ML19241B157
| ML19241B157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1979 |
| From: | Beach A, Randy Hall, Rosenberg A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241B144 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-79-08, 50-482-79-8, NUDOCS 7907110747 | |
| Download: ML19241B157 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1979008
Text
U. S. fJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. SIN 50-482/79-08
Docket No. STN 50-482
Category A2
,
Licensee:
Xansas Gas and Electric Company
Post Office Box 208
Wichita, Kansas
67201
Facility Name: Wolf Creek, Unit No.1
Inspection at: Wolf Creek Site, Burlington, Kansas
Inspection conducted: April 16-19,1979
OMb
5/10/79
Inspectors:
.
.
A. B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support
Date
Section (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7)
'
6
9
/J. B. Rosenberg, Reactor Inspector, Engineering
Ddte /
'
V
Support Section (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7)
/6
f
,/[J. R. Schweibinz, Reactor Inspector, Projects
Date '
'
(
Section, RIII (Paragraph 4)
_
&
/
,'J. F. Suermanr., Reactor Inspector, Engineering
Dite '
Support Section, RIII (Paragraph 5)
Reviewed:
4 79
C. R. Oberg, Reactor Inspection, Projects Section
Date /
Approved:
4 /-
A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Ddte'
Af dd
4A/n
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Sectio,
D4te
, r, -
r,r,
'
'
)
i
7007110747
Inspection Summ:ry:
Inspection on April 16-19,1979 (Report No. STN 50-482/79-08)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannou1ced inspection of activities including
observation of safety related concrete activities; review of radiographic
procedures for welding of the containment liner plate; and the observation
of activities and the review of procedures for blasting.
The inspcction
involved eighty-nine inspector-hours by four NRC inspectors.
,
Results: Of the four areas inspected, two apparent items of noncompliance
were found in two areas (infraction - failure to follow approved concrete
curing procedures - paragraph 3.c; and infraction - failure to establish
proper document control for blasting procedure - paragraph 5.a) and an
apparent deviation was identified in a third area (deviation - improper
penetrameter size specification - paragraph 4).
.
,
-- ('
-
,?. 'l
' ,
-2-
,
,
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E)
- J. O. Arterburn, Superintendent, Nuclear Development
M. E. Clark, Manager, Site QA
.
- T. C. Newman, QA Auditor
- D. W. Prigel, QA r jineer
- G. k'. Reeves, QA Engineer
,'aniel International Corporation (DIC)
M. Ayres, Civil QA
v.
W. J. Blazek, QC Training Coordinator
T. A. Green, Civil QA Representative
- A. S. Harper, Engineering Manager
- W. E. Hitt, Project Manager
- I. Hussain, Assistant to the Project Manager
- D. L. Jones, QC Manager
- C. T. Kinney, Construction Manager
- L. R. Smith, Regional Manager
- V. J. Turner, Manager, Project QA
Other Personnel
- R. D. Brown, Site Representative, SNUPPS
- G. P. Nutwell, Field Engineering Supervisor, Bechtel Power Coporation
- W. R. Seiple, Resident Geotechnical Engineer, Dames and Moore
- denotes those persons in attendance at the exit interview.
The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor
employees during the course of the inspection.
2.
Site Tour
-
The IE ir.spectors walked through various areas of the site to
observe construction activities in piogress.
No items of non-
'
compliance or deviations were identified.
'
-3-
n
[i-
,
'
.
f-
3.
Concrete
a.
_ Placement and Testing Activities
The 17 inspectors observed concrete placement activities and
concrece testing activities relating to the following concrete
placements:
~
Placement flumber
location
OC-135-W-14
East wrll on the north side of the
Reacter Auxiliary Building
OC-141 -S-01
Floor slab in the south portion of
the Fuel Handling Building
O C-381 -S-01
Roof slab in the west portion of
the Fuel Handling Building
Concrete placemer.', techniques were observed to be in accordance
with Bechtel Specifications 10466-C101 and 191.
Review of field
concrete test records for concrete temperature, air entrainment,
and slump for these placements indicated that results were within
the acceptance tolerances.
