IR 05000400/1982012
| ML20053B268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1982 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053B253 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-400-82-12, 50-401-82-12, NUDOCS 8205280236 | |
| Download: ML20053B268 (7) | |
Text
1 UNITED STATES
o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
g g
s REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 o
Report Nos. 50-400/82-12 and 50-401/82-12 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27602 Facility Name:
Shearon Harris Docket Nos. 50-400 and 50-401 License Nos. CPPR-158 and CPPR-159 Inspection at Shearon Harris site near Raleigh, North Carolina Inspector:
I)
2f'/f'2 J. J. Lenahan g Date Signed Approved by: ^ Y
Y 27 f t --
T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs SUMMARY Inspection on April 6-9, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 27 inspector-hours on site in the areas of structural concrete work activities, application of protective coating inside containment, nonconformance reports on concrete aggregate gradations; previously identified inspector follow-up items, and license identified items.
Results
!
Of the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
'
!
!
!
!
8205280 M
-,
, - - - _ _, -. - _.
. -. -
- - -.
-,
.
. -
- -. -.
.-
-
_.
.
.
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. M. Parsons, Project General Manager
- G. M. Simpson, Principal Construction Specialist
- W. E. Seyler, Principal Civil Engineer
- E. L. Kelly, Civil QC Supervisor
- A. M. Lucas, Senior Resident Engineer
- G. L. Forehand, Site Dicector-QA/QC
- D. C. Whitebaad, QA Supervisor W. Pridgen, Civil Engineer P. Breedlove, Civil Construction Inspector Other licensee employees contacted included six civil QC inspectors.
NRC Resident Inspector
- G. F. Maxwell
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 9, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Finding:
Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspector Effort The inspector examined the following areas:
a.
Soils and concrete laboratories and currentness of calibration of laboratory equipment b.
Partial placement of pour number 1FHXW295002, an interior wall in the fuel handling building, c.
Application of protective coatings (NUTEC 11 and NUTEC 115) on the secondary sheild wall at the elevation 261 level in the reactor con-tainment building. The inspector observed preparation of surfaces to
-
_
_ -
- _. __
-
_.
.
.
j'
'2
'
receive protective coatings, mixing of the protective coating materials, application of the coating materials, and QC inspection of the protective coatings actisities.
d.
Main Dam and West Aux Dam.
Both structures are currently impounding water.
Licensee engineers are reading the piezometers weekly until filling of the reservoirs is completed.
e.
Nonconformance report (NCR) numbers C474, C478, C482, C483, C484, C486,
,
'
C488 and C489. These NCRs document failure of the number 67 aggregate
.
to comply with the ASTM C-33 gradation.
These NCRs were written
)
between December 1981 and March 1982.
,
,
Licensee engineers have conducted an investigation to identify the cause of
'
the increased number of failing aggregate gradation tests. The results of
!
this investigation are summarized in a memorandum dated March 29, 1982, Subject: SHNPP Number 67 Stone Gradation Problems. As a result of their
'
inves igation, licensee engineers concluded that the cause of the increased number of failing gradation tests is probably due to the method of stockpile construction which may result in segregation of the aggregate. The con-tractor has been directed to alter this method of stockpile construction.
The inspector toured the batch plant and noted that the recommendations of the licensee's engineers concerning stockpile construction have been'imple-mented. The inspector witnessed sampling and testing of number 67 aggregate and discussed the test results with licensee QC inspectors. The sampling and testing methods complied with procedure number CQC-13, Concrete Control.
i After review of the above NCRs and procedure number CQC-13, and discussions with licensee engineers, the inspector identified the following inspector
_ followup item (IFI):
'
Procedure CQC-13 requires concrete aggregate to be sampled and tested daily for compliance with specification (ASTMC-33) gradation requirements.
The daily sample is tasen at the end of the day's concrete production. On days when more than 200 cubic yards of concrete is placed, an additional aggre-gate sample is required to be obtained and tested after 200 cubic yards of concrete is placed. The inspector noted in review of the NCRs listed above that no gradation failures were recorded for the samples tested on the daily basis. The above NCRs only document aggregate gradation failures which have
!
occurred on samples of aggregate obtained after 200 cubic yards of concrete
-
was placed. The inspector questioned licensee engineers as to the reasons l
why all the failures are occurring on the aggregate sample obtained af ter 200 cubic yards of concrete are produced, and why the problem is not occurring in testing the daily samples.
