
f,, -, - -,, -
-w_
-,----.ww-,,,4
,----... -,..
-- --
7 m u
-, - -,, - -,-..-_.,-.--.
yr,-
e
,
.
.
The response by the licensee to this infraction (reference GSU letter RBG-7482, dated %pril 10, 1980) committed to an organizational change to increase supervision in the civil test laboratory at the River Bend site.
Although supervision was increased, adequate corrective action was not achieved (reference NRC Inspection Report 50-458/81-02).
However, during this inspection period, the RRI toured the testing laooratory on several occasions and observed that tests were performed in an orderly manner by qualified inspection personnel.
Reports were reviewed and evaluated prcmptly.
Laboratory supervision was found to meet or exceed the licensce's commitrtent in response to this inspection finding.
This item is considered closed.
'
(Closed) Infraction (50-458/80-05):
Failure to meet pecification requirements for the qualification of No. 67 and No. 8 coarse aggregates.
Stone and Webster Spec mtion 210.350, Revision 3, " Mixing and Deliver-ing Concrete," has bee anged to reflect an ade ;" ate specific gravity to ensure a minimum cor.ete censity of Ib/ft3 (gfL The RRI reviewed the qualification records for air dry unit weight tests performed on all actual concrete mixes used in Category I concrete placements.
All tests results reviewed exceeded the 135 pcf minimum air dry weight requirements.
Thus, the data reviewed indicated that proper corrective action has been performed and the No. 67 and No. e aggregates have since been properly qualified.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Violation (50-458/80-01):
Failure to properly record the amount of water added to concrete in truck.
The RRI reviewed the applicable portion of the National Mobile Concrete Corporation (NMCC) 0A manual to ensure that only production personnel are permitted to authorize water additions to mixer trucks at the batch plant and the quality assurance personnel verify these water additions.
This change was incorporated into Section SP-050, Item 4.9, of the NMCC QA manual, and is now in accordance witi, the Stone and Webster Quality Assurance / Quality Controi Program.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Deviation (50-458/80-05):
Performance of QC inspection activity reviews by inspection personnel not in accordance with ANSI N45.2.6 requirements.
The RRI reviewed a selected sample of aggregate test reports (reference paragraph 8 of this report).
All test reports were approvea and reviewed by at least a Level II individual.
Earlier reports were reviewed in accordance with the licensee's response to this finding.
All reports reviewed by the RRI were performed in accordance with the licensee's response to this commitment.
This item is considered closed.
.-
.
-
- - _ _ -.-
. --
.-
-, _,
-.. - -
_. _
_ _ -
_
.
.
J
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/80-05):
Timeliness of reviews.
Increased emphasis by the licensee on the importance of appropriate supervisory review and prompt reporting of results has reduced the previous delays encountered in the review of inspection report test results.
A selected sample of concrete test lab inspection reports for March and April 1981, indicated that reviews were being performed in a timely manner, and in accordance with the proper procedural require-ments.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-458/80-05):
Minimum specific gravity to assure a concrete unit weight of at least 135 pcf for biological shielding purposes.
Stone and Webster Specification 210.350, hevision 3,
" Mixing and Delivering Concrete" has bee;' changed to require a minimum specific gravity of 2.43 in lieu of the previous referenced value for specific gravity of 2.40.
This value for specific gravity of 2.43 ensures a minimum concrete unit weight of at least 135 pcf which satisfies the specification and the changed PSAR commitments.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Unresolved ? tem (50-458/80-05):
Unsatisfactory concrete place-ment in the Auxiliary Building (AB2-M-7064-3835).
The RRT reviewed Nonconformance and Disposition Report (N&D) 9579 which ref enced an unsatisfactory concrete placement in the Auxiliary Builu ;g.
Cores were taken in the area of the unsatisfactory placement % evaluate the consolidation of the placement in that area.
The results of the evalua-tion concluded that no surface defects were evident, ne significant voids were evident, and no honeycombing or segregation of coarse aggregate were evident.
