ML19344F517
| ML19344F517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | Beach A, Gilbert L, Tomlinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344F502 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-80-06, 50-458-80-6, NUDOCS 8009150357 | |
| Download: ML19344F517 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1980006
Text
l
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
--
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
_
(This Report Contains Investigative
Information in Paragraph 7)
Report No. 50-458/80-06
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'ti ~ River Bend Site
a
Inspection conducted- June'9-10, June 24-27 and June 30-July 3, 1980
Inspectors:
l$
IV L
7/2dM
A. BT Beach, Reactor Inspector, Engineering
'Da t'e
Support Section (Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8)
(June 9-10, June 24-27, and Jane 30-July 3, 1980)
"- ?
7/2 S/96
L. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Engineering
' Dat'e
Support Section (Paragraph 3)
(June 24-27, 1980)
[A
7-7.6-80
. P. 'Ibrifnson~, Reactor Inspector, Engineering
Date
Support Section (Paragraph 4)
(June 24-27, 1980)
Other Accompanying
Personnel: W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects
<
Section (June 9, 1980 Interview)
'
8009150 3 6 [
.
.
r:-
.
P. G. Wisco, Nuclear Technologist,'Phillipine
Atomic' Energy Commission
(June 24-27, 1980)
Reviewed:
W
7/Jf')[d
C. R. Oberg, Reac
Inspector, Projects Section
Date
Approved:
7/bf/[O
W.A.Crossman,Chp,ProjectsSection
Date
,
7
!8
... (::C'
e
R.. E. H'all,. Ch'ief,. Engineering Support Section
/ Date
Inspection Summary:
.
.
Inspection on June 9-10, June 24-27 and June 30-July 3, 1980 (Report 50-458/80-06)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the reactor containment
vessel welding and NDE, concrete placement activities, and training of construction
personnel. Allegations regarding inadequate training and rejecteu material
in concrete were investigated. The inspection involved one hundred thirteen
.
hours by four NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the areas inspected, one apparent item of noncompliance and one
deviation were found (infraction - failure to follow procedures for the identi-
fication of training needs, paragraph 6; and deviation-use of air-entrainment
admixture in Category 1 concrete, paragraph 5.c.).
i
s
%
d
2
-
r.:
~
~'l
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- T. C. Crouse, Director, Quality Assurance (QA)
- C. L. Ballard, QA Engineer
- R.-R. Doggart, QA Engineer
- K. C. Hodges, QA Engineer
- R. W. Helmick, GSU Construction
- J. W. Leavines, Assistant Project Engineer
- J. Hudson, QA Engineer
- R. B. Stafford, Supervisor QA
- W. S. Stuart, QA Engineer
- M. G. Walton, Nuclear Staff Analyst
- J. P. Cook, Nuclear Training
J. E. Wimberly, Superintendnet, Site Construction
Stone and Webster Employees
- R. L. Spence, Superintendent, Field Quality Control (FQC)
- J. D. Davis, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
- A. J. Losso, Superintendent of Engineering
- J. E. Roskoph, Assistant Superintendent of Engineering
- A. Kamdor,. Resident Engineer
C. D. Lundin, Project QA Manager
- J. J..Zullo, QA Engineer
- L. W. Lewis, FQC Training Engineer
- R. E. Hogan, Training Supervisor
- H. D. Laford, General Superintendent
W. I.LClifford, Resident Manager, Construction
.
W. Hathaway, Senior Welding Supervisor
J. Howard, Chief Inspection Supervisor
P. West, QC Inspector
Graver Employees
- L. Sutton, Site Senior QA Engineer
H. Bunn, Surveillance Supervisor
C. Carr, QA Engineer
.
C. McPherson, Welding Inspector
'The IE inspectors also talked with and interviewed other licensee and
contractor employees during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
3
t
.-
--
'
.
,
2.
Site Tour.
(
The IE inepe: tors walked through the various areas to observe the general
progress of construction activities.
Concreting form work activities were
-
observed,'as well as the installation of structural steel and general
-housekeeping activities.
No~ items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.3.
