ML19260D740
| ML19260D740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1979 |
| From: | Crossman W, Oberg C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260D737 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-79-05, 50-458-79-5, NUDOCS 8002120080 | |
| Download: ML19260D740 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1979005
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-458/79-05
Docket No. 50-458
Category A2
Licensee: Gulf States Utilities
Post Office Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas
77704
Facility Name:
River Bend Station, Unit No'. 1
Inspection at: River Bend Site, St. Francisvil'Le, West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana
Inspection conducted: October 29 - November 1, 1979
Inspector:
/L//7/p9
,
.
,
C.R.Oberg,Reactorpspector,ProjectsSection
datd
c r-
--
/2!/7[7f
Approved:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
Inspection Summary
Inspection on October 29 - November 1, 1979 (Report No. 50-458/79-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of (1) preparations for
placement of safety-related concrete; (2) licensee action on previously
identified inspection findings; and (3) reporting of construction
deficiencies.
The inspection involved twenty-five inspector-hours by one NRC
inspector on site.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance were
identified in one area; two apparent items of noncompliance were identified in
each of the remaining areas (infraction - failure to provide required information
in a petrographi: report
paragraph 8 and infraction - failure to provide timely
notification of a construction deficiency
paragraph 4).
1952
309
soos1200$'jg l
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- T. L. Crouse, Director, Quality Assurance
- J. E. Wimberley, Superintendent, Site Construction
- G. T. Warner, QA Consultant
- R. B. Stafford, Supervisor, Quality Systems
- J. W. Leauines, Assistant Project Engineer
Other Personnel
W. I. Clifford, Resident Manager, S&W
P. Pelengaris, FQC Inspector, S&W
L. Worley, FQC Civil Engineer, S&W
R. L. Spence, Superintendent FQC, S&W
- C. D. Lundin, Project QA Manager, S&W
- K. S. Jadeja, Head Site Engineering Office, S&W
The IE inspector also talked with and interviewed other licensee employees
and contractor personnel including members of the QA/QC and engineering
staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (50-458/79-02):
Construction Deficiency -
Breakdown in Quality Assurance Program for Reinforcing Steel.
Approximately 90% of the nonconforming rebar has been marked or shipped
off the site.
This item remains unresolved until all reject steel
has been marked or removed from the site area.
3.
Site Tour
The IE inspector walked through the various construction areas to observe
the general progress of construction activities.
The following items
were noted and discussed with the licensee representatives:
condition of safety-related drawings at control building construction
a.
" gang box"
b.
status of nonconforming rebar (Construction Deficiency)
The licensee took immediate action to correct the condition of the
drawings which had been found torn and thus difficult to identify.
See
paraFeaph 2 for status of nonconforming rebar.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
}9b2.
310
2
4.
Structural Concrete (Containment)
The IE inspector was informed on October 29, 1979, by the licensee
that tests on concrete materials conducted by Southwestern Laboratories
(under subcontract to Delta Testing and Inspection) had been rejected.
As a result, new tests had been conducted by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory
(PTL).
Preliminary results of these tests indicated unsatisfactory
aggregates, cement, and water. As a result, placement of safety-related
concrete had been halted on the site by the constructor on a Nonconformance
and Disposition Report (N&D). However, no "stop-work order" had been
issued by the constructor or licensee.
The IE inspector reviewed an audit of Southwestern Laboratories by
Stone and Webster conducted on September 25-27, 1979.
GSU participated
in the audit. The report concluded that:
The requirements of the Southwestern Laboratories (Fort Worth)
a.
were not satisfactorily implemented and affected work performance.
b.
An audit of the Fort Worth reports and observation of shop conditions
did not provide the confidence that work performed at the
Fort Worth facility satisfied technical specification requirements.
The audit identified specific areas which failed to meet the standards
for a qualified test laboratory.