The C ' risually inspected one of these three cores in June 1980.
Based on tnis evaluation and his observation, the RRI had determined that this matter was not a reportable significant construction deficiency.
This item is considered closed.
3.
Licenece Identified Construction Deficiency Reports (Closed) Improperly qualified No. 67 and No. 8 concrete aggregate in Category I structures.
As referenced in paragraph 2, this matter deals with acceptance of nonconforming qualification tests for coarse aggregates (No. 67 and No. 8 oggregate sizes) used in Category I concrete place-ments. This potential construction deficiency was reported to Region IV office on June 5, 1980.
The nonconformances did not result in a reduction in any minimum design shielding requirements or strength requirements as indicated by the air dry unit weight tests.
Subsequently, the nonconforming aggregates have been properly qualified, as indicated by N&Ds 9701 and 9702.
Thus, the licensee has r'.r ermined that this is
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
not a reportable deficiency (reference GSU letter RBG-8002, dated July 7, 1980).
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Concrete " cold-joint" in a segment of the foundation of the Emergency Diesel Generator Building.
This potentially reportable deficiency was a "esult of an emergency stop of concrete placement in the Diesel Generr. tor Building foundation mat.
No significant deficiencies ni the construction of the mat have been i<lentified.
A structural analysis of the affected section of the ma', indicated that the struct, cal integrity of the Emergency Diesel Generater Building mat was not impa. red.
The conditions developed as a result of tl'e failure of the batch plant and the temporary failure of the auxiliary batch plant.
The RRI reviewed N&D 9497, dated March 28, 1981.
The cores taken from the mat verified by Field Quality Control indicated that the concrete placement was structurally acceptable.
Computations in Calculation No. C29.500, " Diesel Generator Foundation asign" were also found to be adequate.
Thus, this does not appear to retresent a significant construction deficiency reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e) (reference GSU letter RBG-7545, dated April 22, 1980).
This item is considered closed.
(Closed) Incorrect Input in the calculations used to generate the safety relief valve-amplified response spectra.
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 calculation, 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 13, 1980 (RBG-7514) con-cluded that this item is not a reportable deficiency under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This item is considered closed.
4.
Action Item IE Bulletin 80-21, " Valve Yokes Supplied by Malcolm Foundry Company, Inc.," requires that holders of construction permits determine if any valves planned for use in safety-related systems have valve parts cart by Malcolm Foundry Company, Inc.
The licensee's architect / engineer, Stone and Webster, has completed the survey of the vendors supplying Category I valves and hac determined that no Malcolm Foundry castings are
. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-. -
._
.
within the scope of supply.
The NSSS supplier, General Electric, has determined that the River Bend Station has no active safety-related valve
'
parts cast by Malcolm Foundry within their scope of supply.
This item is considered closed.
5.
Site Tour The RRI toured the safety-related plant areas several times weekly during the inspection period to observe the progress of construction and the general practices involved.
One of these tours involved a field review evalu-ting Field Document Control (Field Document Control involving the construction verification program which was discussed in Inspection Report 50-458/80-13).
Du ing this tour, the RRI discovered a black on yellow drawing with the stamp " Document User Use" located at Document Station No. 84.
CMP 11.1, Revision 0,
"Jobsite Document Control" required, in Section 5.5.3(a), that only documents issued on green paper may be used by field forces for (to verify) actual construction.
CMP 11.1, Revision 0, Section 5.5.3(b), states that " yellow copies are for information only and are not to be used for construction."
A QAFR (Quality Assurance Finding Report), No. 81-6-16-D, was generated on June 8, 1981, by the licensee identifying that a surveillance of Drawing Station No. 84 produced a total of 11 drawings that were issued on yellow paper.
The finding report further states that these drawings were being used by construction personnel in the field.
Discussion with contractor personnel indicated that these drawings were in fact being used for information only.
The drawings were piping isometric drawings to be used as an aid for spoolpiece location.
The actual black on green drawing was contained in the welder's " Weld Data Package."
