IR 05000424/1985038
| ML20205C330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1985 |
| From: | Conlon T, Harris J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205C327 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-85-38, 50-425-85-30, NUDOCS 8509200243 | |
| Download: ML20205C330 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:p KEGuq'o UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- , *
O\\s f REGION 11 E o {{( 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
l ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 4., v/ ..... Report Nos.: 50-424/85-38 and 50-425/85-30 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 - Atlanta, GA 30302 Docket Nos.: 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: August 12-16, 1985 Inspector [m[sz<_ T-f- Of v/es.- J. R. Harris Y Date Signed ' ' Approved by: 9 - f~- Ps' T. E. Conlon, Section Chief Date Signed Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope: This routire, unannounced inspection involved 38 inspector-hours on site in the areas of quality assurance implementing procedures, work performance, and quality records for containment post tensioning, concrete operations, backfill operations, and employee concerns in civil construction.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
WN$g4 PDR ,
_ _ _ , . REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted , Licensee Employees
- C. Hayes, Vogtle Quality Assurance Manager
- E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Site Manager
- D. M. Fiquett, Unit 2 Field Manager T. L. Weatherspoon, Assistant Manager, QC
- D.
Ennis, Civil Project Section Supervisor S. D. Holtom, QA Engineer Support Supervisor l A. H. Lankford, QC Section Supervisor
- M. Stone, Civil Engineering Field Supervisor J. Carlton, Survey Intrumentation
' Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers, technicians, and office per',onnel.
Other Organization
,
- 0.-L. Kinnsch, Project Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation NRC Resident Inspector
- R. J. Schepens
'
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview < , i The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 16, 1985, with l those persons -indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail _ the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did 't identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by inspector during this inspection.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters '
This sebject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
Unresolved Items . Unresolved items were not identified during the inspection.
, ).. . .
. 5.
Independent Inspection Effort Construction Progress The inspector conducted a general inspection of the soils and concrete testing laboratory, concrete structures, ongoing concrete curing operations and backfill operations to observe construction progress and construction activities.
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
l 6.
Containment, Structural Concrete (47054) - Unit 2 The inspector observed partial placement of pour number 2-010-039 in the Unit 2 containment dome and curing of pour number 2-071-001C in the Unit 2 Diesel Generator building slab.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appeared in the folicwing documents: Specification X2AP01, Placing, Finishing, and Curing Concrete
Procedure CD-T-02, Concrete Quality Control
FSAR Sections 3, 12, and 17 Forms were tight and clean.
Rebar was properly installed and clean.
Placement activities pertaining to delivery time, free fall, flow distance, layer thickness, and consolidation conformed to specification requirements.
Concrete placement activities were continuously monitored by construction , and QC inspectors. Examination of batch tickets showed the specified design mixes were being delivered.
Samples of plastic concrete were obtained from designated sampling points and were tested in accordance with specification requirements. Test results showed that plastic concrete being placed met requirements for slump, air content, and - temperature.
Examination of the concrete laboratory showed that testing equipment was in calibration and that concrete test cylinders were being cured properly.
Post placement inspection showed that the concrete was being-cured properly.
. 7.
Containment (Post Tensioning) - Procedure Review (47061) - Unit 1 The inspector ^ examined QA-QC controls for post-tensioning activities.
Acceptance criteria appeared in Section 3.8 and 17. of the FSAR.
The following QA-QC controlling documents were examined by the inspector:
Specification X2AF04-Revision 2, Containment Post-Tensioning System
VSL Field Instruction Manual for Installation of Post-Tensioning-System, Revision 8
Procedure GD-A-04 (GPC), Calibration and Control, Revision 0 ) w -
. __ _.
. . _. - - _ _ _. . - . . .