Qualification records were also reviewed for the QC testing
personnel involved in these placements.
Qualification records
reviewed indicated that these perconnel were qualified in
accordance with Daniel Procedure AP-VI-01, Revision 3.
In regard to Placement OC-381-S-01, the IE inspectors were in-
formed by licensee and contractor personnel that a flonconformance
Report (flCR) had been written to identify the fact that weather
protection for the placement had been readily available, but it
had not been used when it began to rain, and that there appeared
to be some shrinkage cracking in the concrete.
After receiving
th's information, the f1RC inspectors inspected the placement
area and noted that there was some apparent shrinkage cracking
in certain areas.
This item will be reviewed in subsequent
inspections to evaluate the resolution of the flCR.
This is
considered an unresolved item pending review of the dispositioned
NCR.
Tb1
n ~
'\\
-4-
Ju
'
.
b.
Batch Plant and Aggregate Storage
The IE inspectors examined the batch plant and observed batch
plant activities.
The aggregate and sand storage facitilies
were also inspected. All activites observed were in accordance
with Daniel Procedure WP-IV-105.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
~
c.
Concrete Curing Activities
An inspection of post-placement activities and a review of the
concrete curing records for Placement OC-611-S-09, which was
made on April 10, 1979, indicated that concrete curing procedures
were being performed in accordance with the requirements of
The NRC inspecto s also reviewed curing activities with regard to
Placement 0C-141-S-01. The inspectors observed that the top of
the floor slab in the Fuel Handling Building was being provided
with the required ccmplete cover of water, and burlap had been
applied to hold the water onto the surface of the slab. The top
of the slab was being continuously moist cured in accordance with
the requirements; however, the construction joints at the north
and east face of the slab were observed to be dry.
Discussion
with contractor personnel revealed that a sealing compound to
reduce the loss of mixing water from the concrete had not been
applied to the construction joints.
Since the curing require-
ments of Section 2.2 or Section 2.3 of ACI 308 were not being
met for this construction joint surface, this is considered to
be an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion
V.
Subsequent to this inspection, a nonconformance report
(ISD 1537C) was written by cor.t.ractor personnel, and a liquid
membrane was applied.
4.
Radiographic Examination of Containment Liner Plate
The following documentation was reviewed by the IE inspector:
a.
SNUPPS PSAR, Section 3.12, Regulatory Guide 1.19, " Nondestructive
Examination of Primary Containment Liner Welds," which states in
part, "All nondestructive examination methods and techniques are
in accordance with Section V of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, except for radiography which is in accordance with
Appendix X of ASME Section III."
r, q
-
(., 7
'
,
5
.
b.
Appendix X to Section III of the 1971 ediIion of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, " Nondestructive Examination Methods for
Metal Containment Vessels."
(1) Paragraph X-3325, "Penetrameters," subparagraph X-3325.1,
" Material, Size and Shape," states in part, "The maximum
thickness of the penetramet.er shall be as shcwn in Table
X-3325.1-1."
.
(2) Table X-3325.l-1, " Standard Penetrameter Sizes," indicates
that "For a weld thickness between the range of over 1/4"
through 3/8", the thickness of the penetrameter on the
source side shall be 0.0075" and the designation on the
penetrameter shall be No.
7."
(3) Subarticle X-3330, "Tecnnique for Radiographic Examination
of Welded Joints," paragraph X-3332, " Required sensitivity
of Radiographic Technique," states, "Padiography shall be
performed with a technique which will have sufficient
sensitivity to indicate the features in C-3334.5 of a
penetrameter of the thickness specified for the thickness
of the weld being examined, as shown in Table X-3325.1-1."
(4) Subparagraph X-3334.5, " Images Which Shall Appear on
Radiographs," (a) "The images of the identifying numbers
of the penetrameter outline and of the 2T hole are all
essential indexes of image quality on the radiograph and
they shall appear on the radiograph, except that for
penetrameters 5, 7 and 10, the slit shall appear clearly,
and hole need not appear."
c.
Bechtel Specification No.10466-C151(Q), " Furnishing, Fabri-
cating and Delivering Reactor Building Liner Plate."
