ML18192B514

Palo Verde - NRC Investigation of Allegations. Referring to Inspection Conducted on 2/15-17/1977, No Noncompliance with NRC Requirements Were Identified

ML18192B514
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	03/14/1977
From:	Spencer G S NRC/IE, NRC/RGN-V
To:	Van Brunt E E Arizona Public Service Co
References
IR 1977001
Download: ML18192B514 (18)

Text

t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.REGION V SUITE 202.WALNUT CREEK PLAZA I990 N.CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 94596 Docket Nos.50-528, 50-529, 50-530 hVR 1 L~gp r Arizona Public Service Company P.0.Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Attention:

Mr.E.E.Van Brunt, Jr.Vice President, Construction Projects Gentlemen:

Subject:

NRC Investigation of Allegations Relating to Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs.Garvin and Ward of this office on February 15-17, 1977 of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit No.CPPR-141, 142 and 143, and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr.Garvin with you and Mr.J.Roedel of your staff at the conclusion of the investigation.

Areas examined during this investigation dealt with allegations of substitution of poor quality reinforcing steel for use at the Palo Verde construction site.Within this area, the investigation consisted of examination of procedures and records, interviews with Palo Verde and vendor personnel and observations by the inspectors.

No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspection.

/In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's"Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.If this report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure.

The applica-tion must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that'the information is proprietary.

The application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room.If we do nothear from you<OLUTIO~e/PE 191E t i!

Arizona Public Service Company-2-MAR 1 t ig77 in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be glad, to discuss them with you.Sincerely,

Enclosure:

IE Inspection Report No.50-528, 529, 530/77-01 cc w/o enclosure:

Arthur C.Gehr, Esq Snell 5'lJilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Hr.Carmine F.Cardamone, Jr.1415 North Third Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85705 G.S.'encer, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch U.S.CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

'EGION V IE Inspection Report Ho.50-528 529 5 L'icensee Arizona.Publ,ic Service Com an P.0.Box 21666 Phoeni x, Ari zona 85036 Facility Pal o Verde Uni ts 1, 2, 3 Location Mari copa County, Ari zona License No.Priority Category A 530 142, 143 Type of Facility PWR's (CE), 3800 MWt Type of Inspection Special, Announced Dates of Inspection February 15-17, 1977 Dates'f PrevioUs Inspection Oecember 14-17, 1976 Principal Inspector L.J.Garvin, Reactor Inspector Date/Accompanying Inspectors HL M.J.'rd, Investigator Date Date Other Accompanying Personnel:

None Reviewed by G.S.Spence, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support, Branch a/IP(~7 Date IE:V Form 219 Summar of Findin s Enforcement Action Hone Licensee Action on Previousl Identified Enforcement Items Not applicable Desi n Chan es None Other Si nificant Findin s The allegation of the substitution of bad reinforcing steel for use at the Palo Verde construction site appeared to be without merit.Mana ement Heetin The inspector and investigator met with E.E.Van Brunt and J.Roedel at the conclusion of the investigation.

No evidence had been found that could substantiate the allegations.

The inspector stated that he had co'ncluded that the'einforcing steel being used at the Palo Verde site met the specification requirements.

l1 It Details Persons Contacted Arizona Public Service Com an J.Roedel, gA tlanager E.E.Van Brunt, Jr., Vice President Marathon Steel Com an E.P.Bisntz, Vice President, Rolling tlill Division C.A.Bonacich, Manager, Fabrication Operations J.Stutz, Superintendent, f1elt Shop General The gA tlanager of Arizona Public Service (APS)telephoned the Region Y office on the after noon--of February 10, 1977 to inform the region that another Federal agency was investigating allegations concerning the reinforcing steel that was being supplied to the Palo Verde construction site.The allegations appeared to be that substandard steel was being supplied to the construction site..The subs'tan'dard steel was being substituted for acceptable steel by changing the heat numbers on the material control tags.(See paragraph 3 for the allegation.)

The regional office was also informed that APS was conducting an investigation into the allegation.(See paragraph 5 for licensee actions.)On February 15-17, 1977 an inspector from the regional office and an investigator from IE:Hg conducted an investigation into the allegations.

The inspectors examined the site for evidence of altered control tags.(See paragraph 6a for results of the inspec-tion of the construction site.)Also inspected was the vendor shop.(See paragraph 6b for the results of the inspection of the vendor shop.)Alle ation As relayed to the inspectors by the other Federal agency the allegation involved changing heat numbers to get rid of bad steel.Both heat numbers were on the back of the paper control tags that.were being used in the shearing shop.The tags were being applied.to the bar by the man cutting the bar and contained information for the persons bending the bars to final shape.Following cutting, the bars were taken to the forming area.During the forming/bending process some of the paper control tags were observed to have altered heat numbers.According to the alleger, when a supervisor was questioned about the altered numbers, his answer was"don't worry about't, we are getting rid of bad steel."

4l 4.~Findin s d 1 f dp 1<<1 1 d heat numbers.~Findin: Observations at both the construction site and vendor shop.were that some paper tags had crossed out heat numbers.The allegation was substantiated,.but this practice was per-mitted as discussed below.b.Bad Steel~Ail.1:Bd11111 f<<df p steel.~Findin:, Since both heat numbers (crossed out and new)were legible, the records could be reviewed for both heats.In all cases reviewed, the records proved that the material was acceptable.

