ML20033A765
| ML20033A765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1981 |
| From: | Beach A, Crossman W, Randy Hall, Clay Johnson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033A757 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-81-10, NUDOCS 8111270238 | |
| Download: ML20033A765 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1981010
Text
--
-
APPENDIX B
.
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPNISSION
OFFICE OF-INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
' REGION IV
(This report contains investigative infonnation in paragraph 9)
Report:
-50-458/81-10
' Docket:
50-458
-Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities
Post Office Box 2951
Beaumont, Texas
77704
Facility Name: River Bend, Unit 1
Inspection at: River Bend Site
Inspection Conducted: September 1981
60 S a nt')
i /cdej
Inspector:
A. _ B~. Beach, Rttsiden; Reactor Inspector
atd
Projects Section 3
Inspector:
b.Q1uk,b.
a
to ' S \\ Bl
-e
C. E. Johnson, Reictor Inspector, Engineer-
Date '
ing and Material Section (paragraphs 4, 5 & 9)
Approved:
M^ - - -
/
N
W. A. Crossman, Chief Projects Section
Date
/6k
Approved:
R. E. Hall, Acting Chieft Engineering and
Date
Material Section
Inspection Summary:
Inspection During September 1981 (Report No. 50-458/81-10)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection by the Senior Resident In-
spector (SRI) including follow-up to previous inspection findings; follow-
up to licensee identified items; concrete placement activities; welding of
safety-related piping; safety-related piping support and restraint in-
stallation; and Class IE electric equipment qualification. The inspection
involved 115 hours0.00133 days <br />0.0319 hours <br />1.901455e-4 weeks <br />4.37575e-5 months <br /> by two NRC inspectors. Sixteen inspector hours were in-
volved in the investigation effort as a result of the allegation.
Results: Of the five major areas inspected, no violations were identified in
two areas. One deviation was identified involving reportability require-
ments in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) (Deviation - Failure to Promptly
Report A Potential Deficiency in Accordance with Previous Licensee Commit-
ments- paragraph 3), and one deviation was identified involving concreting
placement activities (Deviation - Deviation from CleaningiPractices for Place-
ment of Concrete Required By ACI 301 - paragraph 5).
8111270238 811103
PDR ADOCK 0 %O0458
G
.
.
.
.
2
-1.
. Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
P. D. . Graham, Director, Quality Assurance
C. L. Ballard, Supervisor, Quality Assurance.
R.~ B. Stafford, Supervisor, Quality Assurance
G. V. King, Supervisor, Quality Assurance
H. G. Domschke, QA Engineer
'K. C. Hodges, QA Engineer
I. M. Malik, QA Engineers
R. E. Oprea, QA Engineer
W. S. Stuart, QA Engineer
E. A..Troncelleti, QA Engineer
T. C. Crouse, Superintendent, Site Construction
M. A. Walton, Director, Site Engineering
Stone and Webster Personnel
C. D. Lundin, Manager, Project Quality Assurance
R. L. Spence, Superintendent, Field Quality Control (FQC)
G. M. Pyrnes, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
J. D. Davis, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
R. L. Whitley, Assistant Superintendent, FQC
W. I. Clifford, Resident Manager
E. A. Sweeny, Superintendent of Site Engineering
P. D. Hanks, General Superintendent, Construction
]
D. P. Barry, Superintendent, Construction Services
The RRI also interviewed additional licensee, Stone and Webster, and other
.
contractor personnel during this inspection period.
Denotes those persons with whom the RRI held on-site management meetings
during this inspection period.
i
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (50-458/81-06): Substitution of Grade 60 Reinforcing
Steel for Grades 40 and 50. The River Bend Final Safaty Analysis Report (FSAR)
states that ACI 318-1971, "American Concrete Institute Building Code Require-
ments for Reinforced Concrete," (including 1974 supplement), is used in the
structural design of concrete and steel components of Seismic Category I
. structures.
On August 27, 1980, an Engineering and Design Coordination Report, P-1283, was
written to revise the specification requirements to allow the use of Grade 60
material on a one bar-to-bar basis in place of Grade 40 material or Grade 50
material.
,
s.
.
.
.
..
m..
.
m.
- -
. .
. .
. - .
.
.
.
.
. -
-
.
. . -
.
.
3
On February 5,1981, a Stone and Webster Engineering Report was issued
directing that for structures designed for applicable loads .in accordance
with ACI Code 318 using reinforcing steel having a-specified yield strength
(F ) of 40,000 psi both ASTM'A'615 Grade 40 and Grade 60 satisfy the
y
specified yield strength requirement and may be used interchangeably.