(1) Paragraph 7.5.1.a requires that liner seam welds be
examined radiographically in accordance with the require-
ments of Article 3 of Section V of the ASME Code.
(2) Paragraph 7.5.7 requires that type 1 or 2 film be used and
that fluoresent screens shall not be used.
d.
Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I) Procedure No. 9.TP (74-3750/59),
Revision 2 approved by Bechtel by a letter dated November 22,
1977, titled, " Radiographic Examination Procedure for Welds,
SNUPPS Containment and Liners."
n-
'n;
-6-
a'
'
.
(1)
Section 3.0, references:
1974 ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code,Section III, Division I and Section V with
the following Addenda: tione
Referenced Parts:
Section V, Article 3
Section III, flE 5300
(2)
Section 4.5, Type of Film: Only fiim types equivalent to
Class 1 and Class 2 ... will be used for radiography.
.
(3)
Section 4.7, Type of Screen: tio fluorescent screens will
be used.
(4)
Section 4.9, Penetrameter: The type, size and shape of
penetrameter shall be in accordance with T-320(e) of
Section V.
(5) Section 8.1.A, "The images of the identifying numbers,
the penetrameter outline, and of the essential hole
as required by Table T-320 are all essential indexes of
image quality, and they shall appear on the radiograph."
e.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section V, Article 3,
" Radiographic Examination."
(1)
T-320(e) states in part, "Penetrameter thickness shall
be as specified in Table T-320 ...."
(2)
Table T-320, " Thickness, Penetrameter Designations, and
Essential Holes," requires that for a single wall material
thickness of the range of over 1/4" through 3/8" that the
source side penetrameter shall be a size t!o.12.
t'ote : A size flo.12 penetrameter has a thickness of 0.012".
The above documents were evaluated by the IE inspector. The IE inspector
requested the licensee to explain the apparent deviation between:
(1)
the commitment in the PSAR to have radiographic examination procedures
for containment liner welds in accordance with Appendix X to Section III
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, which requires the use of
a 0.0075" thick penetrameter for a weld thickness over 1/4" thruugh 3/8"
(the liner is 1/4" thick); and (2) the requirement of CB&I Procedure
flo. RTP (74-3750/59) to deterraine the thickness of the penetrameter in
accordance with Table T-320 which requires a penetrameter 0.012" thick
for the same material thickness.
~l'
-.
r, o
1
'
.
p-m
The licensee contacted Bechtel for assistance.
Bechtel Specification
No.10466-C151(Q) references Article 3 of Section V instead of Appendix
X to Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
It should
be noted at this time that the No.12 penetrameter called for in Article
3 of Section V is 60% thicker than the No. 7 penetrameter as called for
in Appendix X to Section III.
Bechtel could not explain why the thicker penetrameter was allowed to
be used in lieu of the commitment in the PSAR.
The IE inspector recognizes that Section III of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code does not require that the containment liner
plate seam welds be radiographed.
However, Regulatory Guide 1.19
does require that these seam welds be spot radiographed.
SNUPPS PSAR Section 3.12 commits to Regulatory Guide 1.19, August 11,
1972, " Nondestructive Examination of Primary Containment Liner Welds."
Regulatory Guide 1.19, paragraph C.1, " Nondestructive Examination of
Liner Seam Welds," subparagraph C.l.a requires that welds be examined
radiographically in accordance with the techniques prescribed in
Section V.
(ASME B&PV Code) Subparagraph 7.a. " Containment Liner
Seam Welds Examined by Radiography," states, "Where a spot in the seam
weld is judged acceptable in accordance with the referenced standards
of NE-5120 of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code, the entire weld test
unit represented by this spot radiograph is considered acceptable."
Subarticle NE-5120, " Examination Requirements of Welded Joints for
Vessels," of Section III of the 1971 Edition of the ASME B&PV Code
states, " Examination in accordance with the requirements of Section
VIII, Division 1 of this Code shall be made of welded joints for
vessels as follows:
(a) Welded joints of Categories A and B as
defined in NB-3351 shall be radiographed in accordance with UW-51."
Subparagraph NB-3351.1 defines Category A welded joints as longitudinal
welded joints within the main shell.