Reactor Containment Vessel-Welding
a.
Review of Procedures
The IE inspector reviewed Revision 2 of the Graver Nuclear Qua:.ity
Assurance Manual.
In the areas reviewed, the QA Manual was consistent
with the eighteen Criteria of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
Two of the Graver Welding Procedure Specifications (WPSs) and support-
ing Procedure Qualification Reports (PQRs) were reviewed with no "
'
discrepancies noted from the requirements of the Stone & Webster
Containment Specification- 219.710, Revision 2 and Addenda 2, including
ASME B&PV Code, Sections III (NE) and IX, 1974 edition.
The WPSs
and PQRs reviewed were:
WPS 308N, Revision 9, Procedure Specification for Submerged
Arc Welding
PQR S116, Qualification for WPS 308N
WPS 305N, Revision 8, Procedure Specification for Shielded
Metal-Arc Welding
PQR'176~, Qualification for WPS 305N
_
i
PQR 218, Qualification for WPS 305N
'
PQR SM235, Qualification for WPS 305N
PQR SM241, Qualification for WPS 305N
PQR SM 259, Qualification for WPS 305N
PQR SM 173, Qualification for WPS 305N
b.
Observation of Welding Activities
The IE inspei. tor observed welding activities associated with fillet
welding both horizontal and vertical stiffeners to the cylindrical
portion of the free-standing containment vessel. The weld joints
observed are listed below:
4
'
E
.
.
_ .
,
F
.
,
,
<
\\
'-
3
-
Joint Number
Erection Control Number
HAl'
CCS6-001 Sub-A.
. HA2
CCS6-002 Sub-A-
C-28
CCSS-046 Sub-C Row 3
' C-33-
CCSS-051 Sub'-C Row 3
-The stiffeners were welded'using electrode. type E7018 in accordance
with'WPS 305N.' The E7018 electrode was traced to material test reports
which conformed to the chemical and mechanical requirements of ASME
1
B&PV Code,Section II, Part C.
The heat and lot-numbers.for the elect-
rode inspected were:
Lot Number
.-432H4732 .
..
w
.
._ .
03-1-H907L
.
412J7261
~ "
3A003P06
421J9781
2A007T02
The IE inspector observed the qualification testing of three Graver
.
l
' welders and reviewed documentation for: performance testing of twelve
,
other Graver welders including the welders working on the stiffener
fillet welds identified above.
In the areas inspected, no discre-
,
J
pancies with the requirements of ASME B&PV Code,Section IX were noted.
<
No,i.tems.of noncomplianc.e or. deviations were identified.
.
.
<
- 4.
Reactor Containment Vessel-NDE ~
-'
'
a.
Review of Procedures
.
The IE inspector reviewed the. following Graver Corporation NDE pro-
cedures for compliance with site SAR commitments and the require-
ments of the ASME BVPV Code, Section V:
LPE-9 and LPE-9A.
-Liquid Penetrant Examination
'
MPE-9 and MPE-9A thru C Magnetic Particle Examination
UE-9 and'UE-9A
Ultrasonic Examination
.
RE-9 and RE-9A
Radiographic Examination
-
UE-9
Visual Examination
,
= ,
,
5
_
7~
T
4'
y
w-
w+7-g
y
.y:
w
y
-qv-
ey-y,
yg--ye-%wq
y-
.g7T'
+W
r---
"T
.
-
.
.
-
.-.
-
-
--
'
,
I
The IE inspector also' reviewed the personnel qualification and certi-
fication' records for twenty-three Graver on-site inspectors to assure
compliance withlthe requirements of SNT-TC-1A. Educational records
-and records of experience were checked-along with records of test
scores and the results of current visual' acuity examinations.
4
.The IE. inspector reviewed the-calibration records for all on-site
magnetic particle examination equipment as well as the calibration
'
records for other inspection equipment such as depth gauges and
pyromecers.
No' deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Observation of Activities
' I
The IE~ inspector witnessed the magnetic particle examination of sev-
eral areas of the outer dry well wall.