The S&W Engineering Report states, "the-ACI' Code is written to insure
an elastic performance of the structure under design loads. Substitution
of Grade 60 reinforcing on a one-to-one basis for Grade 40 does not.
invalidate the original. design. The structure will perfonn in the same
manner with the Grade 60 reinforcing as it would have with Grade 40 rein-
forcing and the stress levels in all elements are unchanged for the design
loads."
ACI Code 318, Section 10.3.2 requires that for flexural members, and for
members under combined flexure and axial loads, the reinforcement ratio
shall not exceed .75 of the ratio which would produce balanced conditions
for the section under flexure without axial load. This is to ensure that
the steel will govern so that the concrete will not go into tension prior
to the yielding of the steel.
A Stone and Webster letter dated August 24, 1981, states that engineering
has performed a review of their calculations for Quality Assurance
Category I reinforced concrete structures for compliance with the ACI
318-71 Code requirement to limit the amount of reinforcing in flexural
members to 75% of the " balanced" design condition. The results indicate
that 10 isolated areas exist that would require further review relative
to the ACI co d requirement if Grade 60 reinforcing were substituted for
the specified grade of material. When this list was reviewed against the
rebar fabricator's records, it was found that nine of the areas of con-
cern had been fabricated from the specified grade of material leaving only
one area to consider; a pipe tunnel roof slab.
Since the pipe tunnel
reinforcing had alredy been fabricated, but not yet constructed, the
bar spacing and strength of the concrete were modified to conform to a
Grade 60 design.
Future designs will include a check for a " balanced" design condition
using the specified strength of reinforcing as well as a Grade 60 substitu-
tion. Areas where a Grade 60 substitution is not allowed will be noted
on the design drawing.
However, these calculations appear to have been made as a result of the
concern identified by the NRC inspector regarding the substitution of the
steel. The NRC inspector has been assured that loads at River Bend are
such that the steel will never be in the plastic range; however, it appears
that reinforcing steel was substituted without adequate consideration for
the requirements of ACI 318, Section 10.3.2.
Thus, since more informa-
tion regarding this matter is required, this item remains open.
.-
.
.
4
3.-
Licensee Identified Construction Deficiency Reports
On September 11, 1981, the licensee reported a " Potential Construction
'
Deficiency" regarding ASTM A 500 Grade B material.
(This matter was
discussed in paragraph 8 of the IE Inspection Report 50-458/81-09).
10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) requires that the holder of a construction permit shall
within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notify the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspec-
tion and Enforcement Regional Office of each reportable deficiency.
In accordance with the response to an infraction identified in IE Inspec-
tion Report 50-458/79-05 (Failure to Provide Timely Notification of Construc-
tion Deficiencies), the licensee committed "to inform the NRC Regional
office by telephone call within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when a problem or deficiency is
discovered that could possibly be a reportable deficiency but adequate
information will not be available to determine the reportability within
24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery of the problem or deficiency.
Contrary to the above, on June 26, 1981, a potential problem involvir.g
possible aging characteristics inherent'to ASTH A-500, Grade B steel
was identified by the licensee, but was not reported to the Region IV
office as a " Potential Construction Deficiency" until September 11, 1981.
This is contrary to the prompt reporting requirements established by 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) and the commitments established in the licensee's response.
This appears to deviate from the licensee's commitment to the NRC.
Reportability in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e)(2) will continue to be
reviewed until the NRC inspector is assured reportability requirements
are being satisfied.
4.
Site Tour
The NRC inspectors toured the Reactor Building, the Control Building, the
Auxiliary Building, and the Concrete Laboratory to observe construction
in progress and to inspect housekeeping.
General construction practices
were observed.
5.
Review of Concrete Practices
In the review of concrete practices at the River Bend Nuclear Generating
Station during the period September 14-18, 1981, the NRC inspector reviewed
Specifications 210.370, " Placing Concrete and Reinforcing Steel," and
210.350, " Mixing and Delivering Concrete." The NRC inspector also reviewed
a directive from a licensee representative forwarded to the constructor,
directing him to discontinue cleanliness requirements on "Q" decking.
This potential practice could also govern Category I structures as well.
There is "Q" decking in Category I structures including the Fuel Building,
Diesel Generator Building, and the Auxiliary Building.
After reviewing this directive, the NRC inspector witnessed a placement
on "Q" decking; however, the only placement during this inspection was in
- -
. - .
-
---
- - - -
. - - - - -
-
- - -
- - - .
-
- .
__
_
.-.
__. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
S
the Tu%ine Building.