7
- Procedure GD-A-30 (GPC), Receipt Inspection Storage and Handling, Revision 0 i . Procedure CD-T-20 (GPC), Installation and Inspection of Trumpets, Rigid f
Extensions and Duct Sheating, Revision 0
Procedure CD-T-28 (GPC), Surveillance of Post-Tensioning Quality Control Inspection, Revision 0 , Procedure PT-02 (VSL), Control.of. Measuring and Test' Equipment,
Revision 0
'
Procedure PT-03 (VSL), Review and Control of Quality Assurance Documentation, Revision 0 Procedure PT-05 (VSL), Receipt Inspection Storage and Handling, Revision 0
Procedure PT-06 (VSL),' Development and Control, Revision 0
Drawing PT-7-0, Post Tensioning System, Detensionable Tendon Anchorage Drawing PT-9-1, Dome Vertical Tendons i
Drawing-PT-3-5, Air Vent and Drain System
Drawing PT-6-0, Tendon Installation Equipment
Drawing PT-17-2, Sections of Horizontal Walls and Dome
Drawing PT-9.2-1, Dome Tendon Geometry , ,
Drawing'PT-10.1-2, Vertical Tendon Elevation, Unit 1 - i
- '
Drawing PT-11.2-1, Horizontal Tendons, Unit 1
Drawing PT-12-0, Horizontal Dome Tendons, Unit 1
Drawing PT-32.1-2, Vertical Tendon Stressing Data, Units l1 and 2
i Drawing PT-32.2-3, Horizontal Stressing' Data', Units 1.and 2
- '
Drawing PT-8-3, Tendon Grease-Caps i'
. . Drawing PT-1-8, Anchorage Details, Unit 1 Drawing 1X2001K001,' Containment Prestressing Requirements, Dome Plan -* .
Drawing 1X2001K003,: Containment Prestressing Requirements, Wall Developed. Elevation , i I - e-w- ww-- g ww-
. . .
- Drawing IX2001K004, Containment Prestressing Requirements, Wall Penetration Layout
Drawing IX2001K005, Containment Prestressing Requirements, Walls and Dome Cross Section
Drawing IX2001K006, Containment Prestressing Requirements, Hatch and Locking Details Drawing X2001K008, Containment Prestressing Requirements, Sections and Details Examination of the above documents indicated that FSAR requirements were being implemented in site specifications, procedures, and drawings.
Within the areas examined, no violations or deviations were identified.
8.
Contsinment (Post-Tensioning) Observation of Work (47063) - Unit 1 The inspector walked down the Unit 1 tendon gallery and observed that half of the vertical tendons (37 tendons) have been installed. The next phase of the tendon installation program as required by site drawings will involve installation of half of the horizontal tendons.
At present, no work is being done on installation of the horizontal tendons because of problems with the work platforms used for installation of these tendons. Site tendon operations have been inspected by the NRC resident inspectors and NRC Region II inspectors.
These inspections included observation of tendon pulling, cleaning, stressing, and greasing. Results of these inspections are documented in NRC inspection report numbers 50-424, 425/85-13, 85-17, and 85-21.
These inspections indicated that work activities for the tendon program were being performed in accordance with FSAR requirements and quality assurance implementing procedures and specifications.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
9.
Containment (Post-Tensioning) Review of Quality Records (47065) - Unit 1 The inspector examined quality records relating to post-tensioning activities for the Unit 1 containment. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in the documents listed in paragraph 7.
Records examined included tendon greasing reports, receipt inspection records for tendon materials and installation records for the following vertical tendons: Tendon 28-84 Tendon 49-137 Tendon 12-100 Tendon 63-123 Tendon 24-88 Tendon 8-104 Tendon 36-76 Tendon 31-78
_ _ . _. __ _ _. . .
Tendon 2-110 Tendon 4-108 Tendon 10-102 Tendon 32-80 Tendon 30-82 Tendon 6-106 Tendon 65-121 Tendon 31-125 Tendon 47-139 Tendon 39-147 The inspector also examined licensee QA audit number CP01-85/33, conducted to assess the adequacy and implementation of the VSL quality program for tendon installation and licensee QA audit number SP01/CP15-85/26 which was conducted at VSL Corporation's supplier's (Florida Wire and Cable Company) Shop in Sanderson, Florida.
Review of these audits showed that the licensee identified some weaknesses in VSL QC procedures and documentation controls which are in the process of being corrected.
Resolution of these audit findings will be pursued in future inspections by the NRC resident inspector or NRC Region II inspectors.
Followup of these item was identified as Inspector Followup Item 424, 425/85-17-02 in NRC inspection report number 424, 425/85-17.
Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
10.
Employee Concerns, Discussions, and Findings The following employee concerns were reviewed: a.
Auxiliary Building Settling (1) Concern The auxiliary building sank three inches with one end of the building lower than the other.
The settlement. occurred as a result of backfill being made around the building too soon.
(2) Discussion The inspector examined the PSAR, FSAR and settlement data on the auxilitey building from 1979 to 1985. The inspector also walked down the base slab of the auxiliary building and examined the walls and slab for evidence of any adverse cracking that could result from differential settlement.
Examination of site drawings and the FSAR showed that the auxiliary building is founded on a clay marl consisting of a hard clay limestone-mixture.