Subsequent review of Document Control by the RRI revealed that since December 1979, a total of 40 QAFR's have been written by the licensee identifying problems relative to document control.
Several of these findings have been repetitive, and do not seem to be isolated cases of noncompliance with the applicable procedural requirements.
An in-depth review of the Stone and Webster Control Program shows it to be a rather detailed program.
Several steps have been taken in the past year to attempt to improve the overall management of the pro-gram.
Discussions with licensee and contractor personnel indicated
[
.
.
.
.
.
. -
..
.
.
.
-.... -
-
.
.
that emphasis is being placed on implementing the Document Control Program effectively at River Bend, and that management has focused much attention in this area to ensure continued improvements within the system.
Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, requires that measures shall assure that documents are reviewed for adequacy, approved, and are distributed to and used at the location where the prescribed activity is performed.
Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, requires that measures shall be established to assure that deficiencies and non-conformances are promptly identified and corrected.
The RRI will continue to review the licensee's corrective action taken relative to the Document Control Program to ensure that all of the applicable requirements are being satisfied.
The unresolved item identi-fied in Inspection Report 50-458/80-13, " Construction Verification Program," and the unresolved item identified in Inspection Report 50-458/81-02, " Document Control," will remain open pending the results of the licensee's actions during the next inspection period.
The RRI will additionally review the responses to the various Quality Assurance Findings Reports for adequate solutions to the Document Control Findings.
6.
Set of Primary Shield Wall The installation of the Primary Shield Wall was accomplished on June 21, 1981.
Thi. RRI reviewed Field Rigging Procedure FRP 21, " Set of Primary Shield Wall," as well as the following:
Drawing Plan for Primary Shield Wall Set Drawing Elevation and Miscellaneous Details Lift Calculations Union Wire Rope Certificate of Inspection and Compliance Yarbrough Wire Rope Slings Test Certificate (W3092 - W3099)
Sling Equalizer Assembly Certificate of Conformance Twin Transi-Lift System Prior Usage
.
.
Lift Truss Assembly Certificate of Conformance Transi-Lift Series II Certificate of Compliance Transi-Lift Series III Certificate of Compliance During the review of the lift calculations, as noted on Attachment 3.5, pages 3 and 4 to FRP 21, the density of the concrete placed in the first and second lifts of the Primary Shield Wall prior to its in place instal-lation was determined to be 210 pcf.
Specification 210.350, Revision 2,
" Mixing and Delivering Concrete" requires that heavy aggregate concrete weigh not less than 210 pcf as determined in accordance with Section 5 of ASTM C567.
A Gulf States Quality Assurance Finding Report, QAFR
- 81-4-3-D, dated April 6, 1981, identified that Stone and Wester Engineering and Design Coordination Report (E&DCR) P-1718A states in part "A relationship shall be developed between fresh unit weight and air dry unit weight so that in process test for fresh unit weight will protide assurance that the HDFM (high density fill material) will be sufficient density when placed and cured in the Primary Shield Wall."
It also states, "The minimum required dry density required in the active core region of the Primary Shield Wall is (later) pounds per cubic foot.
Therefore, test for fresh unit weight of HDFM for this location shall be performed to assure a minimum of (later) pounds per cubic foot."
Subsequently, E&DCR C-2719 was issued to change the specification re-quirements to 200 pcf in lieu of the original specified 210 pcf.
The Stone and Webster response to this finding C-RBS-2034, dated May 6, 1981, states that the lower third of the Primary Shield Wall was required to have a minimum density of 135 pcf.
ANSI N 45.2.5, " Supplementary Quality Assurance Requirements for Instal-lation, Inspection, and Testing of Structural Concrete and Structural Steel During the Construction Phae of Nuclear Power Plants," requires in Table A, " Required Qualification Tests," that concrete mixes be tested for compliance with ACI 211.
ACI 211, " Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal and Heavyweight Concrete," states that in selecting trial proportions, the concrete should be checked for unit weight and yield (ASTM C138, " Standard Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield and Air Content of Concrete").
