IR 05000491/1979009
| ML19241A827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cherokee  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1979 |
| From: | Bryant J, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241A816 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-491-79-09, 50-491-79-9, 50-492-79-09, 50-492-79-9, 50-493-79-09, 50-493-79-9, NUDOCS 7907090433 | |
| Download: ML19241A827 (5) | |
Text
.
gn necy
g'o UNITED STATES O
8 ' *,.,, ff n
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
" J" E
REGION 11
o,,
$
8'
101 MARIETT A sT., N.W., STATE 3100 AT LANT A, GEORGI A 30303 g '.b:
....
Report Nos. 50-491/79-09, 50-492/79-09 and 50-493/79-09 Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Facility Name:
Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos.
50-491, 50-492 and 50-493 License Nos.
CPPR-167, CPPR-168 and CPPR-169 Inspection at Cherokee site near Caffney, South Carolina Inspector:
4[
5.2 3/7'/
J. J. Lenahah
/
D5te Signed f'/Jf(/f9 Approved by:
hat Signed C( 4
, section Chief, RCES Branch
SUMMARY Inspection on May 8-10, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved seventeen inspector-hours onsite in the areas of NSW dam construction QA/QC controls, work performance, and quality records, licensee actions on previous inspection findings and construc-tion status.
Results Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were i.dentified.
310 186 7907090 // 3 3 (p
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- C. B. Aycock, Project Engineer Construction
- W. H. Linsey, Project Geotechnical Engineer
- Attended exit interviev 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 10, 1979, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above.
'
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings a.
(0 pen) Noncompliance 491/78-08-02, 492/78-08-02 and 493/78-08-02:
Calibration of sieves. The licensee indicated that a program is being developed and equipment has been purchased for calibration of sieves used in soils testing. This item remains opend pending NRC review of the licensee's final report.
b.
(0 pen) Unresolved item 491/79-05-01, 492/79-05-01 and 493/79-05-01:
Use of curing compound on surfaces to which concrete is to be bonded.
The inspector reviewed results of tests conducted by the licensee and by the manufacturer of the curing compound to demonstrate that bond is not affected by the curing compound. The results of tue manufacturer's test indicate that bond shear is reduced by approximately 30 per cent by the use of the curing :ompound when it is supplied at the manufac-turer's recommended rate (200 -300 square feet / gallon). Tests performed by the licensee included a tension (pull apart) test and an unconfirmed compression test. The meaning of the tension test results are question-able since this type of test does not measure shear. The specimens tested in unconfined compression did not fail along the construction joints, and therefore did not give a measure of the ef fect of the curing compound on bond. The inspector concluded that the licensee's test results are inconclusive since they do not give a true measure of bond (shear). The licensee's representative indicated that they knew of no standard methods to be used to measure bond. The inspector pointed out that nationally acceptable methods are available (e.g.,
direct shear tests modified for use with concrete and ASTM C882) to measure the bond strength of concrete.
In addition, the inspector noted that the curing compot 3 was applied to construction joints in 3\\o 14?
.
-2-
-
all specimens tested to date was at the manufacturer's recommended application rate.
Since this material is difficult to control during application, the inspector questioned whether additional tests should be performed to verify that bond is not affected by heavier application rates than those recommended by the manuf acturer.
This item remains open pending further evaluation by the licensee and NRC.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve noncompliance or deivations.
New unresovled items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 8.
5.
Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined the following areas a wall in Unit 1 Reactor a.
Partial placement of pour number W-234, building.
b.
Reinforcing steel lay down area and results of physical and chemical tests (certified mill test reports) performed on reinforcing steel.
c.
Storage of cadweld supplies d.
Soils and concrete laboratory and correctness of calibration of labor-atory equipment e.
Concrete batch planc f.
Tensile testing of cadweld splices m de by cadweld crews for qualifi-cation testing.
,
During observation of the cadweld splice tensile tests, the inspector identified the following problem:
Grade 60 reinforcing steel failed below the minimum ultimate tensile strength specified in ASTM A615 in 5 of 16 tests performed on cadweld test splices on May 8, 1979. The steel failed at tensile stresses of 86000 to 87000 psi. ASTM A615 requires a minimum tensile strength of 90000 psi for Grade 60 reinforceing steel.