The marl foundation which is about 70 feet thick in the power block is underlain by a 750 feet thick stratum of coarse to fine sand with some interbedded clay and clayey silt.
The natural sand which was above the marl was excavated and is being replaced with compacted backfill.
When
- - r -
. . .
. compaction operations are completed, the backfill zone around the auxiliary building will be approximately 100 feet thick. Most of the backfill and concrete structures have been completed on the Unit 1 side.
Backfill operations and construction of concrete structures are still in progress on the Unit 2 side. Placing of the backfill and the concrete structures will cause settling and the settling is expected because the added load from the backfill and structures causes consolidation of the underlying foundation , materials.
Examination of Figure 2c-15, Settlement of Units 1 and 2 Power Block Structures, in the PSAR showed that the original projected settlement for the auxiliary building was 2.5 inches at the corners and 1.3 inches at the center.
Examination of Figure 2.5.4-8, Settlement of Units 1 and.2 Power Block Structures, in the FSAR showed that the projected settlement was i revised to 4.6 inches at the corners and 4.4 inches at the center.
l This revision was made because a. reevaluation of projected ' settlement showed that the original settlement projections did not consider compression of the sand stratum underlying the marl.
Examination of the settlement data for the auxiliary building from 1979 to 1985 showed that the auxiliary building has settled 3.23 and 3.02 inches on the Unit I corners; 2.78 and 2.69 inches on the Unit 2 corners and 3.07 inches in the center.
The minor settlement differential (0.45 inches) between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 corners is expected because construction activities on the Unit I side is essentially completed and the foundation in that areas has-received most of its load while construction work is still underway on the Unit 2 side and the foundation in that area has not received all of its final load.
A walkdown of the base slab in the auxiliary building _showed no evidence of adverse cracking which could result in severe differential settlement.
(3) Findings , Examination of the FSAR and settlement data showed that the auxiliary building has settled as much as three inches and that the Unit I side is slightly lower! than the Unit 2 side.
The , ' settlement is within the estimated ~ settlement.
The minor settlement differences between the Unit 2 side and the Unit 1 side is due to the fact that construction activities on the Unit I side are essentially completed and final loads have been applied to the foundation in that area while construction activities are still underway on_the Unit 2 side and final loads have not been applied to the foundation in.that area.
A walkdown of the auxiliary - building showed no evidence of adverse cracking which could result from significant differential settlement.
No' problems with settlement were substantiated.
e - -. , -
. ,
b.
Problems with Concrete in the Turbine Building (1) Concern There are problems with concrete in the turbine building which resulted from backfilling too soon.
This caused severe honeycombing and resulted in leakage problems in the turbine building.
(2) Discussion The turbine building is not a category I structure and is not part of the NRC routine inspection program.
However, to resolve this concern, the inspector examined drawings for the turbine building and walked down the exterior and interior of the building and examined the concrete for cracks and evidence of water leakage.
Examination of drawings showed that.the turbine building rests on a nine foot thick concrete slab founded on backfill at elevation 186. Backfill surrounding the turbine building walls extends from elevation 186 to elevation 220 on the north side and elevation 186 to elevation 211.6 on the south side. Examination of the backfill showed that backfill operations are. essentially completed on the south side and the. north side of the Unit 1 part of the turbine building.
Backfill operations on the north side of the Unit' 2 part of the turbine building are still underway. A walkdown of the interior of the turbine building showed no evidence of adverse cracking or of leakage problems in the building. Research of the literature and experience has shown' that honeycomb results from failure of the mortar to effectively fill the space among the coarse aggregate particles.
This is caused by inadequate consolidation with vibrators near the outer face of the walls where the reinforcing steel interferes with the flow of the plastic concrete.
Backfill placed against.the walls would not cause honeycomb to develop because by the time the forms were removed, the concrete would have hardened to the point where the backfill could not have any affect on the concrete surface.
(3) Findings A walkdown of the turbine building and examination of concrete surfaces showed no evidence of honeycombing or water leakage.
Honeycombing is caused by voids in the concrete due to the failure of the mortar to effectively fill the spaces between aggregate particles.
Experience has shown that this is - due to improper consolidation near the outer walls where the reinforcing steel interferes with the flow of plastic concrete.
Backfill against the walls would not cause any defects in the concrete because the
.
l
concrete would have been in a hardened state by the time the forms were removed.
The turbine building is not a safety related structure.
No problems with the quality of the concrete were substantiated.
\\ > k i I i I }}