Furthermore, Appendix 4 to ACI 211, " Heavyweight Concrete Mix Propor-tioning." states that the aggregate type and concrete weight should be selected consistent with the type of radiation involved." Section 2.5 of this appendix requires frequent checks of fresh unit weigh.
.
The RRI needs additional information with respect to the following questions:
a.
Why is 135 pcf the stated required density, when the specification clearly defined 210 pcf as the minimum density requirement for heavy aggregate concrete prior to the time of placenent?
b.
Was the concrete mix properly qualified for use prior to placement in accordance with ANSI N45.2.5 and ACI 211?
c.
What are the actual shielding calculations for the lower one-third of the Primary Shield Wall, and are they in accordance with the design requirements, and appropriate regulatory requirements for minimizing personnel radiation exposure (Regulatory Guide 8.8)?
Thus, until all of this information can be obtained, this matter will be considered unresolved.
7.
5et of Reactor Pressure Vessel The RRI reviewed Field Rigging Procedures, FRP-18, " Upending and Set of Reactor Pressure Vessel." Calculations for the Reactor Pressure Vessel lift were reviewed, as were the Field Rigging Sketches.
The Reactor Pressure Vessel installation was accomplished on June 25, 1981.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Concrete Placement Activities a.
Laboratory Tests The RRI reviewed records and observed activities relative to concrete aggregates at Piver Bend including Aggregate Certifications from the supplier for the month of April 1981, and Stone and Webster Field Quality Control Aggregate Gradation Test Reports.
Inspection and Aggregate Test Reports reviewed are as follows:
IRS 1001541 IRS 1400523 IRS 1400618 IRS 1001853 IRS 1400558 IRS 1400664 IRS 1001960 IRS 1400586 IRS 1400687 IRS 1002008 IRS 1400727 IRS 1400694
.
.
.
,
IRS 1002019 IRS 1001542 IRS 1400725 IRS 1002126 IRS 1001883 IRS 1400988 IRS 1400570 IRS 1001854 IRS 1400989 IRS 1400579 IRS 1002029 IRS 1400990 IRS 1400583 IRS 1400546 IRS 1400991 IRS 1400617 IRS 1400534 IRS 1400987 IRS 1400662 IRS 1400576 IRS 1400720 IRS 1400668 IRS 1400580 IRS 1400602 IRS 1400684 IRS 1400585 All aggregate test reports reviewed were found to be in accordance with 210.361, Revision 1, " Concrete Testing Phase II."
Cement Certifications from the supplier were reviewed for the month of March 1981, as were Stone and Webster Field Quality Control Cement Te::t Reports.
The following inspection and cement test reports were reviewed:
IRS 1400534 IRS 1400676 IRS 1001446 IRS 1400578 IRS 1002142 IRS 1001541 All cement test reports reviewed were found to be in accordance with the above specification requirements.
Air Dry Unit Weights for each specific Category I ccncrete mix used in the safety-related concrete placements for River Bend were reviewed and found to be in accordance with the specification requirements.
These test data were dated July 28, 1980.
The statistical analysis of concrete, " Evaluation of Concrete Strength," for concrete mixes used in November, December 1980, and January 1981, indicated the following:
Mix Design Strength Avg. Strength Coeff. of Var.
A 3000 4952 9.27
C 3000 4938 11.46 I
H 4000 5289 6.28
W 3000 4742 7.29 The RRI reviewed qualification data for several aggregate sources also being qualified for use at the River Bend Station.
,
, _ - - -
,
,., _.. - _. _ _ _, _..., _ _,.._
,, _ _. _,. _
,,7,,,
,,.
m.m
,,,,, _,_
,_ _
,..,,,,,,,,,
.,__,,_y
,___
_ _.,. ~.
.
.