The NRC inspector witnessed the placement only to
determine what the cleanliness requirements were. After observing this
piacement, the NRC inspector had concern for concrete placement on "Q"
dccking in Category I structures.
The placement observed in the Turbine
Building would not meet ACI 301-72.
This directive specifies no category levels, so this potential practice
could also govern Category I structures as well.
This deviates from the
licensee's commitments and ACI 301 cleaning practices for concrete placements.
6.
Welding of Safety-Related Piping
As addressed in IE Inspection Report 81-09 (paragraph 7), the NRC inspector
is reviewing licensee actions taken relative to the welding program to
ensure proper action is being taken to minimize weld repairs.
On
September 4, 1981, the licensee issued a letter (RBG 11,132) directing,
effective immediately, Stone and Webster to implement the following actions:
a.
All manual production welding of joints which are to be radiographically
examined are to be suspended until items (2) and (3) are satisfied.
Increased use of automatic welding machines is encouraged.
b.
Develop a training program for welders to prepare them for River Bend RT
pipe welding.
Included in this program shall be the practice of
screening welders who will fabricate radiographic quality welds by
the radiographic method.
.
This program is to be reviewed and approved by GSU prior to imple-
mentation, and should be in effect by September 12.
The method of
final qualification of welders shall be at S&W's discretion.
'
c.
Using the last 10 welds per welder, select those manual welders who
meet the criteria fo 30% weld-to-weld and/or 4% linear inches rejec-
tion rate.
These welders may continue welding.
All other welders
and new hires will be trained in accordance with item (2).
If at
any time a welder does not meet the above criteria, he will be
retrained.
S&W should establish, based on performance, when a welder
is to be terminated.
A system to track individual welder performance
must be developed, in order to satisfy the above criteria.
This
system should use existing documentation.
The licensee stated further that these actions may not necessarily resolve
the welding reject rate, but a noticeable improvement should result.
No violations or deviations were iaentified.
7.
Safety-Related Piping Support and Restraint Installation
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VIII states, " Measures shall be established
for the identification and control of materials, parts, and components,
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
- -
_- -____ _ ___.__ _
__ _
_
_
__
. _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _
.
'
.
!
6
including' partially' fabricated assemblies.
These materials shall assure
that identification of the item is maintained by heat number, part number,
serial number or other appropriate means, either on the item or on records.
'
traceable to the item, as required throughout fabrication, erection,
.
installation, and use of the item.
The identification and contr91 measures
shall be designed to prevent the use of incorrect or defective material,
parts, and components."
4
River Bend Management interprets this to mean that only those projects
'
which purchase Category I, II, and III visually similar materials are
required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion VIII to assure that the
identification of Category I items is maintained by heat number, part
,
i
number, serial number, or other appropriate means, to point of use within
the plant.
The River Bend Project is currently purchasing only Category I material.
,
A limited amount of non-category material has been purchased in the past,
.
but a program is established to control this material.
It is.the licensee's
interpretation that traceability of Category I Non-ASME material is
required only through receipt at the site, since the' Category QA Program
requirements applied throughout the design and procurement process assure
the adequacy of this material, and no Category II, III, or QA/NA material-
may be substituted.
1
In the future, the following policy is proposed to be established and
implemented with respect to Non-ASME Category I material.
a.
Procurement of Category I material only - Procurement documents
will be initialed and reviewed to assure that only Category I
material is specified and the vendor is an approved S&W QA vendor,
'
i
Noncategory material presently on site will lbe slavaged.
Additionally,
any data sheets that would allow purchase of non-Category I material
will be revised or removed from the specification.
4
b.
PQA activity will be in accordance with the S&W QA Program to assure
'
material acceptability and vendor compliance with specification
i
requirements.
c.
Engineering will require Certified Mill Test Reports (CMTR's) and
Certificates of Compliance to be sent with the shipment, and FQC
will verify CMTR adequacy.
d.
Once the material has been accepted, traceability will no longer be
-
required.
If for some recson, FQC cannot accept the material (material
deficiency and/o" inadequate documentation) the material will be re-
jected and handled in accordance with the existing S&W QA Program.
.
The NRC inspector reviewed Stone and Webster Specification 210.371, "Installa-
tion of Drilled In Expansion Type Concrete Anchors," which establishes anchor
.
-
m.
.
- m..
-
. .
- .
- .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
7
bolt installation requirements at the River Bend site.
Inspection requ're-
ments as well as training requirements were discussed with-Field-Quality
Control representatives.
