IR 05000546/1982004
| ML20050C688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1982 |
| From: | Hawkins F, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C683 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-546-82-04, 50-546-82-4, 50-547-82-04, 50-547-82-4, NUDOCS 8204090256 | |
| Download: ML20050C688 (6) | |
Text
._
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-546/82-04(DETP); 50-547/82-04(DETP)
Docket No. 50-546; 50-547 License No. CPPR-170; CPPR-171 Licensee:
Public Service of Indiana Post Office Box 190 New Washington, IN 47162 Facility Name: Marble liill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Marble Hill Site, Jefferson County, IN Inspection Conducted: March 2-5, 1982 Inspector:
F. C. Hawkins 5/45 /B2
!
I Ges&%
Approved By:
C. C.51111ams, Chief
&3 /b
'
Plant Systems Section Inspection Summary Inspection on March 2-5, 1982 (Report No. 50-546/82-04(DETP); 50-547/82-04(DETP))
Areas Inspected: Observation of Unit 1 st ructural concrete work activities and review of related quality records; review of the licensee's response to the NRC independent concrete consultant's recommendations; observation of concrete repair activities. The inspection involved a total of thirty-four inspector-hours on-site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8204090256 820324 DR ADOCK 05000546 PDR
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Public Service of Indiana (PSI)
- C, Beckham, Quality Engineering Manager
- N. Reichel, Civil Contract Manager
- G. Warner, Civil Construction Engineering Supervisor
- B. Morrison, Civil Quality Engineering Superintendent
- S. Brewer, Nuclear Safety and Licensing Manager C. Togni, Chief Civil Engineer G. Zipen. Quality Engineer A. Kennedy, Quality Engineer M. Bright, Quality Engineer L. Worley, Quality Engineer R. Smith, Civil Construction Engineer J. Iloff, Testing Laboratory Concrete Supervisor
- J. Wolfe, Quality Assurance Administration Assistant G. K. Newberg Construction Company (N-Mil)
D. Stegemoller, Vice President - Power Construction C. Barbour, Quality Assurance Manager L. Elliot, Project Manager R. Donica, Quality Control Manager J. DeAngelo, Containment Area Superintendent J. Coffman, Quality Control Supervisor - Concrete 11. llatfield, Labor Sup3rintendent R. Jones, Labor General Foreman B. Patel, Quality Control Inspector C. Catterton, Quality Control Inspector L. LaCour, Quality Control Inspector ll. Parsons, Quality Control Inspector J. Nailor, Quality Control Inspector - Patching D. Van Zant, Quality Control Inspector - Patching Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S&L)
B. Renwick, Site Project Manager A. Weiss, Concrete Technologist C. Sward, Structural Er.gineer United States Testing Company (UST)
i A. Insignares, Batch Plant Inspector V. Layton, Technician - Concrete
,
i M. Fightmaster, Technician - Concrete W. Condron, Technician - Concrete
4
1
- -.
,
-
--.
--
,-,,
-....
-,,,.
--.---,, -.. -.,-.-----.
.
i
.
.
OtherPersonnei
- J. Harrison, Region Ill Resident Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Observation of Unit 1 Reactor Building Concrete Work and Review of Associated Quality Records The preplacement, placement, and postplacement concrete work activities for pour No. ICS-426-1 were observed. The placement was made on March 2, 1982 and consisted of approximately 737 cubic yards of mix design No. 5550 concrete and 127 cubic yards of mix design No. 5581 grout, a.
Preplacement Inspection (1) Construction joints were properly prepared for concrete placement.
(2) Reinforcing steel and embedments were free of excessive rust, mill scale, concrete, or other contaminants.
(3) Reinforcing steel and embedments were properly secured to prevent displacement.
(4) Reinforcing steel was placed in accordance with c:, ;1 cable design drawings and WPN-56.
(5) Formwork was properly cleaned and prepared.
(6) The N-MH "Preplacement Inspection Checklist," " Concrete Placement Release Sheet" and "Preplacement Evaluation Checklist," required by QCP 10.02, were properly completed to indicate acceptance of the pour area prior to concrete placement.
b.
Placement Inspection (1) Delivery and Placement (a) Concrete was pumped to the placement area and then deposited via concrete drop chutes.
Lift height thick-nesses were verified not to exceed 24 inches after consolidation.
(b) Concrete was properly consolidated using internal vibrators. The vibrators were inserted at approximately
. _ - - _ _ _
.
.
18 inch spacings and remained inserted until consolida-tion was complete. The use of pencil vibrators was verified in highly congested areas to assure proper consolidation.
(c) Adequate N-MH QC personnel were present at the placement to assure compliance with the applicable procedures and specifications. Each inspector conducted and documented his inspection activities in accordance with QCP 10.03.
