IR 05000553/1980008
| ML19320C900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Phipps Bend  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1980 |
| From: | Conlon T, Lenahan J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320C879 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-553-80-08, 50-553-80-8, 50-554-80-07, 50-554-80-7, NUDOCS 8007180234 | |
| Download: ML19320C900 (5) | |
Text
p
.
/# "%'o
'
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
$
E REGION 11
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 I
ATLArdTA. GEORGIA 3(Mo3 o
MAY 2 81980 Report Nos. 50-553/80-08 and 50-554/80-07 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name: Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant Docket Nos. 50-553 and 50-554 License Nos. CPPR-162 and CPPR-163 Inspection at Phipps Bend site near Kingsport, Tennessee Inspect C
&
[- 8O NO J. J. Lenahan ~
Date Signed
'
Approved by:
,f-- J2 / - @
t T. E. Conlon, Section Chief, RCES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on May 7-9, 1980 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 18 inspector-hours on site in the
'
areas of site preparation and lakes, dams and canalt QA/QC controls, l.akes, dams, and canals work activities, structural concrete quality records, licensee identi-fied items and an individual's concern regarding application of protective coatings.
Results tj Of the five areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identi-fled in four areas; one item of noncompliance was fo2nd in one area (Inadequate concrete batch plant inspection - Details paragraph 7).
B
.
8007180 Q3L
._.
.
_. _..-
.
..
k DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. P. Kelleghan, Project Manager
- G. W. Wadewitz, Construction Engineer
- J. C. CoField, Asst. Const. Engineer, Project Engineering
- T. V. Abbetiello, Asst. Const. Engineer, QC
- D. E. Hitchcock, Site QA Unit Supervisor G. W. Hogg, Supervisor, Materials and Civil QC A. Richardson, Construction Superintendent
'
W. Lee, Const. Management Assistant P. Edens, Civil Engineer, Protective Coatings R. C. Young, Civil QA Engineer A. P. Avel, Project Geologist Other licensee employees contacted included eight civil QC inspectors.
- Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 9, 1980 with those persons indicated in Paragraph I above. The licensee acknowledged the non-compliance discussed in paragraph 7.
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.
Level D storage areas.
b.
Soils and concrete laboratory and currentness of calibration of labora-i tory equipment.
l Storage of protective coating materials.
c.
d.
Construction status.
'
'
' ' No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
.
c w
.
..
-2-6.
Site Preparation and Lakes, Dams and Canals - Review of QA Implementing Procedures - Units 1 & 2 The inspector performed a follow-up inspection of QA/QC controls for site preparation and lakes, dams and canals.
The following procedures were examined to determine if work activities, quality control and quality assurance functions were provided for as stipulated in NRC requirements, PSAR Section 2.5.5, and SER Section 2.54:
a.
TVA Specification G-9, " Rolled Earthfill for Dams and Power Plants".
b.
Specification N 7C-876, " Earth and Rock Foundations and fills".
Quality Control Instructiog (QCI) C-101, "Earthfill Daily Inspection".
c.
d.
QCI-C-102, " Percent Compaction and Moisture Content".
e.
QCI-C-106, " Engineered Granular Material - Placement and Compaction Testing".
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Lakes, Dams, and Canals - Observation of Work and Work Activities - Unit 1 The inspector examined the completed excavation for the Unit 1 ESW sjray pond. Final foundation clean up was in progress. The inspector reviewed mapping of the spray pond foundation which had been completed to date, discussed mapping activities with the project geologist, and examined three non-capable faults. the licensee notified NRR of the presence of the faults.
Fill concrete will not be placed in the fault area until the faults are exam-ined by a NRC geologist. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector are those procedures listed in paragraph 6.
The inspector also witnessed partial placement of pour number K1-A303-53, a wall in the Unit 1 ESW pump station. Forms were tight clean and level. Place-ment activities pertaining to free fall, flow distance, layer thickness and consolidation conformed to specification requirements. The concrete placement was continuously monitored by a QC inspector. Samples of plastic concrete
-
were tested in accordance with specification requirements. The test results indicated that the plastic concrete being placed met the concrete specifi-catior, requirements for slump, air content and temperature. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in TVA specification G-2, C. F.
