ML19320D247
| ML19320D247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1980 |
| From: | Weigand J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320D238 | List: |
| References | |
| RBG-7307, NUDOCS 8007210148 | |
| Download: ML19320D247 (4) | |
Text
e'
' O GULF ST./RTES UTILITIES COMPANY SEAUVoNT
- ExAS
04 AoST OFFtOE 9oX 295:
=
AREA CODE 713 939 663'
!! arch 5,1980 REG - 7307 File No. G9.5 G15.h.1 Mr. W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011
Dear Mr. Seidle:
River Bend Station - Unit 1 Refer to:
RIV Docket No. 50 h58/ Rut. 79-06 This letter responds to the infractions contained in your IE Report No. 50 h58/79-06. This inspection of River Bend site construction activities was performed by Messrs. C.R. Oberg and A.B. Beach, November 18-21 and December h-T, 1979 Only the cited infractions mentioned in your report are discussed in this reply, as required by Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. The unresolved items have-been acted on.
We vill be prepared to re-port in detail on our progress on corrective action on these matters to your inspectors on their next visit.
The enclosed response is arranged to correspond to the sequence of items cited in the body of your report.
We trust this letter satisfactorily answers the concerns raised in your report. We shall be glad to discuss any further points that you may have.
Yours very truly,
^
\\
.G. Weigand Vice President Operations and Technical Programs JGW/JEB/WJR/mb 80'07210/g belose
~=
pago 1
-URC In;puction R port 50 h58/79-06
-A.
Deletion of and Failure to Specify ' Acceptance Criteria Criterion V of Appendix B 10CFR 50 requires that instructions shall in-clude appropriate quantitative acceptance criteria for determining that im-portant activities have been satisfactorily accomplished.
The River Bend PSAR, in Section 3.8-h.2 references tests to be performed for measurement of potential alkali reactivity for fine and coarse aggregates.
These tests, ASTM C227 and ASTM C289, are to be included as part of the speci-fication for concrete testing services.
Stone & Webster Construction Speci-fication 210.360, " Concrete Test: 'g Services", requires that these tests be performed to test the aggregatet for compliance with the ASTM specification requirement.
Contrary to the above:
1.
A change to the specification (by Engineering and Design Coordination Report, PS-9) was initiated on November 29, 1979 to perform these tests for information only effectively deleting the accept / reject criteria established by ASTM C227-and ASTM C289 from the specification.
2.
Engineering and Design Coordination Reports (E&DCR) No. P-G-10 and P-G-10A, which were used to specify a special fill grout material failed to provide the acceptance criteria for compression testing of the material.
This is an infraction.
GSU Response to A-1:
Action taken and results achieved:
The change to the specification identified in the inspector's report was made essentially based on the results of the Erlin Hime Associates report on the relationship between cement alkalinity content and aggregate reactivity.
This report was submitted to the NRC Region IV Office of Inspection and Enforcement by Gulf States in a letter dated December 6,1979 in response to the Inspection Report 79-05 letter of November 6,1979 Also in response to the Inspection Report T9-05 letter of-December 13, 1979 Gulf-States committed to provide to the NRC Region IV Office of Inspection and Enforcement the results of the ASTM C227 mortar bar tests that Gulf States was conducting on a "for information" basis. The mortar bar tests are being conducted by Gulf States to determine if in the future high alkali cement may be used with our source of aggregate.
Corrective action taken to prevent further noncompliance:
The infraction cited was a unique situation and is not felt to represent a progrsn-deficiency.
Date when full compliance vill be achieved:
In compliance.
u j
pago 2 Gj[l' Response to A-2:
' Action taken and results achieved:
'E&DCR P-G-10 has been replaced with E&DCR C-2h8'which changes the speci-fication to reflect the. appropriate compressive strength accept / reject criteria.
Corrective action taken to prevent further noncompliance:
A representati'.
sample'of previous Category I E&DCR's will be reviewed by GSU QA for.1 clusion of accept / reject criteria.
Instructions will be issued to ti ? Engineers to assure accept / reject criteria is provided as required.
Date when full compliance vill be achieved:
April 1, 1980.
B.
Failure to Identify Unsatisfactory Test Results and Follow Construction Specifications :
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10CFR 50 requires that activities affecting quality shall be in accordance with prescribed instructions, procedures and drawings.
Stone & Webster Construction Specification 210.360, " Concrete Testing Services",
requires that the fine aggregates be tested for co=pliance with ASTM C33,
" Standards Specification for Concrete Aggregates".
Paragraph '4.3 of ASTM C33 requires that the fine aggregates shall not have more than h5% retained be-tv?cn any two consecutive sieves for satisfactory perfor=ance of the sieve analysis.
Stone & Webster Construction Specification 210.360, " Concrete Testing Services", also requires that ASTM C227 tests be conducted on aggregate materials prior to use.
Contrary to'the above:
1.
A review of Inspection Reports IR9001510 and IR9001595, " Fine Aggregate Reports", indicated values greater than h5% retention (h6-53%) between two
-consecutive ' sieves during performance of the _ sieve analysis.
These values were not identified as not meeting the specification requirements.
2.
Safety-related concrete was placed in pump bases in the Auxiliary Building prior to receipt of 90 day results of the mortar bar ( ASTM C227) tests.
This is an infraction.
.e.
?
pagn 3 GSU-Response to B-1:
~ Action taken and results achieved:
N&D 922h was written. to address the concrete made using these materials.
The. evaluation for the disposition showed the concrete exceeded the required minimum compressive strength.
A review of previous gradation reports found no additional failures.
Corrective action taken to prevent further noncompliance:
The FQC Inspection Plan was revised to emphasize the h5% criteria.
A note was also added to the gradation report to emphasize the requirement.
Date when full compliance vill be achieved:
In compliance, GSU Response to B-2:
Action taken and results achieved:
An extensive evaluation of the potential reactivity of the aggregates used was evaluated by Erlin Hime Associates (as previously mentioned in Response A-1) which concluded that when used with low alkali cement, the aggregates would not be r4
- ive.
Mortar bar tests are presently being conducted on a "for information" basis by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories and the 90 day results for job cement on fine and coarse aggregate show no excessive expansion as defined in ASTM C227 There is no evidence to date for all concrete poured on site that shows any signs of alkali-aggregate reactivity.
Corrective action taken to prevene further noncompliance:
Stone & Webster's present program is' considered adequate to assure that design requirements are adhered to.
The infraction cited was a unique situation and is not felt t'o represent a program deficiency.
Date when full compliance vill be achieved:
In compliance.
l
. -_.