(d) N-MN Request for Information (RFI) No. 3481 was reviewed.
The RFI requested the use of 5500 psi grout in the bottom 4-6 inches of the slab area to assure coverage of the bottom reinforcing steel.
Field Design Memo (FDM) No.
FS-85 was written to approve the request per S&L Specifi-cation Y-2722, Section 414.2.
During placement, li-consee personnel identified one instance in which grout placement exceeded the allowed 4-6 inches. The condition was identified on N-MH NCR No. 3213 to assure proper disposition.
(2) Civil Inspection and Testing Laboratory Activities (a)
Inprocess Concrete Testing 1.
The UST technicians were observed performing slump, l
temperature, percent entrained air tests, and casting compressive strength cylinders. The tests were performed in accordance with the applicable ASTM standard and at the frequencies specified by S&L Specification Y-2850.
2.
Field curing boxes were inspected and found to be suitable equipped to maintain freshly cast com-pressive strength specimens at the initial curing temperature specified by ASTM C31. During the placement, one curing box failed to maintain the specified initial curing temperat re of 60-80*F.
The nonconforming condition was p.operly noted on PSI NCR No. 182Q1T0048 to assure proper disposition.
3.
Concrete test equipment was observed to be cali-brated and properly tagged to indicate calibration status.
(b) Batch Plant Inspection The testing laboratory batch plant inspector was observed performing and documenting the required inspection activities in accordance with laboratory procedure QCP-1.
,
,
(c) Truck Discharge Inspection Laboratory inspectors were present at both truck discharge points to monitor the addition of water for the truck, verify the proper number of mixer revolu-tions, and provide information tests of concrete temperature, slump and entrained air. The inspections were being conducted in accordance with laboratory procedure QCP-3.
(3) Batch Plant Activities A surveillance inspection of the main batch plant was performed on March 4, 1982. The following batch plant quality records were reviewed:
(a) The main and back-up batch plant NRMCA checklists were reviewed and found to be in current status.
(b) Volumetric batching devices and scales for the main and back-up batch plants were observed to be calibrated and properly tagged to indicate calibration status.
(c) The most recent main batch plant and truck mixer uniformity test results were reviewed and found to meet the requirements of ASTM C94. The test frequency met the six month interval specified by S&L Specifica-tion Y-2850.
(d) The water sight gauges for concrete truck Nos. 1, 7 and 14 were observed to be calibrated and properly
,
tagged to indicate calibration status.
!
c.
Postplacement Inspection Proper curing of placement No. ICS-426-1 was verified for the first three days of the specified seven day cure period.
Verification that the N-MH QC inspectors were verifying proper cure on a daily basis, as required by QCP 10.04, was made through review of the N-MH " Concrete Curing Card."
2.
Independent Evaluation of Concrete On March 25, 1980,- the NRC committed to provide for an evaluation of in-place concrete at Marble Hill by agents independent of the NRC.
Hamm Engineers, Inc. was contracted to perform the required evaluation.
An engineering representative from "Save the Valley", a. local public interest group, was included as a team member during the evaluation period.
S
.-
.
-
, _ _
.-
.-
- _ _ _ _ _
_,
,
.
The final report entitled " Review of the Evaluation of Concrete at Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 and 2, Report No.
IE-124" was dated and issued on June 25, 1981. The team made two recommendations as a result of their reviews.
The first recommendation dealt with the inspection and evaluation of structural defects, six months after their completion to determine the acceptability of the completed repairs.
In response, PSI has developed Special Process Procedure No. SPP-28, entitled " Examination of Installed Concrete Patches." SPP 28 was reviewed by'the RIII inspector to verify that the procedure was technically adequate to properly address the consultant team's recommendation. Concurrence for the use of SPP-28 was given on March 5, 1982.
The second recommendation concerned the compatibility of the patching material and the parent concrete; specifically, that the old and new concrete have similar moduli of clasticities for areas where strain compatibility is desired. Correspondence regarding the recommendation was reviewed during this inspection.
Based on the PSI letter to S&L dated July 30, 1981 and the S&L Ictter to PSI dated September 3, 1981, the NRC has concluded that the licensee has given proper consideration to the consultant team's second recommendation.
3.
Concrete Repair ongoing concrete repair activities in the Unit I reactor building and auxiliary building were observed. The removal, examination and restoration of the concrete patch and repair areas was observed to be progressing in well planned order and be of good quality.
Licensee estimates report completion of the concrete repair program to have reached approximately 89%.
Exit Interview The NRC inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in Persons
'
Contacted paragraph) during and at the conclusion of the inspection. The
,
inspector summarized the scope and conclusions of the inspection.
I f
-
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _