ML19331C511
| ML19331C511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1980 |
| From: | Beach A, Crossman W, Oberg C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331C503 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-80-05, 50-458-80-5, NUDOCS 8008180596 | |
| Download: ML19331C511 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1980005
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-458/80-05
Docket No. 50-458
Category A2
Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities
Post Office Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas
77704
Facility Name: River Bend, Unit No. 1
Inspection at: River Bend Site
.
Inspection Conducted: May 27-30 and June 2-5, 1980
Inspector:
$$u AAr i j
b
A.B. Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support
Date
Section
7//#/88
Reviewed-
_;;n
C. R. Oberg, Reactor Tnspector, Projects Section
Date
7!/#/8C
Approved:
e r -_
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
/$
$
R.E.' Hall, Chief,EngifeeringSupportSection
~/Dpe
_
l
l
8008180596
.
- .
- -
. ..
-
.
-
_, . _
- . -
-
- .
- - - - _
.
-_
-,
.
Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 27-30 and June 2-5, 1980 (Report No. 50-458/80-05)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unranounced inspection of Field Quality Control
inspector qualifications and concrete placement activities. The inspection
involved sixty-seven inspector-hours by one NRC-inspector.
Results:
In the areas inspected, three apparent items of noncompliance and two
deviations were found (infraction - failure to follow procedures for the certifi-
cation of Field Quality Jontrol (FQC) inspection personnel - paragraph 2.b;
infraction - failure to follow site procedures for utilization of qualified
inspection personnel for the performance of site inspection activities -
paragraph 2.d.(1); infraction - failure to meet specification requirements for
the qualification of No. 67 and No. 8 coarse aggregates
paragraph 3.a;
deviation
qualification of individuals as Level II QC inspectors who do not meet
the ANSI N45.2.6 experience qualifications for a Level II capability
paragraph
2.a; and deviation - performance of QC inspection activity reviews by inspection
personnel not in accordance with the ANSI N45.2.6 requirements
paragraph 2.d.(2)).
l
t
i
!
2
. - .
- - . ,_ -.
- - .
. - - . - . . _ .
- - - . . . -
--
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- T. C. Crouse, Director Quality Assurance (QA)
- A. Drehetz, Public Affairs
- J. R. Dungelberg, Assistant Superintendent Site Construction
R. R. Doggart, QA Engineer
C. B. Graham, QA Representative
- P. D. Graham, QA Engineer
- K. C. Hodges, QA Engineer
I. Hormozi, Construction
- J. W. Leavins, Engineering
J. Hudson, QA Engineer
- J. Normans, Construction
R. B. Stafford, Supervisor QA
W. S. Stuart, QA Engineer
L. Ballard, QA Representative
Other Personnel (Stone and Webster)
- J. D. Anderson, Field Quality Control (FQC)
G. M. Byrnes, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
- J. G. Borden, QA Engineer
- D. P. Barry, Engineering
- K. E. Conrad, FQC, Senior Site Representative
- A. J. Lossu, Superintendent of Engineering
- A. Kamdor, Resident Engineer
- L. W. Lewis, FQC Training Engineer
- C. D. Lundin, Project QA Manager
R. L. Spence, Superintendent, FQC
F. J. Trainor, Superintendent, Construction
D. L. Wells, FQC
J. Davis, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
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.
Qualification of Stone and Webster Field Quality Control Inspectors
a.
Review of Inspector Qualification Records
The IE inspector performed a selected review of qualification records
for personnel employed as Field Quality Control inspectors.
During
this review, the IE inspector identified an apparent deviation to the
licensee's QA program commitments in the hiring of individuals into a
Level II position of capability.
3
,
.
-
-_.
. . - . . -
--. . -- .-
-_ . -.
.
_.
.
. -
.
Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C, " Qualification and Certification
of Personnel Performing Quality Assurance Activities," establishes
the requirements for qualification and certification of the Stone
and Webster inspection personnel at the River Bend facility. Section
4.2 of this procedure requires that qualification of inspection, exam-
ination,.and testing personnel be performed to one of the following
levels of capability:
Level III Personnel
Level II Personnel
Level I Personnel
Trainee Personnel
The education and experience requirements for each of these levels of
capability are given in Attachment 3.2 to the procedure.
For inspec-
tion, examination and testing personnel performing assigned tasks in
the Level II area of responsibility, the procedure allows that, after
one year of satisfactory performance at Level I inspection, personnel
may be qualified as Level II Quality Control inspectors.
ANSI N45.2.6-1973, " Qualifications of Inspection, Examination, and
Testing Personnel for the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants,"
in Section 3.1, establishes the levels of capability for inspection
personnel who perform inspection activities in accordance with industry
standards.
To be considered a Level II, an individual must satisfy
one of the following requirements:
(1) Graduate of a four-year accredited engineering or science
college, plus two years of equivalent quality assurance
experience in construction activities.
(2) High School graduate, plus four years of equivalent experience
in testing and/or inspection activities.
However, the standard provides that the " education and experience
l
requirements specified for the various levels should not be treated as
absolute when other factors provide reasonable assurance that a person
!
can competently perform a particular task."
Section 4.2.3 of the Qualification Procedure QAD-2.4, Revision C
requires that each employee complete a "QA employment experience and
education resume." During review of a random sample of fif teen Level
!
II personnel qualificatisn records, from the information provided in
their resumes, five Field Quality Control (FQC) inspectors hired at
the Level II position could not meet the guideline provisions as
established in the ANSI N45.2.6-1973 standard; however, all five of
these FQC inspectors could be hired at a Level II capability in accordance
with Attachment 3.2 of the Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C, as all of the
individuals had prior experience at a Level I capability for at least
one year.
4
..- --
-
--.
. - _ .
.-
. . . - _
. - . .
. . - . _
-.
-
"
.
Stone and Webster contractor personnel stated that it was not,their
'
" philosophy" to promote 'and/or hire an employee based just on his
experience as a Level I inspector for one year, but that it is their
" intent" to follow ANSI N45.2.6-1973 guidance.
Discussionr. with
-
the ' site Stone and Webster personnel responsible for hiring these -
individuals revealed that these five inspectors not meeting the guide-
lines of ANSI N45.2.6 were hired at-the Level II capability "because
of their previous experience as a Level I inspector for at least one
yea r. "
The'"QA Program Manual for the River Bend Nuclear Station Units 1 and
2," in its introduction, establishes the licensee's commitment to ANSI
45.2.6-1973Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>45.2.6-1973" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
This QA program manual is' required by Section 17.1.2.2b
of the River Bend PSAR, and it requires that the quality assurance
program correspond to the guidance set forth in " WASH 1283, Division 1,
dated May 24, 1974." " WASH 1283" implements the guidelines established
Thus, the " practice" of hiring individuals at
a Level II capability, based solely on prior experience as a Level I
inspector for at least one year without providing reasonable assurance
that the individual can perform as a Level II inspector, appears to
.
deviate fwi the licensee's commitment established in the River Bend
Quality Asiarance Manual.
The IE inspector also reviewed a random sample for each of the quali-
fication records for technicians (trainees), Level I. inspectors, and
1
senior quality control inspectors. Approximately twenty-five individual
personnel qualification records were reviewed.
No items of noncompliance
or additional deviations were identified regarding these individuals.
b.
Review of Inspector .ertification Records
_
The IE inspector reviewed selected certification records for personnel
!
employed as Field Quality Control inspectors at the site. During
'
this review of inspector qualification records, the IE inspector
found that in two separate instances an inspector who had experience
and expertise as a Level II inspector in one discipline had received
'
training in another discipline, and was subsequently utilized as an
inspector in that other discipline with the capability to perform as
,
a Level II inspector, even though he had no prior experience within
that discipline. Although Stone and Webster Field Quality Control
personnel assured the IE inspector that these inspectors did not
perform in th.e Level II capability outside of their discipline of
experience and expertise, the individuals' certifications indicated
that they were -certified Level II inspectors for any specific activity.
Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C, " Qualification and Certification
of Personnel Performing Quality Assurance Activities," requires, in
Section 4.2.5, a certificate of qualification for each individual who
verifies conformance of work activities affecting quality. Each certi-
,
ficate shall include, as a minimum:
5
1
-
,.- . -
..
%,
.-.r.
,-,,-%.--
_
...-,c
-_.
,,_,,.,n,.
,,.-.,,,_,,-.-,..,,~~,....mwy
,..,_-cc.,,mywr_
.,,.-.,,,,m.,,.,.r.,,,y,.gwype,,.-4,%,,g w. y.,y
. .
(1) Employer's Name
.(2) Person Being Certified
(3) Activity Qualified to Perform
(4) Level of Capability
(5) Effective Period of Certification
(6) Signature of Employer's Designated Representative
(7) Basis Used for Certification
These are the same requirements included in the ANSI N45.2.6-1973
standard, " Qualifications of Inspection, Examination, and Testing
?,.
Personnel."
Both the site Certification Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C and the
ANSI N45.2.6 standard require that the certification include the
activity or discipline for which the inspector is qualified to per-
form inspections. Regulatory Guide 1.58-1973," Qualification of
Nuclear Power Plant Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel,"
states, in Section C.3, "the specific technical abilities of the
person being certified should be related to the specific assigned
tasks;
e.g.,
electrical inspection, concrete inspection, etc.
This
regulatory guide endorses the ANSI N45.2.6-1973 standard.
Further review of certification records revealed that all of the
individual inspectors were certified to a specific level of capability
as an " inspector," "examinor," and/or "testor."
" Inspector," "examinor,"
or "testor" are indicative of a function to be performed, and do not
define a specific task or activity which an individual is quali-
fied to perform. This activity is then related to the discipline and/
or disciplines in which the individual inspectors have experience and
expertise.
Thus, since none of the certification records identify the activities
which the individual inspectors are qualified to perform, this is
considered to be an item of noncompliance with the requirements of
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
Specifically, failure to
follow the Certification Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C; i.e.,
failure
to include in the certificate of qualification for each individual,
who verifies conformance of work activities affecting quality, the
specific activity and/or activities that the individual is qualified
to perform.
To supplement this procedure, a matrix has been developed indicating
the training each FQC inspector has received, and the activities he
is qualified to perform, by training only.
The matrix is to be ased
as a tool by FQC supervisors in scheduling inspection activities to
6
. -
-
- _-
. _ .
... .
-
-
.
. _ - .
--
,
.
be performed at the site. The levels of capability of the inspection
personnel are not shown on the matrix for the performance of these
i
activities.
c.
Training and Indoctrination of FQC Inspectors
The IE inspector held discussions with various Stone and Webster
FQC personasl responsible for training and indoctrination of inspector
personnel. Discussions centered on the purposes of the training and
the indoctrination program and the effectiveness of the program in
the use of the matrix.
Because of the April 1, 1980, implementation
date of this particular training and indoctrination program, the
effectiveness of the matrix could not be determined at the time of
this inspection.
Procedure QCI-FRI-D2.5-010, " Indoctrination and Training of Field
Quality Control Personnel," establishes the requirements for the
indoctrination and training of Stone and Webster FQC personnel at the
River Bend site. The purpose of this procedure is "to assure that
those personnel performing activities affecting quality achieve and
maintain the necessary skills and demonstrated proficiency for per-
formance of required activities."
Section 4.4.1(c) of this training procedure allows that work assignment
will depend on the evaluation of the individual's education and experience
and may be discipline oriented to ensure effective operation. To
meet the intent of the purpose of this procedure and to meet the re-
quirements of the Certification Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C, "Quali-
fication and Certification of Personnel Performing Quality Assurance
Activities," referenced in the citation above, work assignment must
be discipline oriented to satisfy the requirements of the ANSI N45.2.6-
1973Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI N45.2.6-</br></br>1973" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. standard.
d.
Review of Laboratory Test Records
(1) Performance of Inspection Activities by Technicians
The IE inspector reviewed a selection of inspection reports to
determine that inspection activities were being performed by
qualified inspection personnel.
From this review, it was deter-
mined that in many instances technicians (trainees) were being
utilized as qualified inspectors, both performing and evaluating
inspection activities.
Training Procedure QCI-FRI-D.2.5-010, " Indoctrination and
Training of Field Quality Control Personnel," specifically
restricts, in Section 6.0, the use of personnel with lower levels
of capability from performing activities in the higher levels of
capability.
Contrary to this procedural requirement, during a
review of inspection reports generated from January to March 1980
7
. _ .
.
-
..
.
. - _ - . -
-
- , - - - _ - _
- - - _ , _
.
- .
_
'
,
by the testing of. concrete aggregates by the site FQC lab, the
following tests were performed by a technician and the test results
were subsequently reviewed by a technician:
1RS0000127, dated January 13, 1980
.
IRS 0000117, dated January 11, 1980
1RS0000181, dated January 19, 1980
1RS0000182, dated January 19, 1980
IRS 0000326, dated January 26, 1980
1RS0000340, dated January 27, 1980
1RS0000341, dated January 27, 1980
1RS0000372, dated January 27, 1980
1RS0000521, dated February 4, 1980
1RS0000522, dated February 4, 1980
1RS0000543, dated February 5, 1980
1RS0000544, dated February 5, 1980
1RS0000817, dated February 22, 1980
1RS0000832, dated February 21, 1980
1RS0000834, dated February 21, 1980
Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C, " Qualification and Certifica-
tion of Personnel Performing Quality Assurance Activities," in
Section 4.2, requires trainee personnel to work under the super-
vision of higher level personnel.
Contrary to this procedural
requirement, the following inspection reports generated by testing
of concrete aggregates and testing for compressive strength of
concrete cylinders showed no evidence of any subsequent supervisory
review or that the tests were performed under the supervision of
higher level personnel.
All of these tests were performed by a
technician.
1RS0000104, dated January 10, 1980
1RS0001385, dated March 21, 1980
1RS0000620, Mix Design C-1
8
-
.
. . . .
-
.
_
..
--
, . - . - - . . - .
-
- . - - . .
.
1RS0001235, Mix Design R
1RS0000295, Placement Tests
Trail Mix Report, Mix Design A-3
These reports were performed without any subsequent supervisory
review by a Level I inspector:
1RS0000452, dated January 31, 1980
1RS0000763,~ dated March 1, 1980
Section II of the inspection system handbook, " Inspection Report
System," requires that the reviewer should be an inspector other
than the originating inspecto- but at the same level of capability
or higher.
In addition, Section 4.3 of Procedure QAD-2.5,
Revision C states that only personnel qualified at a Level II
capability or at a Level III capability shall be considered cap-
able of supervising or maintaining surveillance of personnel.
Contrary to these procedural requirements and the procedural
requirements in the two paragraphs referenced above, the follow-
ing concrete aggregate tests were performed by a Level II individ-
ual, and the test results were subsequently reviewed by a techni-
cian:
1RS0000114, dated January 10, 1980
1RS0003115, dated January 10, 1980
1RS0000453, dated February 1,1980
1RS0000454, dated February 1,1980
1RS0000475, dated February 2,1980
1RS0000476, dated February 2, 1980
These above inspection reports indicate that not only are techni-
cians or trainees performing activities in the higher levels of
capability, but they are also apparently performing assigned
inspection activities without supervision.
In noted cases, the
technicians have performed inspection activities equivalent to
.
a Level II capability.
The above procedural violations are considered to be examples of
an item of noncompliance with the requirements of Criterion V of
9
-. .--
-
. - - .
.
. . . _ . . _ _ _ . - . , _ _ . , _ _ . - -
. .
.
.
_ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ , - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - .
.
i
,
Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
Specifically, the failure to follow
site procedures for the utilization of qualified inspection
personnel for the performance of site inspection activities.
(2) Review of Inspection Activities
.
(a) Personnel Qualified to Perform Re*iews
Section II of the inspection system handbook, " Inspection
Report System," as referenced in the above citation, states
that "the reviewer is other than the originating inspector
and is of the same or higher level." In this same regard,
none of the inspection reports described in the citation
above were reported or reviewed by a Level II individual.
In addition, a review of forty inspection reports revealed
that sixteen had been reviewed and evaluated by less than
a Level II individual.
This procedural requirement and its implementation at the
site appear to deviate from the requirements established in
Table 1, " Minimum Levels of Capability for Project Functions,"
of the ANSI N45.2.6 standard.
ANSI N45.2.6-1973, " Qualification
of Inspection, Examination, and Testing Personnel for the
Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," Table 1 reqaires
that at least a Level II individual both evaluate inspection
and test results and report inspection and test results.
The "QA Program Manual for the River Bend Nuclear Station
Units 1 and
2," in its introduction, establishes the licensee's
commitment to ANSI N45.2.6-1973.
The QA program manual is
required by Section 17.1.2.2b of the River Bend PSAR. This
manual requires that the quality assurance program correspond
to the guidance set forth in " WASH 1283, Division 1,
dated May 24, 1974." This document references the ANSI
N45.2.6-1973Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2.6-1973" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. as one of the guidance documents. Thus, the
procedure " Inspection Report System" deviates from the re-
quirements delineated in the ANSI N45.2.6-1973 standard.
(b) Timeliness of Reviews
The IE inspector noted that, during the review of batch plant
records, many of the inspections were performed by an
individual with a Level I certification; but the review of
the inspection results was not performed for a significantly
longer period of time from when the inspection was actually
performed. For example, in the two worst cases found, 1RS000
0359 was performed on January 28, 1980, but was not reviewed
until May 9, 1980, and 1RS0000336 was performed on January 19,
1980, but was not reviewed until May 15, 1980. The following
10
.
_
_ _
_
_
. - _ . __
_
, _ _ . _
.
. .
.
. -
-
.
.
.
inspection reports had a greater than a forty-five day
lapse from the time the inspection was performed until the
time it was reviewed:
1RS0000177
1RS0000157
1RS0000208
1RS0000337
The following inspection reports were signed as having been
reviewed, but were not dated:
1RS0000048
1RS0000144
1RS0000329
1RS0000167
1RS0000578
1RS0002112
1RS0002311
1RS0002553
1RS0002554
Relative to the above findings, if a Level I inspector
performs the assigned inspection, a Level II inspector must
review the inspection report, evaluate and report the results,
and subsequently sign and date the report properly. The
Level II is not only responsible for a review of the r,eport
from a technical standpoint, he should also be associated
with the inspection in some supervisory capacity, as require. .
by Procedure QAD-2.5, Revision C, Section 4.3.
Thus, the
date for the performance of the inspection and the date of
the review of the inspection results should be similar to
satisfy the above prccedural requirements.
This item is considered an unresolved item pending further
definition of requirements incumbent upon the licensee.
,
11
- - . -
._
.- . . _ ,
,
.
. . - _ -
._-
-._. . - -
. . .
-
..-
'
.
3.
Concrete Placement Activities
a.
Qualification of No. 67 and No. 8 Coarse Aggregates
The IE inspector, during a review of documentation to determine the
frequency of certain concrete aggregate tests, noticed that No. 67
and No. 8 coarse aggregates from the Bayou Sara source were being
tested periodically at the site lab during the months of April and
May 1980.
Further discussions with contractor and licensee per-
sonnel indicated that these aggregates were being used in this time
period for Category I concrete placements in the Control Bui,lding.
The IE inspector than reviewed documentation to determine whether
or not these eggregates had been properly qualified for use at the
site.
On February 26, 1980, an N&D was originated by Stone and Webster
FQC in that the test report from Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, dated
February 14, 1980, indicated that the test sample for the No. 67 Bayou
Sara aggregate "does not conform to requirements." This N&D No. 9400,
stated, "No. 67 stone failed prequalification tests.
(Bayou Sara)
sample failed specific gravity, finer than 200 Sieve .
."
.
On March 4, 1980, a similar N&D was originated by Stone and Webster
FQC in that the test report from Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory dated
February 28, 1980, indicated that the test sample for the No. 8 Bayou
Sara aggregate "does not conform to requirements." This N&D No.
9421 stated, " Material tested did not conform to Specifications.
Specific gravity was 2.49.
Specification requires 2.50 min."
Section 3.8.4.2 of the River Bend PSAR references concrete aggregate
tests.
In accordance with these requirements, the Stone and W2bster
Construction Specification 210.361, " Concrete Testing Services,"
requires that coarse aggregates be tested prior to use at the site for
compliance to ASTM C33, " Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates."
This includes testing the coarse aggregate in accordance with ASTM
'
C127, " Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of
,
Coarse Aggregate," and ASTM C117, " Standard Test Method for Materials
l
l
Finer than No. 200 (75-um) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing."
The Stone and Webster Construction Specification 210.350, " Specification
I
for Mixing and Delivering Concrete," requires, for coarse aggregates
tested in accordance with ASTM C127, a bulk specific gravity of a mini-
mun of 2.5 in a saturatel-surfa:- dry condition.
For the coarse aggre-
t
gates tested in accordance with ASTM C117, the maximum allowable material
finer than No. 200 sieve, by ASTM C33, Table 3, " Limits for Deleterious
Substances and Physical Property Requirements of Coarse Aggregate for
l
Concrete," is 1.0%.
12
1
i
_
_
. . _ .
-
.
.
.
_
. -
.
_ . -, ._
.-.
._
.
'
.
t
Contrary to the above, the qualification tests for the No. 67 aggregate
indicated the material possessed a specific gravity of 2.48 and a wash
loss by ASTM C117 of 1.8%.
The No. 8 aggregate qualification test
for specific gravity resulted in a value of 2.49.
Technical justification for the use of the No. 67 coarse aggregate
with a specific gravity of 2.48 stated that the limit of 2.5 was
included to assure a concrete weight of at least 135 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf) for biological shielding as required by the Construction
Specification 210.350. The air dry unit weight of three cylinders
i
tested under Trial Mix SNW15 was 137.2 pcf. The water-cement ratio
for this mix was 0.61.
The technical justification for the use of the Nc. 67 coarse aggregate
further stated that the mixes using No. 67 aggregates at the site
would have a lower water-cement ratio, thus a higher unit weight.
However, at the time of this inspection, no data were available indicat-
I
ing the air dry unit weight of the concrete mix actually used in the
'
concrete placements at the sites with No. 67 aggregates.
Similar justification for the use of the No. 8 coarse aggregate with
a specific gravity of 2.49 was dispositioned.
However, the average
dry unit weight of the three cylinders tested with Trail Mix 4NW12 was
137.5 pcf with a water-cement ratio of 0.67.
Again, no data were
available at the time of this inspection indicating the air dry unit
weight of the concrete mix actually used in concrete placements at
the site with No. 8 aggregates.
For the excess of fines passing the 200 sieve, the following technical
!
justification was provided for the No. 67 aggregate.
"If the deficiency continues, the supplier shall be notified that
a more careful processing washing of the aggregate will be
necessary."
Since this is a prequalification test, the use of this aggregate prior
to ensuring it meets the specification requirements without any
" deficiency" is a violation of the Construction Specification 210.361
requirements.
The use of the Bayou Sara No. 67 coarse aggregate and the use of the
No. 8 coarse aggregate prior to assuring that the aggregates meet all
the specification requirements for their intended use at the site
is considered to be an item of noncompliance with Cr1terion V of
Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
Approximately 274 cubic yards of Category 1
concrete have been placed mainly in the Control Building utilizing
No. 67 coarse aggregate between the time period April 5, 1980, through
May 31, 1980.
Approximately 72 cubic yards of Category 1 concrete
have been placed in the Control Building and in the Electric Tunnels
utilizing No. 8 coarse aggregate between the time period May 15, 1980,
through June 2, 1980.
l
13
..
- - . . - - _ = - - - - - . , - . _ - - - - . - -
--
- . - -. -
.
-
.
Subsequent to this finding, on June 5, 1980, the contractor placed a
stop-work directive on further placement of Category 1 concrete using
those aggregates until it can be assured the aggregates meet the proper
specification requirements.
In addition, the licensee has identified
this as a " potential" 50.55(e), "Significant Construction Deficiency."
Furthermore, an E&DCR P-738 processed on May 22, 1980, changed
the specific gravity requirement in the Construction Specification
210.350 from a minimum limit of 2.50 to 2.40.
Until test results or
test data is available to assure a concrete uni 3 weight of at 135
pcf for biological shielding purposes with a minxit
limit of 2.4
for specific gravity, this item is considered to b.
unresolved.
In addition, it should be noted at the time of the disposition of
N&D No. 9400 and N&D No. 9421, dated March 13, 1980, Section 3.8.4.6
of the River Bend PSAR required that concrete used for biological
shielding purposes have a weight not less than 140 pcf.
Each N&D
received approval on March 17, 1980, from the licensee's engineer-
ing, yet each N&D indicated a PSAR change was not required.
A Gulf States utility QA finding report to Gulf States Engineering,
No. 80-3-12-D, dated March 30, 1980, identified a PSAR change to lower
the requirement of 140 pcf to 135 pef to meet the requirements
of Construction Specification 210.350.
A subsequent change was initiated
on April 24, 1980, and approved on May 23, 1980.
However, concrete
was placed in Category 1 structures starting April 4,1980, with
aggregates possibly not meeting the 140 pcf criteria established
in the PSAR.
b.
Concrete Placed in Auxiliary Building Base Mat
N&D No. 9579, dated April 26, 1980, identified an unsatisfactory
concrete placement in the Auxiliary Building base mat.
This N&D
states, " Concrete in placement AB2-M-7064-3835 was placed in violation
of Specification 210.370." Violations included excessive vertical
drop, excessive lateral movement, excessive lift thickness, and
inadequate conralidation.
The area affected is approximately fif teen
feet in length and twenty feet in width, at elevation 64.0 and 68.0 ft.
The disposition of the N&D requires that three cores, approximately
seven feet in depth, be taken in the affected area.
Pending examination
and compressive strength tests of the cylinders, the matter as to whether
this should be reported as a " potential" 50.55(e), "Significant Con-
struction Deficiency" is unresolved.
14
f
- . . _
_ . _ _ .
..
.
. . _
_ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . . , . . . . _ - - _ _. .,_ . _ . , . . ,
. , ~ _ - _ _ . . - , . .
_ . , ,
- _ , -._
-.
'
,
4.
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. Three unresolved items. disclosed during the inspection are
discussed in paragraphs 2.d.(2)(b), 3.a and 3.b.
5.
Exit Interview
The IE inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in para-
graph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 5, 1980. The IE
inspector summarized the scope and findings on ;he inspection.
l
l
.
l
l
,
l
15
4
, . __._, _.
. . . . . . _ _
_ _ , . , . _ . ,.
. , , _ . . ,
, _ , ,
,,,%
,_r_,_ _ .
.,,m
,.-,, , , . ., ..,
.m.~
, _,__
,
,,