Qualification data reviewed were as follows:
PTL Lab Report Date Aggregate 808401 1/19/81
- 57 Thompson Creek Aggregate 804095 4/02/81
- 57 Gravco Aggregate 808398 1/22/81 Fine Amite Aggregate 804402 1/22/81
- 57 Amite Aggregate All prequalification data for the above referenced aggregates were found to be in accordance with Stone and Webster 210-361, Revision 2.
The RRI then toured the Stone and Webster on-site testing laboratory and observed activities in relation to concrete testing in progress.
Supervision was found to be actively involved in the testing activities, and laboratory personnel appeared knowledgeable in the performance of their assigned tasks.
Documentation for the perform-ance of the test was clear and concise.
All signatures reviewed were noted to be in accordance with the specification requirements.
No violations or deviations were identified.
b.
Concrete Placement Efforts are continuing by licensee sad contractor management to ensure that concrete consistency is being maintained.
Stone and Webster Engineering and Design Coordination Report C-2764A placed a tolerance on slump for concrete produced to help minimize consistency problems in concrete placements that have been en-countered in the past.
The Stone and Webster Specification 210.350, Revision 3, " Mixing and Delivering Concrete," now states that "The concrete shall be supplied at the truck delivery point at the slump ordered by the placing contractor within the tolerances shown as follows:
For Ordered Slump of:
Tolerance:
2 in. and less
in.
More than 2 in.
1 1 in.
through 4 in.
More than 4 in.
11 in.
_
_ _
- __
_
.
. _ _... _ _, _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _- _.
_
_.
-
--
.
.
" Concrete within the permissible slump shall be available at the truck mixer discharge point for 30 minutes after the batch time shown on the ticket.
The contractor will not be held responsible for concrete slump after field addition of withheld water when required by others, or after the time limitation described above.
Concrete outside the applicable tolerances may be discharged into the placement at the discretion of the concrete placing contractor, who will then be fully responsible for the concrete."
The RRI reviewed 22 nonconformance and disposition reports written since October 1980, involving improper consolidation of concrete resulting in voids and/or honeycombs.
Most of these nonconformance reports reflected more significant deficiencies in that the areas referenced indicated void areas completely through the wall areas.
These areas were not of a significant size, were repaired to adequate procedures, and were appropriately documented by the contractor. The five reports are as follows:
N&D 880, N&D 883, N&D 1018, N&D 1092, and N&D 1384 (superceded by #1214).
The RRI stressed the importance of consistent concrete placements with licensee and contractor management.
On July 7, 1981, the RRI observed Category I concrete placement RB-7-A-99.
This place-ment was located in the Reactor Building Drywell area from Eleva-tion 93 to Elevation 99.
The RRI specifically noted:
Implementation of Hot Weather Ccncrete Practices
.
Inspection Techniques of Personnel Responsible for Monitoring
.
Concrete Placement Consolidation Techniques of Construction Personnel
.
Coordination of the Batch Plant with the Placement Activity
.
Consistency of Placement
.
All activities observed indicated that the concrete was placed in accordance with the appropriate specification requirements.
'A No violations or deviations were identified.
,
, -- ~
,,n
..-,--n
.-
,-
-
,--..a
,n
,.
,,,
,
. -,, - -. - -
,,, - - - -
-
._
.-
.
9.
Electrical Equipment Qualifications The RRI is involved in reviewing licensee and contractor activities relative to Class IE electrical equipment qualification.
Several problems are being identified with regard to the IEEE 323-1974 require-ments in the manufacturer's shops, and site management is actively
seeking solutions to these problems to ensure their commitments are
met.
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more infor>>, tion is required i
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations.
One such item is discussed in paragraph 6 and will be entitled " Concrete Density Requirements Within the Primary Shield Wall,"
in future discussions.
11.
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 i
held on July 20, 1981, to discuss various findings and observations made during this inspection period.
<
)
l
1
!
.
- -. - -...--..
,-,m
-,,,,
,.-- -,--.. n. -.- - -,,,,
---
.
.-nm,
,,-,-.---,,,,,,,,-.r..
~,, -.,
.an-,,,---....
--e~---.
---n,
-,,
,