Subparagraph NB-3351.2 defines
Category B welded joints as circumferential welded joints within the
main shel.
UW-51 to Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Table UW-51, " Standard Penetrameter Sizes," requires that a
penetrameter for weld thickness range of over 1/4" through 3/8" be of
a thickness of 0.0075" and designated a No. 7 penetrameter. The liner
plate is 1/4" thick.
The cormitment in the PSAR Section 3.12 .equires that radiographic
examination procedures for containment liner welds will be in accordance
with Appendix X to Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
ne
n-
>
-g-
,
.
.
Code.
Appendix X to Section III and Article 2 of Section V are
acceptable methods of meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.19, since their examination requirements are equivalent.
This item is a deviation from a commitment in the PSAR.
5.
Lakes , Dams , and Canals
a.
Proccdures
.
Blasting work on the safety related Ultimate Heat Sink (VHS)
is being done by the Clarkson Construction Company as a sub-
contractor to Daniel International, the site contractor.
Dames & Moore is the geotechnical consultant and performs
blast monitoring and contour mapping.
The IE inspector
reviewed Dames & Moore Project Plan and memoranda - Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Unit No.1, Rev. 5, dated May 1978 and
found it met the applicable specification requirements.
The IE inspector reviewed the Clarkson Construction Company
Blasting Procedure, Specification A-3854, dated April 27,
1978, which is a work procedure governing blasting work on
the UHS.
The procedure was not approved as required by
Specification A-3854 and the procedure was not assigned a
control number.
Secondly, the procedure was revised to in-
corporate a change in the method of notifying Dames & Moore
of intended blasts and only reviewed on April 19, 1979,
although blasting on the UHS had begun on December 13, 1978.
Finally, the blasting procedure dated April 19,1979, was
not controlled by a revision number or some other means of
control which indicated it superseded the earlier blasting
procedure.
These items are considered to be in noncompliance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VI.
b.
Observation of Work Activities
The IE inspector witnessed the preparation and blasting of
a section of the southeast lobe nf the UHS on April 18, 1979.
The hole pattern, hole size and depth, and required stemming
met the requirements of the Clarkson Blasting Plan.
The plan
had received verbal approval from the Dames & Moore engineer
and was not required to be monitored.
The blast consisted of
398 holes arranged in a rectangular, parallel row, non-staggered
.
v, -
r,
i
-9-
.
-
array, which utilized Dupont electric blasting caps (25 - 1,000
millisecond delays), 696 lbs. of ammonium nitrate blasting agent
(Pilshaw Explosive Co.), and 100 lbs. of Dupont ToVEX water gel.
The blasting foreman ran the circuit continuity checks on the
firing circuit and sounded the warning signals prior to the
oi. t as required by the blasting procedure.
No items of noncompliance or deviatior.s were identified.
.
c.
Training
The IE inspector reviewed the training qualification records of
several of the Dames & Thore field staff.
Dames & Moore is
committed to the requirements of ANSI Standard N45.2.6-1973 as
stated on page 2 of the Dames & Moore quality Assurance Plan.
The training records of the resident geotechnical engineer
and also those of two field geologists were reviewed.
All
three Dames & Moore personnel had received indoctrination on
the Quality Assurance Plan and had received field training in
the particular requirements of their duties.
None of the
personnel had received the eye examination, but this is con-
sistent with Dames & Moore's im?lementation of ANSI N45.2.6
as applied to the Wolf Creek Project.
None of the records
contained certification as required by paragraph C.3 of Regula-
tory Guide 1.58 and paragraph 2.2.4 of ANSI N45.2.6.
It is not
clear whether Dames & Moore policy takes exception to this
requirement, and hence whether the certification is formally
required.
This matter is unresolved.
6.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of
noncompliance, or deviations.
One item relating to concrete placement
is identified in paragraph 3, and one item relating to the certification
of Dames & Moore personnel is identified in paragraph 5.
7.
Exit Interview
The IE inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denoted in
paragraph 1) at the conclusion cf the inspection on April 19, 1979.
The IE inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspaction.
.n
r, .
0
>'
,
-10-