IR 05000528/1979011
| ML17296A646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1980 |
| From: | Haynes R, Vorderbrueggen NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17296A645 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-528-79-11, 50-529-79-11, 50-530-79-07, NUDOCS 8003190867 | |
| Download: ML17296A646 (10) | |
Text
t 50-528/79-11 50-529/79-11 Report No. 50-53 Docket No.5 U ~ S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION V
License No.CP Safeguards Group Licensee:
Arizona Public Service Com an Fac i]ity 'Name Pal O Verde NuCl ear Generating Stati On - UnitS 1, 2, and
Inspection at Pal o Verde Constructi on Si te, Wintersbur Arizona Inspection conducted:
December 1-18, 1979 Inspectors:
(2 -C
~
~
'~L. E. Vorder n
Resident Reactor Inspector
i'3.
t'
D te Signed Date.Signed Approved By:
Q.~,>
Date Signed Date Signed R.
C. Haynes, ie
, Reactor Projects Section Reactor Const.
8 Engineering Support Branch
~ ~
)
\\
Inspection'on December 1-18'*1979 (Re ort Nos.50-'528/79-1150-'529/79-'ll, an 0-
-0
~Al<<d:R i, di p
i f
the resident inspector including:
Unit 1 cooling towers, Unit 1 steam generators, Unit 2 reactor vessel transport, Unit 3 containment basemat reinforcing steel, formal interviews of craftsmen, and miscellaneous work in progress.
The inspection involved 26 inspector hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified during the inspection period.
RV Form 219 (2)
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted a.
Arizona Public Service Com an J.
A. Roedel, Manager, Quality Assurance G.
E. Pankonin, Site QA Supervisor, Acting H.
E. Wibel, Quality Assurance Engineer R.
D. Forrester, Quality Assurance Engineer b.
Bechtel Power Cor oration W. J: Stubblefield, Field Construction Manager C. Stalnaker, Unit 2 General Superintendent D: Hawkinson, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor A. Becker, Unit 3 Field Engineer, Civil c.
Combustion En ineerin
, Inc.
S. Mager, Site Manager 2.
Unit 1 Coolin Towers The inspector examined the activities associated with the construction of the forced-draft cooling towers.
While these towers are not safety related structures, they are vital for the operation of the plant.
For this reason, according to the licensee, Bechtel was directed to apply their standard construction QA program to this work.
Bechtel constructed the inlet and outlet piping, the catch basins, bent supports, pnd the fan deck support column foundations.
The remainder of the cooling towers were constructed by the Marley Cooling Tower Company using, for the most part, prefabricated inter-locking components.
Marley was required to develop and implement a
formal QA program for their concrete component fabrication plant at Yuma, Arizona, as well as the installation work at the plant site.
All work was surveyed and audited by both Bechtel and licensee QA personnel.
The inspector examined two of the three Unit 1 towers.
Some of the prefabricated components furnished by Marley had minor chipping, probably due to being bumped during shipping or installation handling.
Ho cracking in any of the items was observed.
A few minor shrinkage cracks were in the surface of the catch basins.
Minor honeycombing, spalling, and shrinkage cracks were observed in the fan deck support columns and portions of the lower concrete support structure.
These conditions have been recorded and are being evaluated by the licensee from the standpoint of exposure of the reinforcing steel to moisture.
If warranted, the licensee plans to effect repairs.
The inspector had no further questions on this matte li
1
Unit
- Shim Movement The inspector reviewed the activities associated with the evaluation and correction of the shim movement under the two steam generators.
(Reference:
Inspection Report 50-528/79-05, paragraph 4).
The condition was documented on NCR No. MC-179 and a comprehensive study was performed by Bechtel Field Engineering personnel with guidance and surveillance by Combustion Engineering.
The study involved measuring movement of the steam generators slide basis and their supporting shim stacks, as well as deflection and flange movement of the reactor vessel, during simultaneous.post-weld heat treatment (1150'F) of the welds joining the vessel outlet nozzles to the two hot leg pipe spools.
This expansion of the hot legs resulted in a vessel wall ovality change of 24 mils, and steam generator movements in the anticipated direction of 508 mils for
~
No.
1 and 463 mils for No. 2.
All movement of the steam generators was between the slide plate surfaces provided for that purpose.
No movement associated with the shim stacks was observed.
The shims had been previously "banded" together to prevent differential movement.
Subsequent to this test steam generator No.
2 was jacked up high enough (approximately 1/4") to permit removal of the shim plates ("stack") and graphite in button slide plates in the location of the originally damaged shim restraint bar.
Upon examination, the slide plates showed that they had experienced the observed movement studied above, but otherwise appeared to be essentially in the as-installed condition. The top shim plate upper surface outside the contact circle of the bottom slide plate was,found to be slightly rusted and covered with a light layer of construction generated dust, as expected.
Several of the individual shims showed that they had not had full surface contact.
This condition is believed to be the cause of the originally observed differential slippage between the shim plates.
Bechtel is currently developing a method that will bond all shim plates in each "stack" together, probably utilizing a welding technique.
They are also considering a different design approach for the Unit 2 and 3 steam generators.
The 50.55(e) reportability aspects of this matter are still under study by the licensee.
This item will remain open pending completion of the review for reportability.
(528/79-11-01)
CI I
4, Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Trans ort s.
6.
Transport of the reactor vessel from Gila Bend, Arizona to the plant site was delayed at the point where old state route 85, the roadway chosen for the journey, crosses the Gila river, just below the Gillespie Dam.
The location is approximately 20 miles SSE of the plant site.
The reason for the delay was concern for the stability of the roadbed.
Recent heavy water releases from the dam had caused the river to expand beyond its nor'mal confines and the water was starting to soften the not-normally-used roadbed.
The inspector visited the location to examine the activities underway to remedy the situation and provide for the safe river crossing for the vessel.
The inspector observed heavy construction equipment in operation, removing soft (wet) roadbeds soil and compacting replacement dry soil in the areas found to be in question.
.The work was under the direct supervision of the superintendent of the transporter (Reliance Trucking Co.),
and was being closely watched by the Combustion Engineering Company Project Manager and Site Manager, as well as the insurance company representative and licensee representatives.
The following morning the river crossing was successful and the reactor vessel arrived at the plant site on December 15, 1979.
Unit 3 Containment Basemat The installation of the bottom layers of reinforcing steel in the basemat for the containment 'building was examined by the inspector.
The steel was No.
18 deformed bar and the spacing was correct, all as specified on Dwgs.
13-C-ZCS-102 and -104, Containment Building Base Mat Reinforcing - Bottom Layers, Plan, Sections and Details.
The bar appeared to be.properly tied to prevent movement when the concrete is placed.
Approximately 20 completed cadwelds were examined and found to be properly marked and filled.
No departures were identified from the drawings or the governing specification 13-CM-375, Placing of Reinforcing Steel.
Craftsmen Interviews With assistance from the Region V staff Investigator, the program of
'ormal, private interviews with the construction craftsmen performing key on-site work, was begun.
Three craftsmen were interviewed and
!
no concern was expressed about the adequacy of constructio ~
~
7.
Pl ant Tours The inspector toured the construction site several times during the inspection report period.
Particular attention was directed to work in progress, presence of supervision and quality control inspectors at the work locations, care and preservation of equipment, and general housekeeping practices.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified during the plant tours.
8.
Mana ement Interview The inspector met with Mr. G.
E. Pankonin, Acting Site gA Supervisor
. on December 18, 1979.
The scope of the inspection effort and the inspection findings as noted in this report were discussed.
Mr. Pankonin acknowledged the inspector's findings.