These were. areas where the
i
removal of alignment attachments necessitated the inspections on
Rings 9 and 10.
Traveler yackages and inspection documentation were
j
checked to assure that the scope of work requirements were complete
,
and that proper dispositior. was made of'the-results.
Liquid penetrant examination was witnessed on areds of attachment
removal on Rings 4 and 5 of the outer drywell wall.
Batch numbers
of each of the materials used for this inspection were checked against
i
-the manufacturer's certification of contents to assure compliance with
>
the maximum sulfur and halogen content requirements of the Code.
]
One radiography setup was witnessed on the horizontal weld joint
between Rings 1 and 2 of the free-standing containment vessel.
Radiography was required on a repaired area between one-foot markers
21 and 22.
All film identification, penetrameter selection and
~
placement,' film placement and radiation protection barriers were
-in accordance with approved procedures.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Review of Records
,
r
The IE inspector reviewed Graver records of NDE performed on the
free-standing containment vessel horizontal selds for Rings 1-2-3
and'4-5-6.
Records were also checked for vertical welds 2-V-2 and
2-V-10.
Records for inspection, repairs, welding materials and
welder's qualification appeared to be in accordance with the ASME
-Code and Graver documentation procedures.
A review was performed
^
of all . radiographs produced on containment vessel vertical joints
!
2-V-2,.2-V-6 and-2-V-10.
All radiographs exhibited acceptable
j
density, proper placement of identification and correct penetrameter
~
selection.
Original radiographs'and repair shots were reviewed and
interpretations compared with the Graver radiographic result sheets.
All final radiographs appeared to meet the minimum ASME Code require-
4
ments,for weld acceptability.
U
6
.
,
- . - , . .
. - -
.,.y
-
- ~ . ,
.-
,----n_-2
n ~
.
- . .
,
No deviations or items of' noncompliance were identified.
5.
- Concrete Placement Activities
-
a.
_Stop-Work Order Issued by GSU on Category I Concrete Placements
On June 22, 1980, a Stop-Work Order was issued by Gulf. States Utilities
for all concreting activities'in Category I structures.
The reason
for the work being. terminated involved " form-work faiiures and apparent
- lack of supervision of concrete placement personnel." The specific
placements referenced in the Stop-Work Order were CBS-W-9411-2 and
CBS-W-94D2 as documented on QAFR 80-6-22-E.
Gulf States Utilities, in a letter RBG-7871, dated June 23, 1980,
directed Stone and Webster to'take specific corrective action before
the Stop-Work Order would be released. The following areas were
addressed for corrective action:
'(1) Allowable concrete placement rates to accomodate the form design.
(2)- Proper vibration techniques during concrete placements.
(3) Procedures for form design and form installation.
(4) Retraining of craft and personnel supervisors.
(5) Procedures for actions to L- .aken on all unplanned construction
joints.
(6) Weather protection procedures to be used during concrete place-
ments.
(7)~ Preplacement meeting effectiveness.
~(8) Field Quality Control (FQC) inspection requirements.
As a result of the Stop-Work Order, the IE inspector toured the
construction areas to observe the areas referenced in QAFR 80-6-22-E.
Observations in the field and discussions with licensee and contractor
personnel. revealed that form displacements had been a~ recurring
deficiency, but proper corrective action to correct the deficiency
had not been taken. -The following form displacements were field
reviewed by the IE inspector:
-Placement Number
Form Displacement Documentation
Date
CB3-W-8515
N&D 4580-1
4/28/80
,
ET5?W-85J6-2-3898
1RS0002011
4/23/80
AB3-W-83P4
N&D 9636
5/24/80
7
- 1
,
.
.
-,
.
- . . - - - --
_
_ _ -
- , . - , -
.
,
>:
~
.
.
~ Placement Number
' Form Displacement Documentation
Date-
-
ET5-W-85J6-14136
1RS0002833.
6/5/80
ABS-W-83P4
N&D 9746
6/17/80
.
Stone.and Webster, in.their response to GSU, addressed appropriate
corrective action to the eight areas of concern referenced above.
