IR 05000528/1978009
| ML17296A368 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1979 |
| From: | Eckhardt J, Haynes R, Narbut P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17296A367 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-78-09, 50-528-78-9, 50-529-78-07, 50-529-78-7, NUDOCS 7905150620 | |
| Download: ML17296A368 (11) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COi~lllISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION V
50-528/78-09
. Peport No.
50-529/78-07 50-528 CPPR-141 Docket No
.
50-529 License No.
CPPR-142 Safeguards Group Arizona Public Service Company P. 0.
Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036
. H. Eckhardt, Reactor Inspector WPQ d-Dat Signed D/lg/7Q Facility Name:
Palo Verde Units
and
Inspection at:
Palo Verde Site, Maricopa County, Arizona Inspection Conducted:
December 18-21,1978 Inspectors:
rder ue ge actor Inspector Sate Ssg ed P.
P. Narbut, Reactor Inspector Date Signed c.
J. 0. Elin, Reactor pector Bate igned Approved By:
.C~
Summary:
R. C. Ha, Chief, projects Section, Reactor Date Signed-Construction and Engineering Support Branch
~At id:
R i, di p i>>f t
ti tiiti including:
Followup of enforcement and open items, site tour, containment structural concrete, containment post tensioning system, reactor vessel final alignment, electrical cable and components.
The inspection involved 104 inspector-hours onsite by four NRC inspectors.
Results:
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during
'6tss inspection.
'reos >50 6~
IE V Form 219 (2)
Ins ection on December 18-21, 1978 (Re ort Nos. 50-528/78-09 and 50-529/78-07)
DETAILS Persons Contacted Arizona Public Service Com an APS
- H. M. Petro, ABPP Construction Manager
- R. L. Hand, Site OA Supervisor
- D. B. Fasnaght, Site Senior Electrical Engineer L. II. Price, Field Engineering Supervisor G. Pankonin, OA Engineer R. Forrester, OA Engineer T. Engbring, Field Engineer Bechtel Power Cor oration (BPC)
- H. J. Stubblefield, Field Construction Manager
- A. K. Priest, Project Field Engineer
- H. P. Smith, Project gC Engineer
- C. F. Gaither, Assistant Project Field Engineer - Administration
- C. Betzhold, Project OA Engineer
- J. E. Braun, Senior gA Engineer T. Horst, Lead Field Engineer - Civil R. Lykens, Lead gC Engineer - Civil/Structural J. Pfunder, Senior OA Engineer D. Rerick,. Area Field Engineer - Unit
L. Afek, Lead Field Engineer - Mechanical/Nuclear R; Hayes, Mechanical Superintendent N. McCormick, Assistant Project Field Engineer hl. J. Sears, Lead Administrator - (juality Control J.
R. Beers, Lead Field Engineer
- Civil
- Denotes attendance at exit interview.
Construction Status The licensee reported the following unit completion percentages:
Unit 1 - 31.1%
Unit 2 - 10.2%
Unit 3 -
0.5%
Overall, the project was considered to be approximately 15% complet.
Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
a ~
b.
c ~
.d.
(Closed)
Noncompl iance (50-528/78-05)
.
Post-Tensioning Trumplate and Sheathing Installation:
work not in accordance with requirements.,
inspection hold points not properly met, nonconformance not documented and insufficient quality assur-ance records.
The corrective action identified in the licensee's response, dated October 4, 1978, was reviewed with BPC personnel.
The inspector verified that-the specified procedural changes had been implemented and that appropriate instructions had been issued to the installation and (}C personnel.
This matter is considered closed.
(Closed)
Noncompliance (50-528/78-03).
A Marathon,drawing change notice was not distributed to or used at the location where the work was being performed.
This item was held open from the previous inspection because one BPC Area Engineer had not fully developed the drawing distribution matrix that had been specified for control of documents pertaining to his assigned area.
The inspector verified that this matrix had been completed and is now in use.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (50-528/76-03 and 76-04).
No training records for construction personnel including super-intendents, foremen and field engineers.
In response to APS followup audit No.
(AD 76-59, BPC committed to the implementation of a comprehensive training program for construction personnel.
The inspector verified that the pro-gram had been made operational in early 1977 by reviewing the training records of two superintendents and one field engineer who were present at the site at that time.
The BPC records show that the training program is continuing and that the subjects covered are relevant to construction activities in progress.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item
.(50-728/76-03).
Rebar splice overlap criteria were not available,to -the gC engineers as the refer-enced ACI Standard 315-74 was not on site.
Copies of ACI-315-74 were obtained for the site gC personnel, and the inspector verified that the splice overlap tables (2.9A through 2.9H) contained therein have been made available for their use.
