IR 05000566/1979002

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Insp Repts 50-566/79-02 & 50-567/79-02 on 790123-26.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Const Status & Plant Structures,Site Preparation,Foundations & Previously Reported Unresolved Items
ML19276F219
Person / Time
Site: Yellow Creek  
Issue date: 02/15/1979
From: Bryant J, Swan W
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML19276F217 List:
References
50-566-79-02, 50-566-79-2, 50-567-79-02, 50-567-79-2, NUDOCS 7903280065
Download: ML19276F219 (5)


Text

.

UNITED STATES GAS R800 p

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

o,,

REGION 11

'

b o

'

$

101 M ARIETTA STREET. N.W.

-.

[

ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30303

%,...../

Report Nos.:

50-566/79-02 and 50-567/79-02 Licensee:

Tennessee Valley Authority Facility Name:

Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 License Nos.

CPPR-172 and CPPR-173 Inspection at: Yellow Creek Site, Tishimingo County, Mississippi Inspector:

./ / ~

s W. B. Swan Date Signed 15 !7'/

Approved by:

h [n.,,

t, _

4_

l J. C. Bryant, Section Chief, RC&ES Branch Date Signed SUMMARY Inspection on January 23-26, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on-site in the areas of construction status, construction plant structures, site preparation, foundations and previously reported unresolved items.

Results Of the five areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.

-

790328 0 6 6 6

.

.

DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

  • M. M. Price, Project Manager
  • L.

S. Cox, Construction Engineer

  • C. G. Wages, Assistant Construction Engineer, QC
  • S.

G. Carr, Assistant Construction Engineer, Project Engineering

  • R.

G. Delay, Supervisor, Materials and Civil QC Unit

  • S.

E. Alge, Supervisor, Document Control Unit C. E. Hale, Supervisor, Civil Engineering Unit M. W. Jacobs, Reports Writer, Technical Services Unit J. N. Holladay, Supervisor, Project QA Unit Other licensee employees contacted included four construction craftsmen, six technicians, one security force member and six office personnel.

  • Attended exit interview 2.

Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 26, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1, above.

3.

Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings No change in status was found in previously identified unresolved items which were examined.

4.

Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.

5.

Independent Inspection Effort Construction status and schedules and progress in erection of permanent construction plant structures and facilities were examined.

The inspec-tor accompanied the assistant construction (projects) engineer on a complete tour of work areas on-site including the four wastewater and

,

.

.

-2-storm water retention dams and the barge unloading dock facilities.

Construction schedules were studied for forecasting required NRC inspections.

Construction plant structures being erected included extensive warehouses, large shops for the various crafts, a materials and soils laboratory, and a spacious administration building.

In the areas of work progress, scheduling and permanent construction plant facilities the inspector found no noncompliances with quality requirements.

6.

Site Preparation Observation of Work and Work Activities-Units 1 and 2 A follow-on inspection was made of site preparation work pertinent to safety-related requirements.

Subsurface work is completed, ground water and storm water control are effective, blasting was estimated by the licensee to be 98 percent completed.

Blasting remaining to be done in the power block Unit 2 area involves trimming of excavation walls and benches. Adequate procedural controls are in effect to protect recently placed concrete in the vicinity.

The inspector observed placement and preparations for placement of fill concrete for work platforms and for the sub bases of structures in the power block area of Unit I.

Fill placements, not considered to be " site preparation",

will be made with compacted crushed #1032 rock between excavation walls and concrete structures. The fills are not scheduled before January 1980.

The road leading from the barge unloading dock is to be graded to a lesser slope and compacted for transport of the heaviest equipment.

For the work observed and that pending,the requirements of the PSAR, Section 2, and construction permits for site preparation are imple-mented through construction and inspection procedures such as:

a.

Specification G-2 for plain and reinforced concrete

-

b.

QCI C-201, Concrete Placement c.

IVA Topical Report TR 75-1A d.

N8C-882, Earth and Rock Foundations and Fills e.

QCI C-110, Excavation and Fill, Blasting Inspection and Monitoring f.

Construction Drawing Notes

-

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie.

-3-7.

Site Preparation-Review of Quality Records-Units 1 and 2 Acceptance criteria and documentation requirements are detailed in the documents listed in paragraph 6.

During this follow-on inspection, the inspector reviewed construction notes on Drawings 93C4YE0500-Y1-1, R5 and 93C4YE0500-Yl-2, R5 for structural excavation, Units 1 and 2.

PSAR Sections 1, 2 and 3 were reviewed for pertinent notes.

Placement authorizations and QC records on concrete placement and curing were reviewed for fill concrete Pour 45 degree through 105 degree, Unit 1, 332 cubic yards on January 18, 1979; structural fill Al-D3, 100 CV, Unit 1, on January 15, 1979; and pour Al-D5, Unit 1 fill, 104 CV, on January 11, 1979 for Unit I auxiliary structure base slab.

Sieve Analysis of Concrete Aggregates form DOC QCI C-204, Revision 5 and the QC log on analyses #70 through #94 were reviewed. Excessive fines were noted on most of these tests. During concrete manufac-turing, the aggregates were passed over resizing screens; then

" combination" tests were made on samples of the concrete mix by washing out the cement and screening the residual aggregates.

These samples verified proper aggregate proportions in the concrete.

Mixing Plant Reports, DOC MPR-104, QC1 C-212 were reviewed for January 10 and 17, 1979 and December 22, 1978.

Batch plant startup problems were reflected in notes on those reports concerning lumps in the cement and fly ash silos from leaks into the silos, repairs were made and no evidence was found of a quality impact from the lumps or the delays they caused.

During the records review, no noncompliances or deviations were identified.

8.

Foundations-Observation of Work and Work Activities-Unit 1 The hard, fine grained, tight basement rock under the power block structures eliminates need for piling, grouting of base rock, or spread footings. Foundation preparation consists, therefore, in placing fill concrete for work platforms and to act as " forms" for structural concrete placements for structure footings and in placing structural grade fills over the rocks under Category I slabs as designated by design engineering.

The licensee has chosen to install and inspect all fill concrete as if it were Category I.

In addition, as an extra precaution during a cold weather placement, TVA has chosen to use a 3,000 psi mix ins'ead of a weaker 2,000 psi mix.

.

.

.

-4-The inspector observed placement of structural fill Pour 225 degree to 305 degrees to elevation 439.85 for Unit I reactor building on January 25, 1979 from 5:25 p.m. to 3:30 a.m. on January 26, 1979.

In all, 340 cubic yards were placed, the first 16 cubic yards batched were rejected as too wet.

The surface of the completed placement was green cut to ensure a joint with the proposed slab to go on it.

The inspector observed this joint preparation and start of curing.

The placement was made during freezing weather. An enclosure with plastic tarps over wood forming was constructed and maintained during and after the placement.

The enclosure was war,ed by ducted air from a central heater.

The inspector compared the construction and inspection activities with those prescribed by QCl 201 and its appended Specification G-2.

The inspector also observed final preparations of fill NS to elevation 440, estimated to require 150 cubic yards.

QC approved all the prepara-tions, but the construction supervisor declined to place along with the placement described above due to current work load.

No noncompliances or deviations were identified.

.