This-is-documented in their letter of June 27, 1980, C-RBS-01468.
In~ addition, the letter also states that the Project QA Manager.will
hold a meeting, on at least a. monthly basis, "to determine courses
of action'on recurring deficiencies," and to assign responsibilities
for taking proper corrective action.
In addition, the.IE inspector attended a " Form-work and Concrete Place-
ment. Workshop" on. June 26,:1980. The basic purpose of this workshop
was to familiarize carpenter and concrete supervisors with the follow-
ing new procedures:
,
CSI 3.0.2
" Inclement Weather Protection During Concrete
Placement."
CSI 3.0.3
" Unplanned Construction Joints."
CSI 3.3.4
" Concrete Form Alignment."
An explanation of the stop work action was also given, and after this
workshop,-GSU-rescinded the Stop-Work Order.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
b.
Batch Plant and Site Test Lab Tours
The IE inspector toured the site batch plant facility.
Cement and
aggregate storage facilities were observed, and Cement Mill Test Reports
were reviewed.
Preplacement preparations for concreting were also
~ observed.
The'IE-inspector toured the site test lab facility, and observed test-
ing activities in process. The correlation between ASTM C138, " Unit
Weight, Yield, . 2d Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete," and ASTM
C567," Unit Weight of Structural Lightweight Concrete," was being
.
. developed'for concrete mixes' currently being used at the site.
This
correlation assures that-the concrete density exceeds the minimum
requirement of 135 pcf, and establishes the accept / reject criteria for
the ASTM C138 tests. At the conclusion of this inspection, these
test results were not available.
From the records review and the activities observed, no items of
noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8
.
@
.
-
-
,
-
-
g
m,
_ I=;
, -
'!?
.
~
'
-
'
c'. -
Review of Concrete' Placement Records
>
'
The IE inspector reviewed previous concrete placements to assure that.
.the' requirements of the. construction specification were being' met.
Slump results,1 unit weight tests, compressive strength tests and. air
content ~ test results'were reviewed. ~Specifically, the following con-
-
creta= placement records were examined for the test .results referenced
above:
+
Placement
~Date
'
AB2-M-70N5-
-1/23/80
.
'AB1-M-70E5
1/26/PO
AB2-M-70JS
2/'!/80
' B2-M-70N3
3/3/80
_
,
,
AB3-W-83N5
4/19/80
,
ET3-M-66G1
4/8/80-
.
CB1-M-70J1
1/3/80-
ETi-M-6666
1/6/80
' During this - review, the IE inspector noted that the requirements for -
_
air, content were either 5% j- lis% or 0%
' 6%.
Further inspection revealed -
that a ispecification change E&DCR C-75 (dated November 29, 1979)
Construction- Specification 210.'350, '.' Specification for Mixing and
Delivering-Concrete," deleted the min 4=n= total air content require-
"
ment 'for~ structures below' the' frost 'line and interior walls above the -
'
frost line. Air content for concrete in all other Category'1 structures
shalll conform to ACI 301,;" Specifications for Structural Concrete,"
. Table 3.4. ~For concrete mixes"usin'g #57 coarse aggregate, which
were.used in most of the above placements, : the . air content limits
would' be 3.5% - 6.5%.
- All Category 1: structures placed up until the time of this inspection
have been placed below th'e frost line.
Therefore, by specification
- change-:E&DCRlC-75,~the allowable-air content limits for concrete
placements would be 0% - 61%.
5
^
The River Bend PSAR,1in L Section 3.8.4.6, requires that concrete. used
in seismiciCategory 1 structures shall' contain an air-entraining . agent
in 'an amount sufficient to satisfy ACI 301-72, Table 3.4, " Total Air
. Content For Various Size of: Coarse Aggregate For Normal Weight ' Concrete,"
- However, since many of-;the' total- air.. content valves - for the concrete
Lplacements reviewed were below 3.5%:(total air content value's for
AB1-M-70E5 were as low as 1.9%), the ' specification appears to deviate
- from the PSAR. committment to othe total air content values in Table 3.4
_
- of.ACI 301-72..