Observations at the vendor shop disclosed that changing'h'e heat number on the back of the control ta'g is a common practice.The practice is allowed by procedure and is used to,record the actual heat of material being sent to the construction site (see paragraph 6b).Discussion with workers at the vendor shop disclosed that only two heats of steel had failed the bend test.The steel that fails a bend test is acceptable for use at the construction site if used only as a straight bar.Both these heats were used in locations that required straight.bars.iso other heats had failed tests.The allegation was not substantiated by observation, record review or discussion.

5.Licensee Action When informed of the allegations the licensee, in turn>informed the IE Region V office and then conducted an investigation of the matter.Fifteen heat numbers of reinforcing steel were sampled and sent to a testing laboratory for chemical analysis.The controlling speci-fication, ASTH A615-74a, requires that the steel have less than 0.05'A.phosphorus.

In all cases the phosphorus was less than the maximum allowable.

The licensee did not attempt to verify that the heat numbers on the backs of the paper control tags had been changed or that the steel met the specified strength requirements.

'7'I n'~

6..Ins ectors'ctions Following the briefing on the*allegations, the inspectors visited the APS Huclear Project offices to review the licensee's actions.The inspectors determined that the best course of action was a tour of the construction site to attempt to find, paper tags with altered heat numbers, followed by an inspection at the steel supplier's shop.a~Construction Site Ins ection b.During a tour of the construction site the receiving sto'rage area was'inspected.

This area contained newly arrived bundles of reinforcing steel.During the inspection, 15 paper tags were collected that contained crossed out heat numbers.It was estimated that approximately 5-10%of the tags examined contained crossed out heat numbers.Approximately 25Ãof the paper tags in the receiving area were examined.Waste containers were also examined during the site tour.One paper tag with marked out numbers was collected from a waste container.

Several of the crossed out numbers appeared more than once on the collected paper tags, therefore, the backs of the tags contained only 15 heat numbers which were either the original marked out numbers, or new numbers.Both the crossed out heat numbers and the new heat numbers were legible, so the inspectors were able to examine the mill"report of chemical analysis and/or physical properties" for all heat numbers.In all cases both heat numbers had reports on file at the construction site.These reports indicated that both heat numbers (crossed out and new number)were numbers of acceptable material.All properties met contract and ASTM requirements.

Vendor Sho Ins ection The basic raw material used by the Marathon Steel Company to produce reinforcing steel is shredded automobile bodies.The bodies are melted in electric furnaces and samples taken for spectrographic analysis.The analysis is fed directly to the computer control system which determines the chemical additions needed, to adjust the molten steel so that an acceptable product is assured.After the additions, the molten material is poured into approximately 45 one thousand-pound ingots.While the 15th ingot is being poured a final"official" sample is taken for spectrographic analysis.The results become the official chemical analysis for the heat of steel.Each ingot is marked with the heat number and is stored until needed.

Reinforcing bar is produced from the ingots when bar stored for the construction site is running low.All the ingots from a heat of steel are heated and then rolled in successively, smaller rolling machines until the desired bar diameter is reached.These bars are then bundled, heat number tagged and stored.Samples are taken for the strength, ductility and bend tests.These test results confirm the quality of the reinforcing steel and become part of the mill certification record.8ars are removed from storage and taken to the shear shop where they are cut to the desired length and tagged with a control tag.This control tag contains information about the ba'r's length and its final snape following bending in the forming shop.The information supplied on the control tag comes from the cut sheet (drawing that contains shape and dimensions) and the heat number tag on the bundle.The shear machine operator places the heat number on the back of the control tags for several bars before he shears the bars to the desired lengths.If he overestimates the quantity of bars in a bundle he must correct the heat number he had previously written on the back of the control tags.In that case he crosses out the first heat number and replaces it with the actual heat number of the bar that he cuts to the desired length.The actual heat number is also written as a double check on the cut sheet.The cut sheet is sent to the office where metal control tags are stamped.The metal tags are applied to the bars in the forming shop after the bars have been bent into the shape described on the paper control tags.The final step is loading the bars on trucks for the trip to the construction site.Several altered tags were discovered during the inspection at the vendor shop.Discussions with several workers and the supervision indicated that the above description of the reason for.the altered tags is correct.The cut sheets for the altered tags were compared and in each case the new heat number on the cut sheet agreed with the altered number on the tag.Sho Record Review To double check the mill properties, the shop records for heat numbers compiled from the paper control tags collected at the construction site were also reviewed.The following heat numbers were reviewed.

d I Heat Number 31263 28798 20017 31250 20187 20172 32168 32197 20578 20571 32012 32005 31'913 20510 20508 Bar Size 18 18 18 18 18 18 6.6 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 The record review indicated that each heat of steel met all requirements.

r~

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V SUITE 202.WALNUT CREEK PLAZA r I990 N.CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 Docket Nos.50-528, 50-529, 50-530.bQR 1:-Ii;(i~1EMORANDUM FOR: G.M.Roy, Chief, Field Coordination and Enforcement Branch, IE:Hg FROf1:

SUBJECT:

G.S.Spencer, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch, IE:V ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (PALO VERDE UNITS 1,,2 AND 3)Enclosed is a report of an investigation at the subject facilities.

This investigation was conducted on February 15-17, 1977.The alle-gations were not substantiated.

It appeared to our inspector that the allegation was the result of a misunderstanding.

Enclosures:

Ltr to APS w/IE Inspection Report No.50-528, 529, 530/77-01 G.S.S encer, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch

~~t