The yield point measured during the tests that failed below the minimum ultimate tensile strength was approximately 2500 psi below the required minimum of 60.000 psi.
A nonconforming item report was written concerning failure of the reinforcing steel to meet ASTM A615. The resolution of this nonconforming item report will be reviewed by NRC in a subsequent inspection. This was identified to the licensee as Inspector Follow-up item 491/79-09-01, 492/79-09-01, and 493/79-09-01, failure of rebar to meet strength requirements of ASTM A615.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
310 188
.
-
-3-6.
Lakes, Dams, and Canals - Review of Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures, Units 1, 2 and 3 The inspector performed a follow-up inspection of QA - QC controls for lakes, dams and canals. The following procedures were examined to determine if work activities and quality control and quality assurance functions were provided for as stipulated in NRC requirements, PSAR Section 2.5.5 and Appendix 2A, SER Section 2.5.5, and SER Supplement No. 1 Section 2.5.3.
a.
Specification CKS 1114.00-00-001, "Generel Grading Work" b.
Procedure M-1, " Inspection of Compacted Earth Fills".
c.
Procedure M-26, " Laboratory Soil Testing" d.
Procedure 0-1, " Control of Measuring and Test Equipment".
Procedure CKB-21, Sand Cone Method-Relative Density Tests.
e.
f.
Drawings CK-0026-01 to CK-0026-06, Earthwork and Drainage, Nuclear Service Water Pond Dam, Sections and Details".
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Lakes, Dams and Canals - Observation of Work and Work Activities, Units 1, 2 and 3 The inspector examined fill pla :ement for the nuclear service water dam.
Observations included placement of fine filter materials in the blanket drain and removal of select group I fill materials from the upper portion of the upstream embankment that could not be r.atisfactorily compacted since they had become saturated by recent rains. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector are listed in paragraph 6.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
8.
Lakes, Dams and Canals - Review of Quality Records, Units 1, 2 and 3 The inspector examined quality records for fill placement in the NSW dam.
Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector are listed in paragraph 6.
Records examined included:
a.
Memo to file dated April 20, 1978, subject:
" Cherokee 1 - 3, NSW Dam-Fine Filter Test Fills, Files No. CK-1150.02".
b.
Memo to file dated April 18, 1978, subject:
Cherokee 1 - 3, NSW Dame-Coarse Filter Test Fills, File No. 1150.02".
c.
Memo to file dated June 23, 1978, subject: " Cherokee 1-3, NSW Dam -
Transition Zone Material File No. CK-1150.02".
310 1 B
.
_4
.
d.
?.esults of Field Density Tests (Sand Core Method) performed on coarse, fine, and transition zone materials which have been placed to date in the NSW dam.
Review of the above records disclosed the following unresolved item: PsaR commitments and site procedure require that filter materials placed in the dam be compacted to a minimum of 80% relative density.
Review of test results indicated that filter materials have been compacted to relative densities between 80 and 160 per cent. The inspector questioned the meaning of in place and relative density tests results which indicated greater them 100 per cent relative density since, theoretically, a material can not be compacted to a relative density greater than 100 per cent. The licensee indicated that additional field and laboratory testing would be performed to verify the accuracy of in place and relative density test results which have been performed to date.
In addition, the inspector questioned the methot being used to determine maximum and minimum density. The method in use involves dete rmining the uniformity coefficient of the material and relating it to miniwum and maximum densities. This relationship was estab-lished using linear regression analysis.
The inspector questioned the effect that deviations from the best-fit curve established by linear regression analysis might have on minimum and maximum density values. The licensee indicated that a sensitivity study would be performed to verify that deviations from the best-fit curve do not have an adverse effect on the values computed for minimum and maximum densities. This was identified to the licensee as Unresolved Item 491/79-09-02, 492/79-09-02, and 493/79-09-02, Relative Density Testing-NSW Dam, pending further evaluation by the licensee and NRC.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
310 190