I
(This;istconsidered a deviation.
-_
.s
' -
9
.
_
,
. .
.
.
'
.
6.
Training of Construction Personnel
The IE inspector reviewed records and held discussions with licensee and
contractor personnel concerning construction training.
The Training Pro-
cedure CNN-9.1, " Construction Training Program," was reviewed to ascertain
whether or not the objectives of the construction training program were
being met.
Section 5.5 of this procedure requires that each supervisor be responsible
for identifying construction training needs to the Construction Training
Supervisor.
However, the Construction Training Supervisor stated that the
procedure was to be revised.to take this responsibility away from the
Supervisor and to make it the responsibility of the Construction Training
Supervisor.
He also stated at the time of this inspection, there was no
effective way to identify individual training needs until the Computerized
Training Record System (CTRS) is developed. The only records currently
available are the Training Attendance Sheets. Thus, it is essentially
impossible for each supervisor to be aware of each individuals specific
training needs.
A.GSU Audit MAC-79-F055, Rev. 1, dated February,1980, stated that, "the
Construction Training Supervisor was unable to present, in prompt fashion,
the training files for a basic construction course." Stone and Webster,
in their response, stated that the construction training files were in the
process of being reorganized and that a computer system was being developed.
An audit performed by the Stone and Webster Headquarters Construction
Training Group during May 28-29, 1980, further identified that the CTRS
program had not been implemented. Thus, since no records were available to
show that training needs were being identified and that there was no
effective method to determine training needs, this is considered to be
an item of noncompliance v;th Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50; i.e.,
failure to follow procedural requirements for the identification of
construction training needs.
As a result of this finding, Gulf States Utilities, in the letter RBG-7885,
dated June 26, 1980, directed Stone and Webster to develop and implement
a training status system which will reflect training status for all Stone
and Webster individuals employed at the River Bend Site within thirty days.
7.
Allegation Investigations
a.
Investigation Concerning Material Embedded In Concrete
During a labor relations meeting on February 19, 1980, an allegation
was made that certain material was embedded in concrete with a product
'" HOLD TAG" attached.
(HOLD TAG #04384).
A Stone and Webster investigation revealed that the product number in
question was determined to be a " Purchase Order Number" for Unistrut
10
I
F
^
^
~
in
,j
.
material rather than a Hold. Tag Number." " Hold Tag Numbers" are
-issued in numerical sequence, and the last number issued in February
1980.was in the 800-900. range.
.
A review of applicable ini,pection reports was conducted to determine
the amount of,Unistrut material received at the site, and all of the
Unistrut material was accounted for.
This allegation could not be substantiated.
b.
Investigation of an Allegation Concerning Lack Of Training of Personnel
~
at the River Bend Site
g
On' June 6,'1980, the Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering
Support Branch Office received a call from-a former Stone and Webster
^
employee who stated that the training of personnel at the River Bend
site was not sufficient and was a safety defect.
On-June 9, 1980, two NRC Regional Reactor Inspectors interviewed the
individual at his home to obtain additional information concerning
the allegation. The basic allegation referenced a large number of
Stone and Webster personnel working on site who had not received new
hire orientation, " Job Safety and Work Rules."
Prior to May 2,1980, there were no procedural requirements for
employees who were performing safety-related activities to receive
new hire orientation. Stone and Webster, in their letter of May 2,
-
1980, RBS-4971, now requires that all craft' personnel receive site
and safety orientation as well as craft indoctrination training.
A review of training records for May and June of 1980 revealed that
the orientation and indoctrination classes were being held as required,
and an effort was being made to give these classes to those employees
already working at the site. ~However, as referenced in paragraph 6,
since at the present time there is no effective method to determine
an individual's training needs, there may still be some employees
who have not received new hire orientation training; however, since
this training was.not a requirement, no deficiency was found.
Even though this allegation was partially substantiated, it has no
merit.
8.
Exit Interview
The IE inspectors met with the licensee representatives (denote'd in paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection on July 3, 1980. The IE inspectors
summarized the scope and findings of the-inspection.
D
,