IR 05000458/1981012
| ML20038D114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1981 |
| From: | Randy Hall, Tomlinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038D111 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-81-12, NUDOCS 8112160072 | |
| Download: ML20038D114 (5) | |
Text
.
-
-
.
.. - -..
~.. - -
-
-.
. ~.....
-
o j.
.
b i
APPENDIX i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
'
REGION IV
{'
,
Report: '50-458/81-12
,
,
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, St. Francistille, Loui,iana i
^
Inspection Conducted:, November 2-6, 1981
<
J
\\
Inspector:
-
Its /a t
M D. P. Tomlinson, Reactor Inspector, Engineering and-Date.
'
Materials Section T
YN d8h5*.
25/61 Approved:. 'M R. E. Hall, Acting Chief, Engineering.and Materials Date
-
Section
.
.
Inspection Summary i
i Inspection on November 2-6, 1981 (Report 50-458/81-12)-
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities
,
i'
and observation of work activities related.to structural welding and quality j
assurance for construction.
The inspection. involved,32 inspector-hours by
one inspector.
.
Results:
In the areas inspected, no violations or" deviations were identified.
'
,
!e
l f
,
.
a i
,
'
-
t, 05h
'
_
O j
PDR.
- --
-
-
-
. -.-
--
..
-
-
- . -.
.
-.
-
..
-
...
.
-
>
.
.
s
,
_. m t
'
'
',
.
,
.
,
.
. r
,
i
-
~
~ ~
~
DETAILS $
'
<
,
-,
.
,
,
1.
Persors' Contacted a
-
,
-
,
-
Principal Licensee Emoloyess
'
'
P.D. Graham,' Director,iQualityAssurace
- R. B. Stafford,' Supervisor, Quality-Engineering
.
K. C. Hodges,' Quality Engineering Representative
'
StoneandWebsterPersoNel
'
g
[
D. Castleberry, Chief Inspection Supervisor i
Other Personnel
,
~
L. Sutton, Senior Quality Assurance Supervisor, Graver C. Carr,-Quality Assurance Engineer, Graver J. Brister, Ultrasonic Inspector, Level II, Graver
{
C. Hockman, Quality Control Foreman, Graver
'!
0. DeMiranda, Quality Assurance Engineer, Graver f
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
'
2.
Site Tour b
!
The NRC inspector walked through various construction and storage areas to -
-
t observe construction activities in' progress and to inspect the general state
-
of cleanliness and adherence-to housekeeping requirements.
j
!
No violations or deviations were identified during this portion of the-inspection.
>
,
3.
Review of Items Reported Under 10 CFR Part 50.55(e)
i During this inspection, a review was conducted of Quality Assurance docu-(.
mentation relative to the following items reported under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
!
a.
Graver "T" Weld in Containment Liner Section
,
On July 12, 1979, Gulf States Utilities (GSU) notified the NRC, Region IV office of a construction deficiency reportable under the
.
provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
This notification was concerned with i
weld defects in the containmer.t-to-embedment plate "T" welds.
Prior:
i to shipment of the parts.from their Chicago fabrication facility to
,[
the River Eend site, Graver Energy Systems notified GSU that the
subject welds contained rejectable defects.
Th defects were found
i
,
i I
.
f.
'
1
.
. - _ _ -. ~.,
--
- g y-a
,
,
,
a
'
'
'~
p r
s c
'
',
- '
'
.
,
,
.
.; w during an ultrasonic inspection,J hut the parts were shipped and
'
~
accepted so that cons _truction-schedules could be' maintained.
It was determined by Graver and.. Stone & Webster engineering groups that repairs to the' welds could best be accomplished after the placement of.the containment base mat and the installation of the first three rings of the containment vessel ~ plates.
The reason for this was that distortion due to the welding would be minimized by the support from above and below the "T" weld.
On ' January 14,1980,' Stone & Webster forwarded to GSU an engineering report entitled "Cause and Corrective Action' Analysis Concerning Sub-
' Surface Defects Found in River Bend Corner Junction Tee Welds." This analysis was performed by Graver Energy Systems and involved.the pro-duction and destructive. testing of four mock-ups using various preheat temperatures and welding sequences.
Stone & Webster also issued a report in Janaury 1980 describing metallurgical investigations conducted to determine the cause of the "T" weld defects and recommendations for prevention of similar defects in the future.
The defective root area of each weld is being' removed by the arc ~ gouging method from the side of the assembly which is not clad-welded, and the resultant cavity is then ground to bright metal in preparation for'the repair welding.
Records reviewed by -the NRC inspector indicate that a magnetic particle inspection is being performed on each cavity prior to the deposition of any repair weld metal. After the weld has been rede-
,
posited to bring it flush with the surface of.the plate, a peeliminary ultrasonic inspection is performed to assure-that no rejectaale indi-cations are present.
The weld is then completed by adding. weld metal to achieve the final fillet configuration, and the final ultrasonic
~
examination is then performed.
