IR 05000424/1982003
| ML20050A348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1982 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050A343 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-82-03, 50-424-82-3, 50-425-82-03, 50-425-82-3, NUDOCS 8204010160 | |
| Download: ML20050A348 (4) | |
Text
c:
'
-
"
<
.
,.
_
jtpercy
!"
~ g'o, UNITED STATES 4.-
~ I, NUC:. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$'
E REGION 11 o
, 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 o
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
- -
Report Nos. 50-424/82-03 and 50-425/82-03-Licensee: Georgia Power Company
~
P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Facility Name: Vogtle Docket' Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License No. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle site near Waynesboro, GA Inspector:
[
v
_3/ 4[f 1 J. y Harris
/ Dhtie Signed Approved by:&
rw S ~e/ - f L T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs
SUMMARY Inspection on February 9-12, 1982 Areas Inspected This
.utine, unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on site in the areas of structural concreta, foundations and previous inspection findings.
Results-Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations we're identified.
,
h
.
i i
8204010160 820309 PDR ADOCK 05000424 PDR G.
.
,
_. _
,
_ _..
,_
.
-
,.
..,.
~,
r-
.
u -
,
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees H. H. Gregory, III, Project Manager
,
- R. R. Allen, Assistant Construction Project Manager
- R. W. McManus, Manager of Quality Control
- J. E. Seagraves, Civil QC Supervisor
- E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor
- B. C. Harbin, Civil QC Section Supervisor
- M. H. Googe, Manager of Field Operations
' *R. E. Folker, QA Engineer W. E. Kent, Civil QC Technician B. Fairley, Level III Soils Inspector L. Hatcher, Soils and Concrete Lab. Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included three construction craf tsmen, three technicians, and three office personnel.
Other Organizations
- F. R. McCarty, Project Manager, Walsh Construction
- G. Ryan, QA/QC Coordinator, Walsh Construction NRC Resident Inspector
- W. E. Sanders
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 12,1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3..
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (0 pen) Unresolved Item (424/81-09-02 and 425/81-09-02) Training Requirements of Contractor Furnished Civil QC Inspectors.
The inspector examined contract furnished civil QC inspector training and qualification requirements identified in the contractor's QA program and licensee audit numbers TR01-81/62, Training Audit and Q C01-81/76, Qualification of Inspection Examination and Testing Personnel for Nuclear Facilities.
Examination of the above showed that' contract furnished civil QC inspector training and qualification requirements are in accordance with licensee commitments. However, this item remains open pending further examination by the NRC of contract furnished civil QC inspectors training and qualification
~
'
records.
.
.___________________-
.
.
.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or devia-tions. New unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 7.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined the following:
a.
Soils and concrete laboratory and currentness of calibration of laboratory equipment.
b.
Concrete batch plant.
c.
Results of concrete placements in the auxiliary and Unit one containment building.
d.
Installation of reinforcing steel in the power block.
e.
Drawing controls.
f.
Stop Work Notice numbers C-25 and C-35.
Observations indicated the above activities were being controlled in accordance with the licensees QA pregram.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Containment (Structural Concrete II) - Observation of Work and Work Activities (Unit 1)
The inspector observed partial placement of pour numbers A-IIA-043 and 1-010-008.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appears in the following documents:
- Specification X21P01, Forming, Placing, Finishing, and Curing Concrete a.
b.
Procedure CD-T-02, Concrete Quality Control c.
PSAR, Sections 3 and 17 Forms were tight ana clean.
Rebar was properly installed and clean.
l Preplacement inspection was indicated by the signed pre-inspection forms.
Examination of the batch plant indicated proper mixes were being delivered to specified sites, materials were being controlled and that accurate batch plant records were being generated.
Samples for temperature, slump, air l
,
content, unit weight and strength met frequency requirements.
Post placement inspection showed required curing controls were being implemented.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
-
'o
.,.
7.
Site Preparation and Foundations - Review of Quality Records, Unit 1 and Unit 2 The inspector examined compaction controls on backfill placed in the powerblock. Acceptar.ce criteria examined by the inspector appears in the following documents:
a.
Section 2c of the PSAR b.
Specification X2AB01, Site Preparation and Earthwork c.
Procedure CD-T-01, Earthwork Quality Control Records examined included the following documentation on backfill placement from August 1981 to February 1982.
a.
Fill failure and fill failure correction notices b.
Proctor sheets C.
Moisture density test data d.
Wash sieve analysis e.
Field density work sheet sand cone f.
Moisture data g.
Daily inspection reports Examination of methods used in selection of representative proctors (compaction standards)
disclosed the following unresolved item.
Specification and procedure instructions allow the selected proctor to be the compaction standard for seven sand cone tests made in one day provided the sand cone dry densities are within 1.5 pounds of each other and the color and texture of the soil material are the same. The specified method to a large degree is dependent on the judgment and experience of the technician doing the proctor selection. The dry densities of the sand cone tests could be the same and the color of the material could be the same; but if the texture or grain size of the material varied significantly (a difficult variation to determine visually) the materials could have dif ferent compaction standards. Because difficulty in determining texture differences could result in the selection of the wrong proctor; the inspector requested the licensee to perform additional proctor tests on selected groups of sand cone tests (4 or more samples represented by a proctor) to verify that the judgement being used by soil technicians is e
adequate.
Potential variation in proctor results was identified to the licensee as Unresolved item 50-424/82-03-01 and 50-425/82-03-01, Compaction Control.
No violations or deviations were identified.