Braun specification 300-01, procedures QCI C-201, QCI C-208, and QCI-C-212, PSAR Section 3.8, ?>ER Section 3.8.3, and responses to NRC question 130.7 in the PSAR. Examination of QC inspection activities at the concrete batch plant during this concrete placement disclosed the following noncompliance:
Specification G-2 requires delivery of materials from the batching equipment to be within the following limits of the mix design propor-tions determined in laboratory and field adjusted mixes: Fly ash,1 percent; sand, 2 percent; and 3/8 inch aggregate, 2 percent. QCI-C-212
,
_
requires the batch plant inspector to visually inspect all scale dials
,
as they weigh up and rzake or witness scale adjustments, if scale dials indicate weights other than design mix weighta. QCI-C212 also requires
_ _ _ _ _ _. _
_ _ _ _
. _ _.. _ _ _ s
~
.
-3-the batch plant inspector to verify visually that the continuous recorder chart readings coincide with the scale readings. On May 8, 1980, during batching of six number 301.5 AW-1 for the ESW pump station and other Unit I and 2 safety-related structures, the inspector observed that the fly ash quantity exceeded the specified mix design quantity by 8 percent, the sand quantity exceeded the specified mix design quantity by 4 percent, and the 3/8 inch aggregate exceeded the specified mix design quantity by 6 percent. The inspector also observed that the batch plant inspector did not visually inspect the scale dials or the weighed up and make or witness adjustments to the sand, fly ash, and 3/8 inch aggregate scales when they indicated weights other than design weights and did not visually verify that the contin-uous recorder chart readings concided with dial scale readings. The above examples of failure to follow procedures were identified to the licensee as deficiency items 553/80-08-01 and 554/80-07-01, " Inadequate concrete batch plant inspection". The inspector reviewed the concrete cylinder log which indicate that concrete cylinder strength test results are approximately 25 to 50 percent higher than the strengths required by design.
No deviations were identified.
8.
Containment (Structural Concrete II) - Review of Quality Records - Unit 1 The inspector examined the following records for pour number RI-AM01-2A, a wall in the Unit I reactor building shield wall, which was placed on February 12, 1980:
a.
Results of mixer efficiency tests performed in November, 1979 and Ma rch, 1980.
b.
Batch plant scale calibration records for months of December, 1979 through March,1980.
c, Preplacement inspection records (pour card).
d.
Results of in process testing of plastic concrete, including slump, air, unit weight, and temperature.
Results of 7 and 28 day cylinder compressive strengths.
e.
f.
Quarry inspection records for months of January through April,1980.
g.
QCIR number 20692.
i h.
QA audit PB-C-80-01, " Receipt, Inspection, Storage, and Documentation of Rebar, Cadweld Material, and Structural and Miscellaneous Steel",
and audit number PB-L-80-01, " Concrete Placement and Documentation".
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
...
l
-.. -
- --
, -....,,,
,. -.
~~ -
-
..
.
-
-
-
..
\\
-4-9.
Licensee Identified Information Item
,
(Open) Item (553/80-08-02 and 554/80-07-02) Cracking of Paint on Carbon
,
Steel embedment Plates. The inspector and Region II was informed on May 8, 1980 of a problem involving cracking of paint on carbon steel embedment plates after the paint had cured and passed QC inspection.
The product involved is Ameron Dimetcote EZ. The licensee stopped work on May 8 to halt the use of this product until an investigation is completed. The inspector reviewed the stop work notice, number PBN-SWO-002, and QCIR 20867 which were written to disposition this problem.
The inspector also dis-cussed the problem with responsible licensee engineers and examined embedment plates on which cra; king has occurred. The defects have appeared in paints of the type from more than one lot batch. The licensee indicated that QC documentation was in order for the material which appears to be defective.
The licensee and the vendor are continuing their investigation of this problem. All safety-related embedments which have been painted with this product will be reinspected.
.
10.
Followup on Concern Related to Application of Protective Coatings An individual contacted NRC Region II and expressed concern with the applica-tion of protective coatings in the radwaste trench in the turbine building.
The inspector met with the individual and discussed the area of concern which was related to application of non-sai sty related protective coating materials in the turbine building. The inoividual was informed that NRC has no requirements for applications of these non-safety-related protective coatings in a non-safety-related area, but that the inspector would review his concern for possible generic implications which could be applicable to safety-related work.
The inspector interviewed QC inspectors concerned with inspection of the protective coating, reviewed procedures related to protective coating applications, and observed work in progress in the rad-waste trench. The inspector concluded that there were no genetic implica-tions which might effect completed or future safety-related work.
No deviations or items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
l
"..
l
.
_
-
.
.
.