In cases where defects still exist, further repairs are made from either side depending on the location of the anomolies.
All~ repairs must pass the final ultrasonic inspection before being accepted.
Three of the twenty-four assembiles have been found acceptable ~to date.
The remaining 21 welded areas are in various stages of the repair cycle.
i
The NRC inspector toured both sides of the repair area and witnessed
'
i work in progrtss and conducted informal interviews with the craftsmen involved.' Al', welding was being accomplished in'accordance with
,
Graver Welding Procedure Specification 302-N using the Shielded Metal.
Arc Weld (SMSI) process.- The qualification records for Graver Welder No. 174 were reviewed and found to be adequate for the procedure I,
being used.
'
,,
.
Based upon the review of repair procedures and repair records and the
!
observation of work'in progress, this item is considered closed.
i b.
Cadweld Sleeves Manufactured for use by Graver Energy Systems
.
On~ March 29, 1979,-GSU; notified the NRC, Region IV office of a construction deficiency reportable under.the provisions of~
>
The fin'al report for this deficiency was issued.
,
,.
3..
.
.
.
,
T e
"
+ - ew
. __i._.__-_._________i_._____.;______ -
-
.
.
on June 27, 1979.
The two reports dealt with defects discovered in the partial penetration which attach Cadweld sleeves to the underside of embedment plates in four areas of the Reactor Building mat.
The condition found to be rejectable was lack of fusion in the root area of the weld and in the area where the weld was supposed to have tied into the Cadweld sleeve.
The investigation was initiated because of the high potential for lack of fusion and slag inclusion inherent to the semiautomatic welding process to make the welds.
It was found that the existence of these gross defects in the area of the J-bevel weld preparation could lead to unacceptable stresses and endanger the structural integrity of the Reactor Building.
The corrective action taken, as stated in the report of June 27, 1979, was to remove and reweld all of the Cadweld sleeves using a manual welding process-to eliminate these defects.
The NRC inspector toured the Reactor Building area in December 1979 and January 1980 as part of an extensive investigation concerning allegations presented by a former site employee.
As a part of this investigation, the NRC inspector inspected-the underside of approxi-
.
mately 70% of all of the base mat embeds prior to placement of the I
base mat concrete. Of particular concern were the welds on the Cadweld sleeves and connecting shear bars. All welds observed on the inspected embeds were complete, were of the proper contour and were of adequate size.
A review of Drawing NL-10388A (Revision 7)
indicated that the shear bars and Cadweld sleeves were properly installed in accordance with the drawing.
The NRC inspector contacted the Graver Senior Quality Assurance Supervisor and requested that all on-site records of the Cadweld sleeve repairs be made available for examination.
The NRC inspector reviewed the records for repairs _on approximately 2000 of the 5964 sleeves affected.
Included in this review were the records of all welding, visual inspection of the root pass, visual and magnetic particle inspection at 1/2 weld thickness, visual inspection at 3/4 weld thickness, and a visual and magnetic particle inspection of the finished weld surfaces.
This record review indicated that all of the questionable or defective Cadweld sleeve welds were removed and ASME Code acceptable welds were redeposited.
Due to the configuration of the welded joints, the 1974 ASME Code, Subsection NE only requires visual and magnetic particle examinations.
A random review of personnel qualification records for craftsmen involved in these repairs indicated that'the welders and inspectors were properly qilalified at the time the work was performed.
Based upon the~NRC visual-inspection of the repaired welds and the records reviewed during two inspections,'this item is considered closed.
i
.
.
-
-
-
- - - -
-
-
-
.
.
_
.,
_ __.
-.
_ _
4 _._.
.....
- _
,
-I
'
s m
'
... -
.
~
?
.
..
-
_
l
.
,
i 4.
Visual Examination of Welds -: Steel Structures and Supports i.
-
.
j The NRC inspector toured..the area used for preassembly of containment
!
vessel plating and selected horizontal; welds 13-H-2, 14-H-1, and 14-H-2 i
for visual examination.
These are~ welds deposited by the semiautomatic-j subraerged arc method connecting two courses of containment vessel plate.
Also selected for visual examination were welds 6EA30, 17EA30, and J
18EA30.
These are the three completed corner. junction "T" welds referred i
to in' paragraph 2.a.
All six of these welds. exhibited.the required weld
,
surface finish and general appearance. There was no evidence on the weld i
surfaces or adjacent base materials of.any. rejectable cracks, laps, lack
!
of fusion, slag, porosity, or undercut.
The welding and inspection
records for the corner junction
"T", welds were reviewed to verify that all required visual and dimensional inspections had been performed.
This
>
,
review indicated the welds were inspected as required by properly qualified
'
personnel.
No violations or deviations were noted during this portion of the inspection.
.
5.
Exit Interview
The NRC inspector met with the licensee representative (denoted in para-graph 1)-on November 6, 1981, to discuss the scope and findings of_this inspection.
Y a
l i
l
.
J t
Ii k
'
.
=.
'
-
,
'
.
,
'
.
. *