IR 05000424/1979008
| ML19242A308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1979 |
| From: | Bryant J, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19242A305 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-79-08, 50-424-79-8, 50-425-79-08, 50-425-79-8, NUDOCS 7908010349 | |
| Download: ML19242A308 (4) | |
Text
9
/
'o UNITED STATES 8'
, y, gg(',j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
REGION il
%
~#/. c g,
Ai f
101 M ARIETT A sT., N W., sulT E 3100
' s g
ATL ANTA, G E oRGI A 30303
.
.....
Report Nos. 50-424/79-8 and 50-425/79-8 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Facility Name: Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Uaits 1 and 2 Docket Nos.
50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.
CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle Nuclear Plar' ear Waynesboro, Georgia Inspector:
M f/Iy/>jr
.
R.' Ha'r
/' '
DSte Signed
.
phy/ff Approved by: _
_, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed J.
rya SUMMARY Inspection on April 25-27, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 21 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of structural backfill, and construction status.
Results Of the two areas ins,.ected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviation were identified in one area; one apparent item of noncompliance was found in one area (Infraction - Failure to Document and perform Required Compaction Tests on Category I Backfill - Details paragraph 7).
486 00, 7908010 3y7
.
%
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees H. H. Gregory, III, Assistant Construction Project Manager
- D. M. Fiquett, Manager, Field Operations
- C. R. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisor
- E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor
- J. F. D'Amico, Senior QA Field Representative
- C. Sarver, Senior QA Field Representative
- B.
C. Haroin, Civil QC Supervisor L. J. James, Civil QC Supervisor W. L. Kent, Soils and Concrete Inspector, Laboratory
- J. Sanders, Assistant Civil Section Superviso:
N. Langford, Soils Inspector Other licensee employees contacted included various construction craftsmen and office personnel.
Other Organizations
.
Walsh Construction Company (WCC)
- G. S. Wisen, QC Coordinator
- Attended exit intervien.
2.
Exit Inte rview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on Apri' 27, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The licenr.ee acknowledged the item of noncompliance discussed in this report.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined the following areas:
a.
Overall construction status
[{ d O b. cb L b.
Fabrication of embeds
--
J
-2-
'
c.
Storage of reinforcing steel 6.
Site Preparation - Review of Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures, Units 2 and 2 The inspector performed a followup examination of procedures and specifications concerning compaction of Category I backfill.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector are in Section 2C and 17 of the PSAR.
Areas examined included:
a.
Procedures CD-T-01, Earthwork Quality Control b.
Specification X2AB01, Site Preparation and Earthwork c.
Soils Testing Laboratory d.
Drawing AX20468007, Units 1 and 2 Power Block Earthwork, Stockpile and Backfill Plan e.
Borrow Areas and Stockpiles f.
Results of compaction around auxiliary building Discussions with responsible engineers indicated procedure CD-T-01 is currently being revised to clarify areas on testing and documentation.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Site Preparation - Review of Quality Records, Units 1 and 2 The inspector did a fo'lowup inspection on quality records concerning backfill against Category I structures.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector are listed in paragraph 6.
Records were examined for backfill placeo betv e n the containment and auxiliary building during February, March and April, 1979.
Specific records examined included:
a.
Proctor Sheet Report b.
Summary of Compaction c.
Field Density Tests d.
Sieve Analysis e.
Fill Failure Notices f.
Civil baily Inspection Reports
.
,
QOU
.
-3-
Procedure CD-T-01 and Specification X2AB01 specify the following controls for compacted backfill:
Backfill shall be compacted to an average of 97 percent of maximum a.
dry density at plus or m nus 2 percent of optimum in accordance with the Modified AASHO compaction procedure (ASTMD1557)
b.
If tests show a deviation from specification, the civil inspector prepares a Fill Failure Notice A minimum of one laboratory Proctor test and field 6ensity test c.
shall be performed per day during backfill operations for Category I structures.
Examination of records identified the following examples of failure to perform or document required compaction tests:
Moistute control test data at time of fill compaction is not being a.
recorded. Discussions with responsible engineers indicated moisture determinations at time of fill placement are determined by the
"Speedie" method but are not recorded.
b.
Fill Failure Notices were not available for density test numbers 1217 and 1219 which were less than the spec!fied 97 percent of maximum dry density, (95.8 and 93.3 percent respectively)
No proctor and field density tests were available for backfill placed c.
between the auxiliary and containment building on March 12, 1979.
The above examples of failure to perform and document compactica tests in accordance with a specified procedure were identified as Infraction 424-425/79-08-01.
Examination of compaction data shows that backfill has, for the most part, been placed at or above the specified 97 percent of maximum dry density.
486 007
..