The following additional documents were reviewed:
Delta Testing and Inspection, Inc. letter to Stone and Webster,
a.
dated June 12, 1979. This letter transmitted test reports of
Southwestern Laboratories in connection with:
(1) Petrographic
Analysis of Aggregates - File No. 1799800, June 6, 1979; (2)
Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement, ASTM C295-65, - File No.
1799800, June 8, 1979; and (3) Test of Type II, Low Alkali, Low
Heat Portland Cement, ASTM C150-73a, - File No. 1799800,
June 6, 1979.
b.
Delta Testing and Inspection, Inc. letter to Stone and Webster
dated May 21, 1979.
This letter transmitted Southwestern
Laboratories report on Potential Reactivity of Aggregates,
Chemical Method, ASTM C289 - File No. 2-1799-01, April 30,
1979.
Delta Testing and Inspection, Inc. letter to Stone and Webster,
c.
dated July 9, 1979. This letter transmitted Southwestern
Laboratories report (final report) on Test of Type II, Low
Alkali, Low Heat Portland Cement, ASTM C150-73a (standard
specification for Portland Cement) File No. 1799800, dated
June 6 & 14, 1979, and July 2, 1979.
1952 JII
-
3
.
d.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Report on:
(1) River Bend Water from "Old Well No. 1"1/ ctober 23, 1979
O
(2) River Bend Water from "New Well No. 2"1/ October 23, 1979
(3) Potential Alkali Reactivity (ASTM C289) October 17, 1979 -
Sand
(4) Potential Alkali Reactivity (ASTM C289) October 17, 1979 -
No. 57 Course Aggregate
(5) Cement - (ASTM C150-78) October 22, 1979, Heat of
Hydration
e.
Stone and Webster Reports:
(1) Nonconformance and Disposition Reports;
(a)
No. 9132 Off Site Water Tests
(b) No. 9101A Tests Conducted by Southwestern Laboratories
(2) Engineering and Design Coordination Report No. P-5-229 -
Delta Testing anJ Sspection - Testing for Reactivity.
(December 11, 19782
The licensee representatives were informed that the failure of the concrete
materials to pass the specification requirements was a reportable construction
deficiency under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Failure to report the event within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />
is a violation of 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2).
The licensee respesentatives committed
to submit a written. report on the event within the 30 day period.
Subsequent to the inspection, on November 2, 1979, the GSU Director of Quality
Assurance issued a stop-work order to cease all Category I concrete placements.
On November 6, 1979, an "Immediate Action Letter" was issued from the Director
of Region IV to Gulf States Utilities concerning irregularities in the quali-
fication testing of concrete ingredients by the Southwestern Laboratories
(Fort Worth facilities). The activities described in the letter will be
reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
5.
Reporting of 10 CFR 50.55(e) Construction Deficiencies
The IE inspector discussed the reporting of construction deficiencies
with site management and QA personnel. This was also discussed with
1/Congressive Strength at 7 and 28 days - Distilled water
vn Test Water and Chemical Analysis
4
.
corporate management personnel (See Inspection Report 50-458/79-07).
Other site related events were reviewed for reporting as required by
10 CFR 50.55(e). This included:
a.
Cadweld RP-517B
The report on this deficiency (N&D NO. 9130) indicated that a Cadweld
was found to be "plagged" with No. 9 tie wire after acceptance by QC.
Corrective action included a review of all Cadwelds made by the Cad-
welder who plugged the defective Cadweld. The IE inspector indicated
that this event should have been identified as a potential construction
deficiency, based on the possibility a breakdown of the QA program
and the potential for a large number of unsatisfactory Cadwelds.
This problem was officially identified to the inspector on
November 1, 1979. Afterevaulation,thgflicensee concluded this
matter was not a reportable deficiency
b.
Structural Fabrication of Pritary Shield Wall
Chicago Bridge and Iron Nuclett (Memphis, Tennessee) is under
subcontract to Chicago Bridge und Iron for the construction of the
Primary Shield Wall. As a result of an audit conducted by Stone
and Webster (with GSU participation) work was stopped due to lack
of compliance with the QA program.