Discussion with licensee'and contractor representatives indicated an
Engineering and Design Coordination Report (E&DCR) was-being' processed to
clarify and quantify certain procedural requirements.that may lead to
confusion as the installation progresses.
After approval of this E&DCR,
'the NRC inspector will review the requirements of NRC Bulletin 79-02,
Revision 2,' " Base Plate Flexability Analysis" against Specification 210.371
to ensure the licensee's commitments are satisfied by the specification
requirements.
Until these requirements can be reviewed, this matter is
considered to be unresolved.
No violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Electrical Equipment Qualification
The licensee remains actively involved in IEEE 323-1974 qualification
requirements.
Reviews of the program, as well a reviews'of the vendor's
program are continuing.
Regular interface meetirgs are being held between
the licensee and his Architect-Engineer to ensure that a viable program
is established.
No violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Allegations
On September 3,1981, the NRC Headquarters Duty Officer notified the NRC'
Region IV office of an alleger at the River Bend site.
The RRI and a
region based inspector interviewed the alleger at his home September 15,
1981.
In general, the individual was concerned about poor practices
utilized by craft supervision involving the installation of concrete
expansion anchors,
a.
Allegation No. 1
The alleger's first concern identified three base plates on Elevation 115
of the south wall of the Control Building where supervision had
instructed workers to fill " unused" holes prior.to inspection by
Field Quality Centrol (FQC).
,
A review of E&DCR P-1842 by the RRI showed that these.three base plates
were added to accomodate additional supplemental steel.
Nonconformance
and Disposition Report (N&D) 1675 was written to document poor
installation practices (hammer blows to anchors to fit plate) for-
the middle plate.
The west plate had to be relocated in accordance
with Unsatisfactory Inspection Report IRS 120-1629.
The east plate
was installed satisfactorily.
- - . -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
.
_-__
____
.
.
8
An inspection performed by FQC and documented by FQC indicated that
all grouted holes were reviewed to ensure minimum edge distances
were not violated.
Subsequently, these grouted holes (unused) were
drilled out for inspection purposes and it was found that six of the
twenty were not to the full depth of the hole.
The NRC inspector
observed what was in general " poor workmanship", and thusly, this
!
portion of the allegation has merit, but all nonconformances
relative to procedural violations were documented.
b.
Allegation No. 2
l
He (the alleger) was instructed to unplug his " black box," which should
!
automatically shut off the drill when the drill hits reinforcing steel,
and just have it on the scaffold to look as if it is being used.
The " black box" is included in the drilling operation to preclude
possible damage to reinforcing steel. A test block was made, and
four drilling operations were performed, with one man drilling into
reinforcing steel contained within the block for two minutes.
No
damage outside of allowable specification requirements could be
ascertained; thus, this indicates it to be impractical to continue
drilling Mter hitting reinforcing steel.
In addition, FQC is
required to inspect all anchor holes for damage to reinforcing steel.
Thus, this portion of the allegation may have merit, but it has no
safety significance.
c.
Allegation No. 3
Another concern identified two base plates on Elevation 115 of the
I
north wall of the Control Building where the anchor bolt locations
may violate spacing requirements.
A review of Inspection Reports
IRS 120-1641 and IRS 120-1642 demonstrates that bolt locations were
in accordance with specification requirements.
This concern cannot
be substantiated.
d.
Allegation No. 4
The fourth concern addressed installation of drilled-in concrete
anchors at Elevation 154 south wall where concerete was chipped out
to insert a base plate into the wall.
The individual was concerned
this plate may have been installed without FQC involvement.
A review of N&D 1450 shows FQC involvement; again, the NRC inspector
observed " poor workmanship," but installation was approved by FQC
and no procedural violations in accordance with the program could
be ascertained that were not documented.
Thus, the allegation has
merit, but aucumentation in accordance with the program require-
ments appears adequate.
Although some of the above concerns have merit, the procedural
violations had been previously identified by the licensee and docu-
.mented in accordance with procedural requirements.
The installation
procedure must be reviewed (reference paragraph 7) to ensure controls
are adequate to preclude general practices of poor workmanship.
-
.. -
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.=
.'
9
10.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved' items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations,
or deviations, One such item has been discussed within this report.
It will be entitled as follows in future discussions.
Paragraph 7, " Specification Requirements Regarding Installation of Drilled--
~
In Expansion Anchors"
11.
Management Interviews
The RRI met with'one or more of the persons identified in paragraph 1 at
various times during the inspection period. -An exit meeting was held on
September 30, 1981, with Mr. Phillip Graham to discuss various findings
and observations'made during this inspection period.
!
l
,
!
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-