This item is close (Closed)
Unr esol ved Item (50-528/77-03).
With regard to backfilling and compaction, Specification 13-CM-300, Revision 3, Paragraph 10.4.2, appeared to be incomplete as this paragraph referenced -Paragraph 10.3.3.3 which had been deleted.
Also, this specification appeared to be unclear as to what action, if any, would be required when the results from a required'
test was not within the acceptance criteria.. The construction procedure, MP/P-gCI 57.0, Revision 3, appeared to be vague-in
.
this area also.
The inspector examined the current revision of Specification 13-CN-300 and found that Paragraph 10.4.2 now makes reference only to ASTH D1556, Standard method of Test for Density of Soil in Place By The Sand Cone f1ethod.
The specification does not attempt to specify action, and rightly so, if results from a-required density test is outside the acceptance criteria.
Con-struction Procedure WP/P-gCI 57.0 (Revision 8) in Section 5.0, was noted to provide clear direction when test results do not show. compliance with acceptance criteria.
Section 5.0 requires additional compaction efforts followed by retesting; if this is not successful, the backfill material must be removed down to the previously accepted layer, new material put in place, and compaction started anew.
This item is considered closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (50-528/77-03).
'At the conclusion of a previous NRC inspection, workmen appeared to be having difficulty obtaining acceptable compaction density of the backfill of the Unit 1 containment ramp.
The inspector examined the compaction test data for the time period in question (5/10-12/77)
and verified that the data pertained to the containment ramp location and elevation.
All test results met or exceeded the specified minimum density criteria of 954 maximum dry,density.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Unr esol ved Item (50-528/77-03).
Conf 1 ict between Specification 13-Ctl-375 and Procedure WP/P-gCI 56.0 regard-ing cadweld sleeve filler metal recess depth.
The inspector examined the current issues of. the two referenced documents and noted that both specified the maximum acceptable recess as 1/4-inch.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Unresolved Item (50-528/78-03).
The modified weld electrode control program that applies to 7018 electrodes did not define the term "mild steel."
This term has been defined as
"the ASl1E P-1 grouping of material or equivalent" and the inspector verified that this definition has been included in Section IV of the BPC Project Welding Manual.
This item is closed.
(Closed)
Unresol ved Item (50-528/78-06)
.
Spl it 1 ock washers were used with high strength (A325) toroued bolts on the polar
'crane truck-to-.bridge girder bol ting.
The inspector was shown documentation of telephone conversations with the crane supplier (Whiting) which clarified this issue.
Whiting pointed out that the high strength bolts were specified to obtain the'mechanical strength required to accommodate the shear forces involved and that the design of the crane structure is not intended to be governed by the AISC specification for structural joints (AISC specifies the.use of flat washers of specific dimensions with high strength bolts).
This item is closed.
(Closed)
50.55(e)
Item - Defective Piping Subassemblies (50-528/78-06).
Excess porosity and lack of fusion discovered in longitudinal seams of SA 312 Type 304 stainless steel pipe spools.
The inspector reviewed the action described in the licensee's 50.55(e) final report dated'ovember 17, 1978.
Locating the identified suspect pipe spools and determining by 100> ultra-sonic examination which units were defective appeared to b adequate.
Also, the decision of the fabricator (Pullman Power Products)
to remove the pipe manufacturer from their aoproved supplier list and declining to fabricate items from stock-on-hand from that supplier appeared to be appropriate corrective action.
This item is closed.
(Open)
Unresolved Item (50-528/78-06):
Some segregation was observed during stockpiling of large aggregate at the concrete batch plant.
The licensee provided results of tests performed for materials finer than No.
200 Sieve (ASTN-C-ll7).
The results showed samples taken at the top, middle and bottom of the stockpile were satisfactory.
The licensee committed to perform aggregate gradation tests at the top, middle and bottom of the large agre-gate stockpile to demonstrate whether or not segregation was occurring.
This item will remain open pending completion of these gradation test.
(Open)
Noncompl iance (50-528/78-08/03)
.
Marking of reinforc-ing bar for cadwelding was performed after placing and pinning the cadweld sleeve rather than before.
The licensee provided a copy of an interoffice memorandum (File No. K.38.02, dated December 8, 1978) which instructed all personnel associated with cadwelding that marking of bars must be done prior to installing the sleeve.
This item will remain open until the effectiveness of the cor rective action can be evaluated further during a future NRC inspection.
4.
Fol:lowu on IE Head uarters Re uest - Kulka Terminal Blocks As a result of failure of a Kulka terminal block to pass a
LOCA qualification test, IE Headquarters personnel requested informa-tion about the use of Kulka terminal blocks in safety related applications which might be subjected to harsh environment prior to or during a
DBE event.