Specific welding problems were
cited in the audit report of September 10-11, 1979.
This problem
was officially identified to Region IV on November 5, 1979. The
evaluation of the NDE performed duri.ng fabrication is continuing.3/
The licensee will make a final report on the matter by January 5,
1980.
c.
Grade 50 Reinforcing Steel
Problems have been noted over the past several months relating to
nicks and puges, which exceed the specification 210.341 limits
and were found in Grade 50 reinforcing steel.
These problems
were documented in N&D No. 9081C of September 6,1979.
An
extensive test of " rejectable" rebar has been conducted.
No
material failures below 50,000 psi were identified. The cause
seems to be rolling problems at the mill (Transamerica Steel
Corporation). The resolution required a significant amount of
review and analysis and removal of some rebar which had been
placed in the base mat.
The NRC (Region IV) was officially
informed of this matter on November 1, 1979.
After evaluation,
the licens
concluded that this item was not a reportable
j
deficiency
MS2 N
2_/GSU letter to NRC (Region IV), dated November 19, 1979 (RBG-6922)
3/GSU letter to NRC (Region IV), dated December 3, 1979 (RBG-?)
l/GSUlettertoNRC(RegionIV),datedNovember 19, 1979 (RBG-6923)
S
.
The above three items were considered potentially significant within the
context of 10 CFR 50.55(e) at the time of the inspection, based on the
information available.
Failure to report a construction deficiency
within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> constitutes an item of noncompliance. Reportability
of these items is considered unresolved and will be reviewed in a subse-
quent inspection.
6.
Containment Base Mat
The licensee reported to the IE Inspector that it was the intention of
the Constructor, Stone and Webster, to make a monothlic containment
base mat placement.
Planning for the placement is now in process.
7.
Mill Test Reports for Special Reinforcement No. 18 Bar
Stone and Webster N&D No. PQC-5-D003 Mentified a problem in mill test
reports which failed to provide a notation that deformations conform to
ASTM A615. The rebar was accepted by the engineer reviewing the N&D.
In the review of the results of the Chemical and Physical test records
of this special rebar, several instances were noted by the IE inspector
where the values of chemical analysis did not conform to Specification
210.341 limits.
Criteria tolerance (+ or - values) for acceptance
could not be determined during the inspection.
The licensee stated they
could provide this information.
This item is considered unresolved and will be reviewed in a subsequent
inspection.
8.
Failure to Make Complete Petrographic Analysis Report of Aggregates
During the review of Stone and Webster Specification 210.360, " Concrete
Testing Services," the IE inspector compared the contents of the
petrographic report (See Paragraph 4.a.(1) of this report) with the
specification requirements. Specification 210.360, (lines 950-968)
states:
"The petrographer shall submit a written report covering the
following items:
"1.
Gradation of each sample and conformance to ASTM C33.
"2.
Compatibility of the fine aggregate with the coarse aggregate
and with regular Type II portland cement. Also, the advisability
of using Type II, low alkali portland cement.
"3.
Recommendations for any additional petrographic, chemical,
physical or geological investigations that may be required
for evaluation of adverse properties that are indicated in
the examination that has been performed.
"4.
A brief simple conclusion that the material appears to or does
not appear to be innccuous for use in concrete based on this
examination."
6
1952 31'4
.
Items 1, 2, and 3 were not provided in the petrographer's report.
This was made known to the licensee representatives and an N&D,
No. 9149, was issued on October 31, 1979.
Failure to follow the
specification requirements is an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V.
9.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of non-
cog liance, or deviations.
Unresolved items disclosed during the
inspection are discussed in paragraph 5 (Heporting of 50.55(e) Matters)
and paragraph 7 (Mill Test Report for Special Reinforcement No. 18 Bar).
10.
Exit Interview
The IE inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in
paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on November 1, 1979.
The IE inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The items of noncompliance and unresolved items were discussed.
'
1952
315