The discussions with licensee
,
'
engineers disclosed that whenever testing of an "af ter 200 CY" sample i
fails, concrete production is allowed to continue until the pours in progress are completed (as per stated in procedure CQC-13 to avoid cold joints in the concrete), and an NCR is written to document that concrete
!
was placed in a pour which was produced using aggregate with a gradation not in conformance with specification requirements. Af ter the in progress-I
!
-
_,
.-..
.
.. _, _ - - -
_.
-
_,.. _.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _
__
~. - -.
. - - -
.
.
._
_ __
_
._
_
..
_
_.
_
_ _.
,
-
,
i
i pours are completed, concrete production is stopped until the batch plant i
aggregate bins are purged and the aggregate is sampled and tested until it
,
i meets the gradation requirements. Concrete production is'then permitted to resume. When the daily sample fails the gradation test, the bins are purged
,
and aggregate is sampled and tested until satisfactory results are obtained.
'
However, the failing daily test results are not being recorded.
The only
daily test results being recorded are those which indicate that the aggre-gate which has been placed in the bins is satisfactory for use in the next day's concrete.
The philosophy the licensee. has adopted in gradation testing of concrete aggregate is that a passing test indicates that the aggregate is acceptable until the next sample is obtained. The inspector discussed the practice of not recording the " daily" sample gradation fail-
j ures with licensee engineers and the project manager.
The inspector expressed concern that failure to record the " daily" sample failures may x
}
result in an inadequate evaluation of aggregate problems and may not reflect j
an. accurate representation of problems encountered and resolved during con-l struction. The licensee agreed to record all " daily" sample test results, i
including failures and retests.
Further review of the concrete gradation problem, and further discussion with licensee personnel disclosed the
'
j folicwing:
(1) The licensee recognized in 1977 that occassional problems with aggre-gate gradations may be encountered and performed a detailed investi-
gation of aggregate gradation at that time.
The batch plant was modified in 1977 to provide for rescreening of aggregate not meeting specification gradation requirements.
The inspector reviewed the results of the 1977 aggregate investigation.
(2) The-failing aggregate test results are only slightly outside (usually 1 or 2 percent) of the specification limits. Standard concrete industry practice recognizes that occasionally aggregate will not meet the j
standard ASTM C-33 aggregate gradation. Also ACI specifications permit use of aggregates not conforming to the ASTM C-33 gradations if it can
,
be demonstrated that concrete of acceptable strength can be produced
from these aggregates.
There are numerous reports prepared by the
!
Corps of Enginears, The Bureau of Reclamation, the National Highway l-Research Board, and other agencies documenting cases where out of ASTM C-33 specification aggregate has produced acceptable concrete.
,
(3) The average strength of the concrete being produced at the site, as l
indicated by unconfined compression test results of concrete cylinders,
'
is exceeding the required design strengths by 15 to 40 percent.
Aggregate with gradations slightly (less than 5 percent) outside of ASTM C-33 limits will have no impact on the strength of the concrete.
In addition, slight (less than 5 percent) deviations from specification gradation limits would have no impact on unit weight, workability or durability of the concrete.
(4) ACI 304 recommends that aggregate gradations be evaluated using a running average of 5 to 10 previous tests. This results in the use of an average gradation for quality control and permits the use of aggre-
)
.- - -.
-
.
.
.---
-
. -.
...
.
. - -
--
.
_
__
_ _. _
.
.
T
A gate with an occasional gradation test results slightly out of spec.
The licensee is evaluating the use of the running average method to control aggregate gradation.
This will result in a more meaningful quality. control _ test method in lieu of their present method which -
evaluates only individual test results.
The inspector will review the licensee's actions to document and correct the aggregate gradation problem in a future inspection. This was identified to the licensee as inspector followup item 400/82-12-01 and 401/82-12-01,
" Evaluation of Concrete Aggregate Gradation Problems."
No deviations or violations were identified.
6.
Containment (Structural Concrete II) - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Unit 1 The inspector made a detailea review of installation and inspection of reinforcing steel for pour number ICBXW396002, Elevation 391 to 396 of r
the reactor building dome.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in the following documents:
a.
PSAR Section 5 b.
CP&L procedure number WP-11, Fabrication and Installation of Rebar c.
CP&L procedure TP-22, Inspection of Rebar Installation d.
Drawing numbers CAR 2167-G-0660 and CAR 2167-G-0661, Containment Building Dome Reinforcing Steel e.