The inspector apprised the licensee of the Kulka terminal block failure under simulated LOCA conditions and inquired about their use at Palo Verde.
After contacting the A/E (BPC), the licensee informed the inspector that the Palo Yerde electrical design does. not incorporate the use of terminal blocks from this manufacturer.
5.
Structural Concrete The inspector examined placement rework after form removal for placements 2AO-45 and 2AO-47 in the Unit 2 Auxiliary Building at Elevation 70-88.
Also examined were the preparations for and place-ment of floor slab 1C039 at Elevation l00 and the adjacent placement number 1C083 for a shield wall in the Unit 1 Containment Building.
The inspector also inspected the outdoor storage of reinforcing rod adjacent to Unit 2 containment and observed placement activities for a section of the outer shield wall for Unit 2 Steam Generator No. l.
These examinations were based upon the instructions and acceptance criteria contained in the following documents'.
a.
Specification 13-CM-365, Forming, Placing, Finishing and Curing of Concrete b.
WPP/gCI 52.0, Concrete Preplacement c.
WPP/gCI 53.0, Concrete Placement
-6-d.
LJPP/OCI 54.0, Concrete Post-Placement e.
>IPP/(CI 12.0, Storage Control of Permanent Plant Items No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
In placement 1C039, the following conditions were noted:
a.
Expanded metal sheeting is used as a form for certain construction joints and, in some cases, double and triple layers are used.
For placement 1C039, voids were observed between layers of the expanded metal formwork and previously placed concrete.
The NRC inspectot measured the void depth in 16 approximately evenly spaced intervals at mid-height of the slab placement.
Four measurements were one inch and four were 1/4 to 1/2 inch void space.
The inspector found that instructions were not available to site personnel, concerning the use of expanded metal forms in construction joints.
Also,
,
~ Specification 13-CN-365 states that acceptability of construc-tion joint preparation will be determined by field engineering with no further guidance.
The licensee committed to perform a technical review of the use of expanded metal construction joints and the need for more quidance.
This item wi11 be
'xamined further during a subsequent inspection.
(50-528/78-09/01),
b.
The Construction Inspection Plan for concrete preplacement (Exhibit 52.0-1 in )JPP/gCI No. 52.0) provides for a signoff by the guality Control Engineer (OCE) for the final clean up.
However, the inspector found that soecific acceptance criteria was not provided for th (FACE.
Rather, procedure LJP/P gCI No. 52.0 refers to Specification 13-CN-365 for the acceptance criteria.
The specification does not provide acceptance cri-teria other than the meta'I decking shall be cleaned as directed by the field engineer.
The licensee. committed to review this item and provide a resolution.
This item, will be re-examined during a future inspection.
(50-528/78-09/02)
The inspector reviewed the quality records associated with Unit 2 placement 2C0022-0 - Southwest quadrant Containment Protection Slab, and with placements 2C129-0 and 2C020-0 - Southeast quadrant Contain-ment Protection Slab.
Also reviewed were the receipt inspection records for Grade 60 Reinforcing Bar Lot 3109, Heat H23355, for Unit 2 Auxiliary Building.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie Containment Post-Tensioning S stem - Units
and
The NRC inspector examined the installed tendon trumplate assemblies (bearing plates and trumplets)
and tendon sheathing.
The work was compared with Bechtel Specification 13-CM-371, "Installation Speci-fication. for Post-Tensioning Trumplate Assemblies and Sheathing."
The examination included vertical and horizontal sheathing and hori-zontal trumplate assemblies for both Unit
and 2 containments.
Specific attributes checked included sheathing alignment and position, condition of sheathing and bearing plates, support of sheathing, and taping of joints.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identi fied.
The NRC inspector also reviewed the material recei ving records for the following post-tensioning system materials to ascertain compliance with BPC HP/P/gCI 4.0:
a.
MRR 36200 60 trumplate assemblies b.
MRR 35561 60 trumplate assemblies
c.
MRR 21174 60 trumplate assemblies d.
HRR 34618 -- 224-40 ft. sections of sheathing e.
MRR 22533 28-40ft. sections and 336-10 ft. sections of sheathing In addition,"test reports of the post-tensioninq system low and high
.
cycle tensile tests were reviewed and compared v>ith the ASME Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code,Section III, Division 2, Subsubarticle CC-2460 requirements.
Ho deviations or items of noncompl'iance pertaining to the above mentioned records were identified.
Trumplate assemblies and sheathing stored in an outside storage area (Level D storage as per ANSI N45.2.-1972)
were examined.
Of the approximately 200 trumplate assemblies in storage, approxi-mately 20 were nonconforming (due to deficient documentation or damage)
as indicated by hold tags attached to the assemblies.
They were located in two of the 15 rows of trumplets.