Field Change Requests (FCR) numbers FCR C2483, C2843, C3059, and C3067 The inspector verified that the reinforcing steel was installed as per the requirements shown on the drawings and FCRSs.
The inspector measurad spacing of the rebar and verified that the proper number and size of. bars had been installed.
The inspector discussed inspection requirements and acceptance criteria used in rebar inspection with the civil QC. inspector responsible for performing the reinforcing steel inspection.
No deviations or siolations were identified.
7.
Previously Identified Inspector Followup Item (Closed) Inspector Followup Item 400/81-20-02 and 401/81-20-02:
Inspec-tion of Curing Compound Application. The inspector reviewed the licensee's dispositior of Deficiency and Disposition Report (DDR) Number 559.
This DDR was a deficiency identified by the site QA/QC group concerning lack of requirements in the construction inspection procedure, TP-15, to observe the actual application of curing compound on the surface of concrete to be cured.
In order to correct this deficiency the licensee has revised pro-
'
cedure numbers TP-15 and-WP-17.
The revision to work procedure WP-17, Concrete, requires the area engineer to compute the minimum quantity of
i
,
i i
!
I
-. _.
- _,.. _ _
_ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ -
. _., -
_, __
. - -
..
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _,
b
.
.
curing compound required to be placed on each placement to meet the manu-facturer's minimum application rate.
The concrete curing superintendent is then required to record the actual amount of curing compound used on each placement on the concrete curing record.
The inspector reviewed curing records and verified that these quantities of curing compounds (minimum required and quantity actually applied) were being recorded.
The revision to inspection procedure, TP-15, Concrete Placement Inspec-tion, requires the construction inspectors to verify that the quantities of curing compounds applied to placements equals or exceeds the required amount.
The inspector reviewed a memorandum dated September 16, 1981, Subject:
SHNPP Application and Inspection of Curing Compound.
This memo summarizes the methods used to inspect applications of concrete curing compounds previous to the revision to procedure TP-15 discussed above.
The memo states that curing compound application had been inspected pre-vious to the revision though not fully described in the procedure.
The inspector has no further questions on this item at this time.
This item is closed.
8.
Licensee Identified Item (10 CFR 50.55(e))
Prior to this inspection, the licensee identified the following item under 10 CFR 50.55e:
(0 pen) Item (CDR 50-400/82-71) Deficiencies in Welded Studs on Embedded Strip Plates. This item was reported to NRC Region II on February 17, 1982.
The licensee submitted 1 final report to NRC for this item on March 19, 1982. During receipt inspection of strip plates which are to be embedded in concrete, licensee inspectors found plates which contained studs with inadequate weld connections to the plate. These plates, which were supplied by Alfab, Inc., were received onsite on January 10, January 29, and February 25, 1982. Alfab is required, under their QA program, to inspect the plates for conformance to specification requirements in their shop prior to release for shipping to the site. Of the 1914 plates received on those dates, licensee inspectors rejected 61 plates. The licensee has determined that the rejected plates could not meet the plate design criteria with defective studs.
The rejected plates were returned to the vendor for l
repair. The inspector reviewed DDR number 806, 812, and 840 which document j
the problems noted in receipt inspection of the above embed plates.
The licensee is currently inspecting all embed plates fabricated t'y Alfab when they are received onsite.
The inspector discussed the inspection program and the problem with the defective stud welding with licensee QA/QC inspectors who perform the receipt inspections.
As a result of this problem, the licensee conducted an audit of Alfab and discussed corrective action with them to prevent repetition of this problem. The vendor stated that they would increase'their inspection and testing frequency to ensure odequate welding.
l On April 2,1982, the licensee informed NRC Region II that some emoed plates
'
in a shipment received onsite af ter the final report for this item was I
submitted to NRC (March 19,1982) had studs with defective welds. This I
L
.
.
problem was documented on DDR 862. The licensee will submit an addendum to the final report which discusses DDR862 to NRC Region II by May 15, 1982.
During review of this problem at the site, the inspector was informed that 35 of 79 embed plates fabricated by Alfab and received at the site on April 7,1982 were rejected because of defective welds in the connections of cadweld sleeves to embed plates. The inspector reviewed a draf t of DDR 880 which was written to document and correct this problem.
The licensee is evaluating the defective welding on the cadweld sleeves as a separate item.
This item remains open pending further review by NRC.
.