Bechtel repre-sentatives indicated that they considered the hold items to be ade-quately controlled so as not to be inadvertently installed.
This item's considet ed unresolved pending futher examination during a subsequent inspection of control's for nonconforming items in storage.
(50-528/78-09/03)
7.
Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Final Aliqnment The partially installed Unit 1 Reactor Vessel support columns (four)
were examined to ascertain compliance with the following documents:
a.
Combustion Engineering (CE) Drawing E-14273-320-037, Rev. 4,
"Reactor Vessel Supports Arrangement and Installation" b.
CE Drawing E-14273-321-010,
'Rev. 2,
"Containment Internals-Reactor Vessel Supports" c.
Bechtel Drawing 13-C-ZCS-900, Rev. 4, "Support Column Anchor Bolts" d.
Bechtel WPP/gCI 355.1, Rev. 0, "Reactor Vessel Support Column Handl ing and Installation" Final adjustments were being made to the support columns in order to obtain within tolerance location of the recently installed Reactor Vessel.
Final location, torquing of the support column hold down nuts, and grouting under the support column bases still had to be completed.
In addition, partially completed quality records associ-ated with the support column installation were reviewed.
t<o devia-tions or items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Electrical Components, Cables and Installation a ~
Review of S ecifications and Pnocedures The following implementing procedures for the installation of electrical equipment and cable were examined to ascertain if the controls provided therein were consistent with the require-ments of the licensee's approved gA program.
(1)
WP/P-gCI 250.0, "Electrical Grounding Installation" (2)
WP/P-gCI 251.0,
"Embedded Duct/Conduit Installation" (3)
WP/P-gCI 252.0,
"Cable Tray/Hangar Installation" (4)
WP/P-gCI 253.0,
"Conduit Installation" (5)
WP/P-gCI 255.0,
"Cable Connections" (6)
WP/P-gCI 258.0, "Electrical Equipment Installation"
(7)
13-EH-302, "Installation Specification for Cable Tray Hanger s" (8)
13-EM-303, "Installation Specification for Electrical Cable and Raceway Identification" (9)
13-EN-304,
"Seismic Category I Conduit and Junction Box
'Supports" The inspector identified. no items of noncompliance or deviations.
However, the inspector noted some apparent weaknesses in the pro-cedures as follows:
(a) the quality control inspection sampling plan for cable tray/hanger installation (lJP/P-gCI 252.0, Rev. 4)
allowed acceptance, in some cases, with a 30K rejection rate; (b) the rejection criteria in the aforementioned procedure per-'itted the acceptance of an 8-Bolt Splice Plate with up to four loose or improperly torqued bolts, provided that they were re-torqued during the inspection process; and (c) the BPC procedure for conduit installation (MP/P-gCI 253.0, Rev. 6) also'contained the same sample plan as in the cable tray/hanger procedure, how-ever, in this procedure, no reject criteria were defined.
These items were discussed with BPC guality Control Supervision who agreed to review the inspection plan and rejection criteria with the objective of providing more rigid inspection/acceptance requirements.
This subject will be examined further during a
subsequent inspection.
(50-528/78-09/04)
Observation of Work and >lork Activities Although some safety class I cable tray has been installed, large-scale installation is scheduled to start in early 1979.
Several hundred feet of installed cable tray were examined by the inspector with specific emphasis on splice plate and hanger bolting.
Additionally, the cable pV'eparation area, which in-cludes a working storage area for cable reels was examined for compliance with the level D storage requirements of ANSI N45.2.2-1972.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
The inspector also examined receipt, storage and maintenance activities and records associated with safety related electrical components for compliance with requirements of ANSI N45.2.2-1972.
Included were switchgear, motor control centers, electrical cables, and reactor coolant pump motor 1B.
The inspector found that materials received without fully sufficient documentation were placed in storage at locations allocated to acceptable material.
Segregation was provided by
-10-stor'ing the materials in lots and attaching
"flags" and "hold tags" to the items; however, a "hold tag" or "flag" was not attached to each individual item, but rather to one item within the "flag" boundary.
In some cases, the "hold tags
" were not firmly attached
.
Although no instance of misuse of nonconforming or document deficient mater ial was found, there was concern that tags could be lost or misplaced resulting in the'use of such material.
The inspector discussed this matter with BPC repre-sentatives who stated this situation would be reviewed and evalu-ated.
This item will be given further review during a subsequent inspection.
(50-528/78-09/05)
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection, a meeting was held with the licensee and contractor representatives denoted in Paragraph 1.
The areas covered during the inspection and the observations and conclus-ions of the inspectors were reviewed.
The licensee stated that prompt consideration would be given and appropriate action taken on the items which were called to their attention.